later, amy klinger,ding withand cofounder of the educator school safety network. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2019] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] ♪ host: key democratic and republican leaders will discuss the congressional agenda for 2019 this morning and even perhaps discuss the effort to keep the government open. that will be part of an event sponsored by axis. you can watch that at 8:00. a funeral service for john dingell will feature bill clinton and john lewis. live coverage of that starts at 10:30 on c-span. this is the "washington journal" for february 14. it has been a year since 11 people were killed as a result

of a shooting in parkland, florida. calling on congress to make changes. we are interested in hearing from you on if that event a year ago or other similar shootings in schools have changed your views on guns, gun laws, and gun ownership. if you say your views have changed because of these events, 202-748-8000 is the number to call. if you say they haven't changed, call 202-748-8001. and tell us why on either line. you can post your thoughts on twitter at @cspanwj and our facebook page at facebook.com/cspan. if you go to the pages of the sun sentinel in florida, the local paper. it features the pictures of the 17 taken at the marjory stoneman shooting. other stories talking -- the editors take time

in their paper to write about that event and what has happened in the year since. with 17 did not end people shot dead. 17 other people work shot and survived. thousands of students, teachers, parents, and neighbors traumatized. it is hard to believe it has been a year. do not call today the first anniversary. those surviving the horror will tell you today is no celebration, call it a commemoration. neither would the 17 people who lost their lives that day killed, they were murdered. the kids who survived are the "mass shooting generation." it will be a tough day after a tough week after a tough year. the parkland website that was established after the shooting gives up-to-date statistics and student stories about the events

of mass shootings. the 12 months since the events happen, 1200 american kids killed by guns and 1200 stories about the lives they have led reported by teen journalists across the country. sinceparkland.org. if you go to the center of homeland security studies, they have a couple of graphs taking a look at incidents when it comes to school shootings. when it comes to those incidents , most of them committed by handguns followed by unknown. a rifle and shotgun and other including a combination of events. we will show you more of those graphs and factoids when it comes to school shootings. we want to hear from you. it has been a year since the shooting and we want to see if that has changed or influenced your thinking when it comes to gun laws, gun ownership.

you can let us know by calling two lines. if you say yes those thoughts have been changed, 202-748-8000. if you say no, 202-748-8001. you can also give your thoughts on our twitter feed and facebook page as well. from florida, this is patrick calling on our last -- on our yes line. caller: thanks for taking my call. just quickly, i think you guys completely whitewashed george bush senior's presidency. hello? host: go ahead. caller: the reason i called hady is wall street journal a front-page article where the federal government pays 80% of the medical bills when it comes to gun violence. all the locals say we want to regulate guns, but we don't want to pay any of the cost

associated with it. we want the federal government like the same people with these abortion rights. we want to take away a woman's right to choose, but the federal government can pay for the rearing of the child. host: when it comes to school shootings and gun violence specifically, how have your views changed? caller: i used to care less about gun ownership. you want to own a gun, do what you want. don't send me the bill when gun use goes wrong. host: we will leave it there. angeles says her views haven't changed. go ahead. caller: his views. they haven't changed. they have increased. myself evenotect more because of what i see on social media and the news. up theoliticians juicing

public with all this hate and vile stuff. they are creating this. guns are never going to go from this country. host: when you say you want to protect yourself more, what do you mean by that? caller: all of my kids are about 30. did not haveghters guns. as of this year, i made sure they did because there are so many crazy people out there. watch the tv. watch these politicians running for president. they are making people angry. saying these people are bad, those people are bad. it is insane. they are making people crazy. these people walking into school, all these people are influenced by the media. not all media is bad, but they are influenced by the stuff people say. host: let's go to mike in illinois who says his views have changed.

hello. caller: how are you doing? absolutely. the liberals want you to think you can go to war without a gun? the more guns is the only way you can fight a war. you have got to arm everybody in the school and be ready for the next guy coming at you. you are a sitting duck. host: that is mike in illinois and this is mike off twitter saying my views on guns haven't changed. i own several dozen myself. i am a firm believer not everyone deserves a gun. there needs to be a stronger background checks universally and better access to mental health care and early prevention . when it comes to the idea of background checks, a house committee taking a look at those topics. this is reported in the washington post. the house today shary measure passing -- committee passing a measure. it's the most significant

gun-control legislation to advance this far in congress in years. the bill has the support of at least five republicans, a rare feat given the issue often cleaved along party lines. the committee voted to advance a bill that would close a loophole in current background check law that allows a gun purchase if a check is not completed within three days. those are activities in congress. we are talking about the school shooting in parkland a year ago. other related school shootings as well and seeing if it has changed your views on guns and done ownership. you can call on the yes and no lines. the number will be on our screen and our social media channels. [no audio]

[no audio]

an event on the florida congressman who represents the parkland area went to the floor of the house. his thoughts of from yesterday. [video clip] 14,ne year ago on february 2018, 17 people were killed in a ofseless and horrific act gun violence at marjorie in parkland,las florida. center your thoughts on the 17 killed, 17 injured, the healing of the parkland community, and the 40,000 lives lost to gun violence in every corner of this nation each year. i asked that we work together.

not as democrats and republicans, but americans to end the silence with action to make all of our communities safer with gun violence. i ask this moment of silence not be in vain and ask my colleagues to please rise and bow your heads as we remember alyssa, scott biegel, martin decay, nicholas to rhett -- erin, carol, gina, luke, joaquin oliver, alaina petty, carmen,helena, alex, and peter. deutchongressman ted from yesterday on the floor of the house. roger from north carolina, you are on. heavy guns, i am a

advocate. -- the number of bullets these hold. who needs a gun with 16 rounds? two or three bullets would do it. bese clips, they need to strict about these guns. every day i watch the news and so many shootings. even the mass shootings just breaks my heart, i cannot stand it. texas, is in edward, calling us. go ahead. caller: really love c-span. i wish i could get it in hd. whatever, it is texas.

it has changed my view. when you get to a point to where ins are now shooting people school -- i am a texan, but that is too far. we need to figure out why kids are going to schools and it may lead us down the path of parents and guardians. host: what do you mean by that? explain that. caller: the second amendment, defend your right to have arms. for crying out loud, i am generation x. if i see a kid with a gun, i am wondering, why does that kid have a gun? -- i am not saying that, i am saying it needs to be regulated. it is getting out of hand. host: how far is comfortable then is -- as far as regulation? caller: common sense, right?

background checks? i mean, come on. --t: from delray beach lock, delray beach, florida, stan is next. caller: i am a veteran. i am 80 years old for it i never owned a gun in my life until .bama became president they were rioting and burning people's businesses and wantshing else, he never -- once said that kind of

behavior is not protesting. host: when it comes to guns and school shooting, how has it changed? go ahead. caller: i need to protect my family and myself. i learned how to shoot a gun 40 years ago. i have never touched a gun since then. i took a course in how to handle my weapon before i ever fired it. .hen i got my permit permit that allows me to carry a concealed weapon if i want -- i have a state permit that allows me to conceal my weapon if i want. when i travel, i carry it in my car. inside my car and it is loaded. when somebody shoots at me, i will shoot back. that is all i can tell you. i think it is terrible to have these people. i don't know how we would protect ourselves against people

that are mentally deranged and want to go in and kill other people for no reason at all. i don't under stand that and i don't even know how we could prevent. host: that is stan in delray beach, florida. florida about the governor, ron desantis and what he is looking to do on this anniversary day. a grand desantis wants jury to investigate wrongdoing on the part of broward county. he announced at the courthouse with bereaved families standing behind him, if the florida supreme court accepts a petition, this would be the fourth time a grand jury investigated the district. the other was 1997, 2003, and 2011 and focused on mismanagement and corruption. at the governor can only petition for a statewide grand jury, so the panel would review

the actions of cool districts across florida. bee know brower needs to looked at. i don't know if hamilton county needs to be looked at. there is more evidence in broward." the grand jury will look at whether refusal to follow mandated safety laws resulted in unnecessary risk to students across the state and whether .ublic entities committed fraud whether school officials mismanaged or diverted funds for bonds specifically solicited for school safety and whether school officials violated state law by underreporting incidents of criminal activity to the florida department of education. if you want to read more of that, the sun sentinel has it on its website. from illinois, we will hear from sergio. go ahead. caller: pedro? host: you are on, go ahead. caller: i haven't called in a long time.

still looking good. desantis and he took down that sheriff. i want to get to the answer. the answer is yes. you need to close the loophole, gun shows and take care of the internet. these kids belong on the internet. it's okay, but you can order a gun on the internet just as fast -- you need to close loopholes on both of them and we need to have a 10 day waiting. background check instead of a 5 -- three day or five day? 10 days democrats are talking about in the house. they were talking about it yesterday. meust want to let you know being military and having assault weapons, you should have an extended background check. kids these days, especially the

anniversary of parkland being today, sir, they are being born .nto this and not have to worry about being shot. they worry about it every day. host: have school shootings changed or influence your view on guns? that is what we are spending time for. 202-748-8000 if you say yes. 202-748-8001 if you say no. off of twitter this is charity saying when columbine happened, nationwide gun laws should have put into place -- should have been put into place. sandy hook was the last straw. nationwide gun laws will save lives, that is a fact. in scottsdale, arizona, drew is up next. caller: first of all, it is not a fact because the problem is -- i think most people agree

psychopaths that kill people should not have guns. it hasn't changed my opinion because the problem is the law they are talking about changing would not have stopped any of these things from happening. a lot of people on the others out of this issue talk about common sense, it is common sense that these gun free school zones or every single mass shooting that happened has happened in a gun free zone, including the one on the military base. it is sad to me because we talk about common sense and stuff like that, but name a law that would have changed any of these shootings from happening. it is unfortunate, but we need to protect ourselves and it hasn't really changed my mind because i haven't heard anything that would fix the problem. host: the idea of gun free zones, that has to change, you think? caller: yes, i believe so. ifhave this perception that

we say it is not a gun free zone that it will give the okay to shoot people. criminals don't care. they look for a gun free zone because they are probably going to be able to kill more people. they will be able to have their rampage longer. that is why every shooting that has happened was a gun free zone. host: you are breaking up a little bit. we appreciate your call. we will let you have it because you are breaking up a bit. from south carolina, steve. caller: good morning. just a follow-up quickly on that last caller. a gun free zone is an advertisement to a killer that i am not going to be met with opposition. i own guns and i am a conceal carry permit owner and i think i should be able to take my gun as a law-abiding citizen to school when i pick up my grandchild. here is my point.

like another caller, i don't think a high-capacity magazine should be out there. here is the bigger problem. i saved this -- say this after the shooting in parkland and i saved it for a reason. sheriff's office received a number of tips in 2016 and 20 'sen -- 2017 about cruz intent. the fbi learned a youtube user with the nickname -- username nikolas cruz -- could not identify the user. someone contacted the fbi tip line, but the direct complaint that he had made a death threat, but it was not forwarded to the local office. host: you are saying those things are the larger issue? caller: we have a big thing with the fbi. don't tell me they could not identify that guy.

i don't get it. it makes me angry. we need to have somebody get in to the fbi and get those guys to become more efficient with their jobs. host: a media organization out of pittsburgh relates a story that took place yesterday. this was about gun regulation in pittsburgh and some of the resistance about that. critics of the gun control regulations were vocal during a post-agenda hearing convened by the city council. a controversial partisan in the debate on gun violence said gun free -- one of the things you see mentioned is the choice of target. gunlaws seeking to limit violence were often ineffective. we have to be careful not to disarm a law-abiding citizen. a second panelist said in the wake of an act of gun filings

like the shooting -- gun violence at the tree of life synagogue, the angry -- the anger goes to an object. happening in pittsburgh, but these discussions and events happening -- taking place across the united states. that is what we are asking you to tell us on our phone lines and social media sites. richard in texas, this is gerald. caller: good morning. every time there is a school shooting, i just become more entrenched and hoping we can get butter -- better gun control, especially over automatic weapons. i work for an insurance company and do background searches and investigations. i have seen cases where -- had one in oklahoma, a kid was on

probation in two separate counties in oklahoma. neither county new the other county held a probation and the background search did not just automatically yield that information. he was a justice major in college and somebody told me he was still eligible to buy a gun. i definitely agree the background investigation should be networked. the information should be networked better. you should not have to go and search and search for it like i had to do to find it. haveis pretty much all i to say. i appreciate you bringing this issue up today. host: cat from new york. caller: i would like to say i do

not own a gun and i have never shot a gun except at a carnival at a balloon. -- i believe it has not changed my mind one bit. in have to teach gun safety school and responsibility. you have to look at the parents, the children who are shooting. have they been bullied and maybe we should have more control in schools about what is going on that causes these problemsn. o, the shootings have not changed my mind. to see who do need enters. things thathave identify guns and knives. you can change with anything. you could kill with a fork. host: you would not change gun

regulations, per se? caller: i think you should have gun safety classes in school. you should teach responsibility. you don't have to teach them how to use a gun, but teach about this. i don't know that they do that anymore. the views you hold versus the fact you don't really have a lot of experience with guns. why do you hold those views? caller: i hold those views because i come from a family that had experience with guns and i think it is the second amendment, it is the right. i believe in the constitution and i believe we have to follow the rules in the constitution and i believe a lot of things are being changed. in new york. kat another new yorker, matthew. you are next. you have chosen a very good subject for your program. the main cause for killing

hundreds of thousands of people inside and outside america. they want to blame iran for all of their criminal activities around the world. you have to think about criminal activities. host: in the united states, the school shooting situation, how has your view on guns changed because of those? he has hung up. mary from maryland, you are next. caller: good morning. i haven't changed from my strict beliefs about guns. people keep talking about background checks. not one shooter had a problem with their background checks because they were mentally ill. people need to be mentally certified before they get near an application for a gun. that has never been talked about because they know if they did that, that would work. people like to talk about their

right to bear guns. i have a right to live. i don't want to bear a gun. the schools need to have the -- nobody hason talked about gun detectors. metal detectors are one thing, gun detectors are another. they could use drones to protect schools. host: would you put armed personnel in the school? caller: no, why? the armed personnel before had -- it took cover. people have a right to go back home to their family. people want to be heroes, that is fine. be a hero that goes back home. i think metal detectors are good. you need resource officers inside the school. gun detectors outside the school. first and foremost, for potential gun owners because none of the shooters. none of their mental illness

showed up on radar. it showed up when they started shooting. host: that is mary in maryland. you have heard opinions from people about their views on guns, particularly in light of this year anniversary of the parkland shooting and other school shootings. you can add your voice to the conversation. 202-748-8000 if you say your views have changed on guns because of the shootings. 202-748-8001 if you say they have not. we heard a story about the house putting outmmittee legislation looking at background checks. a hearing on capitol hill last week featured a parkland survivor and she spoke about her experience before the committee. [video clip] >> i was in my fourth period holocaust history class reporting our projects on hate groups. i could never imagine my classmate would have saved my life. when the gunman came into the

classroom, nicholas was in front of me. the bullet killed him. i matched his movement and hid underneath his body as bullets riddled my classmates. i thought i was going to die. i begged god to make it fast. when the shooter moved on, i me andnicholas off of put his head on his arm. i called my family and told him how much i loved them and my brothers. i will never forget what i saw and did and what happened to my classmates for it i will never forget nicholas who protected me and saved my life. and the effect of the shooting did not end february 14. the stress from the shooting took such a toll on my mother's body that she experienced a miscarriage. gun violence ends thousands of lives every year. my family this long before parkland.

15 years ago, my uncle was shot in the back and killed. he was 18 with his whole life ahead of him. i ask that you give my generation the chance he never had. host: if you want to watch more of that testimony and that hearing, go to our website. your thoughts known on our twitter feed @cspanwj and our facebook page as well. donna is next in california, go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. i have a few points i will try to make concise. the first thing is thank you so much for the parkland students for standing up and this has not changed my view. i was raised around guns, my parents used to take us out when we were kids and shoot guns and cans or whatever in the desert. we were not allowed to surprise

dad because he might turn around and shoot you. i believe we need to increase background checks. you have to have a photo id to drive a car, why not to carry a gun? we canond amendment says have guns, but they were thinking about muskets, not assault weapons. who needs an assault weapon to go hunting anyway? if you are that bad of a shot, you should not be out hunting and have clips and automatic weapons just to shoot a poor deer. host: john in new york, go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. we need to focus on internal issues and crises.

trying to hold summit in warsaw to verify issues in the middle east. host: we will hear from another john in pennsylvania. good morning. here.: a couple of things usc. 44, line 21 31. of all the gun laws we have in , whocountry, who can buy can sell, who you can sell to. need to look at this. gun laws are out there. it covers everything from mental health, physical abuse, it covers everything.

host: if that covers everything, nothing has to change? caller: the one thing that has to change is the federal government has got to start funding the feds to enforce these laws. that is all that has to be done. as far as the background checks like the one lady said, it is like 99% of the people doing these shootings pass the background checks. do you think what we are seeing is contributing only because of a lack of funding? how do you make that connection? caller: for them to enforce the laws. if they are going to enforce the laws, they have to fund departments that enforce the laws. i see them coming out with new universal background checks. the only thing that does to a lot of us law-abiding citizens, that want to buy a gun or sell a us or give a gun, it costs

money. it's not going to do nothing to stop the problem going on out there. if somebody would actually read the laws on the books, it is a .986 gun control act, 18 usc just put it in the computer. host: you made that point. marshall, you are next, ashburn, virginia. caller: good morning. i just have a brief comment. if guns were made illegal or not allowed on schools, what if somebody were to walk in with a samurai sword and start swinging it around? able told everyone be do to defend themselves? host: another opinion out of the house judiciary committee. this is the ranking member doug collins talking about the potential new legislation we

read to you about giving his opinion and his take on that legislation. [video clip] >> america witnessed too many events of mass violence. the common factors are not related to background checks for private sales. thomas reed said one of the greatest allusions in the world is the hope that people of this world are to be cured by legislation. think the greatest cruelty in the world is to tell people you will help them in their situation with legislation and try to pass legislation that would do nothing to fix the problems you claim to fix. in legal terms, that is called fraud. when we understand what is going on, evidence has shown -- i appreciate the efforts who want hr8 and many who signed, but similar gun-control measures would not have prevented columbine, san bernardino, charlston, or other tragedies. byare too far unmoved

violence, victimization, and murder. we are constraining law-abiding citizens and not protecting them from the people who mean them harm. we are far to come to bowl without talking about tragedy. if we want to combat -- this mean technology attempts to criminalize the second amendment do nothing to address complex factors that turn our attentions to solutions that would pray to one of my first acts was to ask president obama while federal firearm -- widespread violence continued to infect american communities. chicago prosecuted only 25 federal firearm crimes in 2011 in 2012.d 506 murders if we are going to be in business of writing laws to should violence, we commit to enforcing the laws we already have. host: you can see that house judiciary committee hearing on our website. a related story taking a look at

those in law enforcement. those numbers dropping according to research in the pages of usa today. the raw numbers of police nationwide have declined over the past five years and the rate of officers per 1000 residents have dropped for decades. after 16 years of growing agencies, usa lost 23,000 officers. according to a justice department survey, bringing the total to 700 thousand. responding to public panic over urban violence during the 90's, bill clinton signed off to across theires cops united states. to 20 asthat dropped law-enforcement agencies shed jobs and the national violent crime rate dropped by 37%. the rate was 611 violent crimes per 100,000 residents.

.n 2016, it was 386.3 in michigan, david, thanks for calling. david in michigan. caller: i am here. i wish guns were not in my community. i hate to see guns getting killed by them. i don't understand why americans love guns so much. i don't know why people love them. if you go to a shopping center and i see people walking around with guns, i get in my car and leave. they could be crazy, they could be prejudiced. david -- i apologize because you are breaking up. fred, you are next up. caller: good morning, america. this has been a problem for

decades. the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. these anti-constitution and anti-guns politicians would buckle down on the criminals with guns instead of letting them back out, a lot of this would be solved. one case in point, the gabby giffords case. she suffered several death threats and she assembled in a grocery store parking lot for voter registration and got the vote. she failed to provide security for the people that were there. the local police were aware of everything. it was blamed on republicans and responsibles and gun owners and it turned out the shooter was a loony leftist.

already 450 common sense gun laws on the books. i live in baltimore city and that's the most dangerous city in america and i'm not allowed to use my god-given right to protect myself. host: tosha is next from idaho. good morning. caller: good morning, c-span. i am calling. have the schools changed the views on guns? no. it's not the guns that kill people, it is people that kill people with the guns. the schools need to teach kids a little bit more gun safety. parents are the ones to blame because they are not teaching .heir kids gun safety there is a lot of people especially from idaho and other states that go hunting. there should be no gun laws concerning how and where you use your guns.

host: what about gun laws or changes to background checks as being discussed on capitol hill? caller: i think background checks are great. they should be done. there are these people out there that say guns are bad, they are not bad. it is depending on the people that use them and how they use them. people that do the crimes, all they do is get their hand slapped. they don't get punished enough for doing the crime. sectiona in their money takes a look at the topic of artificial intelligence and see if that might have a role to play preventing school shooting. this is edward writing and highlighting companies, bark technologies, gaggle.net and artificialc employ intelligence and machine learning to scan emails, text, and documents and social media

activity. they want to look for warning signs of cyber bullying, sexting , drug use, and depression and flag students who may pose a risk to themselves and classmates. when potential problems are found, school administrators, parents, and law enforcement officials are alerted. it was in the fall 2017 they ran a test pilot and found alarming issues including a barman -- bombing and school shooting threat. a few months later, parkland happened and we knew what we had and how it can help, but we did not want to seem opportunistic and capitalize on tragedy. the bark product is free to schools in the u.s. ae money he makes from version aimed at parents. more on these details and how artificial intelligence is being used. we are talking to you about school shootings and how it changed your view on guns

overall. 2202-748-8000 if you say yes. 202-748-8001 if you say no and social media channels available as well. in temple hills, maryland, you are next up. believe -- i do believe the mental health saying and what everything -- everybody is saying as far as the background checks that need to be had, i think those need to be stepped up. a lot of the issue is these gun laws -- one of the previous callers said they need to be enforced, but they need to be updated as well. there are guns on the streets now that were not available to then. there are a lot of people that hide behind the second amendment cowardly. a lot of people use that as a shield to say no matter what happened and how many of these kids got shot, they were going to get shot anyway. it is a shame in this country,

it is a lot easier to purchase a gun then it is a vehicle. should payth a gun insurance on it. on yourd pay insurance bullets. if you are looking for your own safety, why do you need an armory at your house? i am a gun owner myself and i am for everyone having one. game up for stepping my and making sure everyone around me with a gun is mentally capable of carrying a gun. not everyone deserves that right. we have an opportunity to drive our vehicle. if you cannot pass the test or get the right registration or show someone who will legally be there to see you do it, you will not get the opportunity. it is too easy to get guns and people are hiding behind the second amendment. host: let's go to jeffrey in pennsylvania. caller: good morning. -- these weapons, these

assault weapons are not inexpensive. they cost a lot for most people. the ammunition as well is not cheap. a concealed permit to carry and i had to have that renewed every five years. if people want to buy these assault weapons or whatever, why don't we hold them to registering them every year or paying some kind of fee to have these weapons? if they don't pay the fee at the end of the year or whatever, they get their weapons away from them. at least you know who has them. host: that is jeffrey in pennsylvania giving thoughts to school shootings and if they have changed your view on guns. we will continue with topics of discussion. a couple other bits of news to tell you about it, including what is going on in the effort

to keep the government open after a meeting of conferees when it comes to border security . craig caplan, our capitol hill producer says when it comes to the conference report filed by the house appropriations committee, adding all senate republicans and democratic conferees signed the conference report. the government funding border security bill, dick durbin included exceptions in the note. if you go to the house appropriations website, it gives highlights of the conference report which will become the basis of whether the government stays open. the bill would deny the president billions of dollars he demanded for the concrete wall, $1.375 billion. it would promote a more humane immigration system with $415 million for medical support, transportation, food, and clothing. it funds smart border security including $564 million to

install nonintrusive inspection of quitman at ports of entry. $100 million for border security technology. $77 million for opioid detection equipment. it also includes other things including a 1.9% pay raise to federal civilian workers overriding the president's decision to deny them a pay saferand would build communities by adding $3 billion to keep communities safe including by addressing the opioid crisis, closing sexual assault kit backlogs, and hiring more police officers. if you go to the website of the house appropriations committee, you can find it. the washington examiner adding on top of all this on the senate side, they report democratic lawmakers were scrambling yesterday to secure back pay for federal contractors before the president and congressional leaders strike a deal to resolve the budget standoff, supporters

fear if they don't get the legislation while fear of the shutdown is fresh, any interest in helping contractors will fade out. "a deal to keep the government open is almost done. one of the last issues is back pay for contractors." that was a tweet from senator tina smith, democrat from minnesota. 800,000 federal workers got back pay. this is no different. we only have a few hours, make your voices heard. host: back to the topics of -- topic of school shootings and if it changed your view on guns. christine is from las vegas. hello. caller: thank you for taking my call. my focus is on the ammunition and the bullets. i think there needs to be more focused on that. i need to get more understanding of this. i think assault rifles should be banned. there needs to be more to look

at the bullets. i don't think the guns are going to go anywhere in america. if you did background checks on people that buy ammunition, why should somebody need rounds and rounds of ammunition for anything? we are not shooting animals anymore for food. all these things have got to be fix the year we are living in -- to fit the year we are living in. host: alan from indiana, hello. caller: good morning. thank you for washington journal, c-span. love your show. i have not changed my mind. for about 40 years i have been against semi automatic weapons. and shotguns are not the problem, they are -- it is semi automatic weapons.

other people -- just 10 or 20 people in industrialized countries die. we have gotten up to 40,000. we are losing americans to gun violence -- more than we lost in -- iraq and afghanistan together. the thing i think we need to do is reverse the amendment which prevented the center for disease control to study nonviolence. that would give people a better chance to understand who is doing the killing, what they are using and what is going on. by there banned government from investigating that. the second amendment itself says it is for a well regulated militia for the security of the state. it's nothing about individuals. nothing about self protection. host: apologies for that.

thank you for calling. this is a story from abc 7 being reported. it's the president of the united states reflecting on the parkland shooting as of yesterday. tomorrow is also the one year anniversary of the horrific parkland shooting. we cannot imagine the suffering the families endured. our entire nation mourns for the victims and the loved ones. we pledge our unwavering resolve to work with leaders in this .oom the president adding some details when it comes to his administration taking a look the week of the shooting saying they enacted an act that will stop violence. it was in december the president combined a safety commission that was responsible for taking a look at gun violence and safety in schools. bitused and talked a little

about what they wanted to do back in december. here is some of that. [video clip] >> we are reviewing the recommendations put forward by the school safety commission. so families and law-enforcement can get treatment immediately to those who need it. encouraging states to adopt extreme risk protection -- law enforcement and family members firearmsority to keep out of the hands of those who pose a danger to themselves and others. notorietya no campaign, which would encourage the media not to use the names or frankly anything having to do with the shooters.

i see it all the time. they make these people famous and they are not famous, they are the opposite. they are horrible, horrible people. i think that is a very important one, no notoriety campaign. a supporting local efforts to create a culture that cherishes life and fosters deep and meaningful human connections, allowing highly trained school personnel to have access to firearms. according to the department of homeland security, the average duration of an active shooter, incident to the school is under five minutes while all of this carnage takes place in a short period of time. it is critical to have armed personnel available at a moments notice. these are people, teachers that are the highest trained you can get. people that are natural to

firearms, people that know how to handle them and have great experience and on top of the experience, have taken courses and they are right on site. host: you can see more of those thoughts if you go to our website, c-span.org. a viewer says when it comes to views on guns changing or not changing because of school shootings, my views as a 30 year classroom teacher have not changed. i expect nothing to change after the columbine, sandy hook, parkland. i expect nothing to change, therefore, my views have not changed. in maryland, you are next up. caller: good morning. i think it is pretty simple. people are not getting to the root of the issue. yes, background checks would help if you are a criminal, but a high school student would not have a background. with schoolt help shootings. i think they should have a mental check.

not only for the person person and begun -- adjusting the gun, but also -- not only for the person purchasing the gun, but also the people in the home. to me, it is that simple. you have to get to the root of the problem. you go to school to learn to go to college, not to learn about guns. host: jason in north carolina, go ahead. you are on. caller: good morning. thank you for having me. when we have these debates on guns, it always goes to the actual tool and not the actual people. . live in north carolina a few months ago we had an incident where one of the kids at school thought about bringing a gun to school and luckily they stopped it before he got on

campus. my son's high school has metal detectors and a couple of resource officers. i have been a law-abiding gun owner for 20 years. my guns have never heard anybody. it seems -- never hurt anybody. it seems like when this happens, it all falls to law-abiding citizens and host: host: not the criminals. when it comes to public polling, cbs news did one particularly taking a look at the shooting in parkland adding one year after 17 people were killed, most americans on all sides say they are frustrated by the national debate over guns and gun policy. students and others organized marches to draw attention to the issue. a cbs news poll found 58% of americans who supported stricter gun laws felt the marches marked a turning point. stricter gun those

law proponents felt frustrated saying 64% registered frustrated. 39% registered as angry, 11% satisfied. the survey saying that three in four americans don't get is likely president trump and congress will pass any laws that will make significant changes to gun policy, an outlook that both gun control supporters and opponents share. from massachusetts, this is andrew. go ahead. yes, i was born in a strict roman catholic family. i'm one of eight. all of my brothers and sisters went to catholic school into high school. i was born with autism and dyslexia. times before three second grade.

the catholic church kicked me .ut of school god won't point you in the right direction when all i had in my head was because of my people.ty, was to kill i started looking at the teachings and started believing in god instead. thatconvince these kids listen to what's in your head, not in your heart. on whereeep a check all these guns are being bought, they know what stores sell the gun after going to the same people. they know they are not keeping them. host: ok. bernard in new york, go ahead. caller: yes, i live in new york,

which is a very tough state. we have what we call the safe act. when you walk into a store, you have to file paperwork. it comes back that you can buy a gun or you can't i a gun. what i would like to know is you hear all of these shootings. in new york you hear of one every week. people are dying all the time. what they never say is is this gun illegal or a legal gun. that's what i want to know. the public says we have to do more about guns, but nobody is saying if it is a legal or illegal gun. you can't stop people from doing violent crimes once they get their hands on a gun. they are all locked up in a safe. that's part of the safe act. you can't have a gun case that is not locked up. that's the way it is. i'd like to know the opinions on that. host: bernard in new york giving his thoughts.

"the new york times" this ofning sharing the thoughts students and those affected directly by the parkland shooting. fish theyle and a profil -- they profile anna c rean, 15 years old, a junior. "i have ptsd. the hardest part was sudden noises. fourth of july. i was at camp and wasn't expecting fireworks to go off, but they did. i had a panic attack. in school, a few freshmen tried say- her story goes on to we are not all loud activists. a lot of us want to go back and finish our high school career the best we can. for college i want to go to ireland, because where my parents are from, because i don't want to do four more years of schooling here. i don't like how divided this country is. guns."and there's no

one of those activists from parkland that took place was david hogg. he was at the u.s. conference of mayors and had a chance to direct to that conference to the topic of gun violence. here is part of his testimony. >> some of you might be thinking this is to political of an issue to me -- issue for me to be involved in. taking the third rail would 40,000 americans are dying annually and children are dying inside and outside of schools on their way to schools every day is not an option. i don't need your help. out generation need your help to end gun violence because this issue has continued on for way too long. mayor's support. i don't care if you have a d or r next to your name. the only thing that matters is whether you are a human being with empathy, whether you will stand up and take action before this issue becomes political in your city because so many people

have died from it. i also want us to recognize that even though the media may only like to pay attention to mass shootings, every shooting has to be just as important to you. i know almost every mayor in this room gets a text when someone gets shot and killed in your city. you may be thinking to yourself, i don't need to worry about that because that was only one person. that occurred in the part of town where people don't like to talk about. that is not politically powerful. ending gun violence does not just look like ending mass shootings. it does not just look like ending gun violence in one zip code. it does not look like ending gun violence for one person because of the color of their skin. ending gun violence looks like ending gun violence in every community no matter who is affected. in america we care about you because were one thing, and that is human being. we need your support. host: let's hear from jeff in west virginia. good morning. caller: good morning. law virginia has a state

called constitutional carry. anybody can carry a concealed weapon. they don't need a permit or anything, and we don't have any gun violence. 911 and depend on like sheriffat israel to come there and protect us before we get shot. somebody pulled out a gun and starts shooting, you can guarantee that there's going to be a citizen there to stop them with their gun. that's it. host: herb is next up in south carolina. caller: good morning, pedro. you do a great job, and you make it look so easy. thank you for c-span. carolina, they do have concealed carry permits. an earlier caller pointed out

the incongruity of suggesting the fbi dropped the ball continuously in the parkland situation. all of your listeners and callers who go to youtube, there's a video called the line in the sand period. called sgt. you will get some insight into what happened that day. listen closely to what the schoolteacher says she saw. thanks for c-span. host: how does that relate to your views on guns and the influence it has from these school shootings? caller: what in particular? host: what you think as far as the school shootings? has it changed anything about how you feel about guns? caller: no. in a culture where we have the right to carry, and as a 66-year-old, frail, 140 pound

black dude, i'm too old to take an ass-whooping. i saw a lady with a t-shirt that "i carry concealed because a cop is too heavy." host: let's go to james in texas. caller: good morning. first of all, i think all gun laws are unconstitutional. how many other constitutional rights do we have it laws that restrict them? it doesn't make sense at all. our guns aren't there to protect us from other people. our guns are there to protect us from the government in case they overreach too far. we have to put them back in their place. host: if you don't have laws, what happens if that overreach goes too far? caller: if we don't have laws on guns? well, it's just a tool.

it's the person behind the gun committing the crime, not the gun. host: we have laws that affect all sorts of other tools or uses of certain things. one not guns? caller: -- why not guns? caller: do you have a law restricting women from voting? it's ridiculous. host: let's go to randy and virginia. -- in virginia. caller: good morning and happy valentine's day, c-span and america. i love you. what i'm concerned about his the survivors of gun violence, maybe not even those directly impacted, but communities as a whole. i think we do a very poor job of responding to murder and other violent crime on the block and in neighborhoods where there are associated with

their neighborhood where this violent crime happens, and then there's no support for them after the violent incident. i think we need to do a far better job responding to neighborhoods and particular blocks, and the children who then have to go to a school carrye of their zone and the undeserved reputation of being associated with the murder and mayhem that they have no control over around them. so i think we need to do a much prevention and reminding these children before it happens because we know a lot of violence happens in concentrated areas, public cities.and larger rural communities are not immune , but we can focus targeted efforts to make those survivors

feel as if there is blame to them. like i said, the children. in the safest are place they can be, but when they return to the block and there's all this mischief they have no control over, it is usually they who suffer the most. host: ok. let's go to jason in alabama. go ahead. caller: good day. school shootings haven't changed my mind about gun control in general. i think gun control in general is a good idea. but we have to reconcile two different things. if you believe in unfettered access to guns, that's one thing. but you have to understand, people are crazy. it's true that guns don't kill people. people kill people. but you don't know the difference between when someone is going to be acutely crazy. they could just wake up one day and want to go out and kill people. if you want unfettered access to guns, more people are going to die. they are going to use those guns

to facilitate their crazy. number to come of parkland shooting illustrated one very important thing. police have no constitutional obligation to protect citizens. their only constitutional obligation is to protect those in their custody. we have to have an ability to protect ourselves. so when it comes down to gun violence, we have to reconcile those two things. people are crazy. if they have guns, they are going to use them. if they have knives come up they are going to use them. more guns is probably out the answer. but number two, police can decide they are not going to protect us for whatever reason. they have to sacrifice themselves. we have to understand as citizens they do not have to put them selves in danger for us. so we have to protect ourselves. host: ok. let's hear from anne in georgia. caller: hi.

i'm calling about the man that called in and said they didn't have gun violence in west virginia. it's one of the top states for gun violence. it is number 13 in the list in all of the united states. per 100,000 firearm population is 13.3 in west virginia, which is quite a large number. i'm not sure where he gets the idea that there is no gun violence in west virginia, but obviously there is. people just aren't aware of the extent to which gun violence occurs in some of these places. we need to do something. i kind of like the guy that called in about the car insurance. it takes more training to drive a car than it does to own a gun, and i think more people probably die from guns than they do from cars. anyway, that's what i have to say. host: before we finish up this topic, a couple of events to let you know you can watch on the c-span networks.

an event today, republican house minority whip steve scalise, caucus chair hakeem jeffries, and debbie stabenow will take a look at what they want to see happen in congress in 2019. this is an event sponsored by axios. that event just started. you can monitor that. also, if you're interested in issues of cyber operations or cyber warfare, special operations and cyber command will appeards before the senate armed services committee at 9:30 this morning on c-span3, as well as www.c-span.org and the radio app. a funeral service for the late representative john dingell will take place here in washington, d.c. speakers will include former president bill clinton and civil rights activist representative john lewis. live coverage will be at 10:30

this morning on c-span. david in washington, d.c., you are our last call. go ahead. caller: thank you. i just wanted to point out it seems pretty obvious to me that we are not taking into account that a lot of these school shootings tend to be done by young people. maybe not all, but a lot of them. there's a lot of violence on tv in magazines and and so on today. way more than there was in the past. in the past, a lot of that was left out of tv. you didn't hear about as many school shootings. what i don't understand is why we are not doing something to the industries that provide all of this entertainment to these children that you know are watching it in such a manner that would give them ideas to do the things that they do. if we are going to allow them to

do this, why aren't we taxing them heavily so that they have to pay a price for showing us gore on something like "the walking dead" or "the punisher," any of these shows that are very violent? host: that is david in washington, d.c. coming up, you will meet the first democrat to declare his interest in becoming president of the united states, former representative john delaney joining us to talk about his platform and what he wants to do should he become president. later, republican pressman .ongressman chip roy of texas all of that coming up as "washington journal" continues. ♪ >> illinois is the land of lincoln. his home is here. the old state capitol where he

gave his speeches is here. and of course, he's buried on the outskirts of town. lincoln is extra merely important to the city that is extraordinarily important to the city of springfield -- is extraordinarily important to the city of springfield. announcer: we visit springfield, the capital city of illinois. >> when they knew they were going to build a new capital, they wanted something to shock and all. they wanted something that showed illinois meant we are it, and that's what this building is and what it represents. announcer: with the help of our comcast cable partners, we will travel the city to learn about the life of our 16th president. >> he could disguise his political ambition under the umbrella of his law practice. that is the significance of the circuit. in doing so, he built this network that eventually he used in 1850's to put himself into the position of getting the republican nomination for president. thatese are the gloves

were in abraham lincoln's pocket on the night of the assassination. you can see the remnants of the blood on these gloves today. announcer: host: join us on -- announcer: join us on book tv this saturday at noon as we speak with local springfield authors. sunday at 2:00 p.m., we learn about lincoln's ties to springfield and the political history of this town on american history tv. watch c-span's cities tour of springfield, it little noise, working with our cable affiliates as we explore the american -- springfield, illinois, working with our cable affiliates as we explore the american story. announcer: "washington journal" continues. host: john delaney is the first democrat to declare his candidacy for the presidency. what convinced you you wanted to be president? caller: i think -- guest: i

think this country is terribly divided, and we need a president together and us actually focus on the future. the world is changing so fast and we are not doing the things we need to do to prepare our citizens for the future. i am a unifier. i'm a problem solver. i have a very clear view as to where the world is going, and i know what we need to do to create a better future for the american people. i think that's exactly what the people need right now. host: some people identify themselves as progressive or otherwise. where do you fall on that? guest: i am more of a centrist. some people call me a pragmatic idealist. if you look at the stuff i worked on in congress around climate change, universal pre-k, et cetera, these are big ideas that often line up with some of the more progressive movements in our party, but i'm always looking for common ground to get things done. as an entrepreneur, which is what i was for 20 years before i ran for congress, i started two business.

i took them public on the new york stock exchange. i've always been about getting things done, solving problems, and not talking about things, and that is what we need. host: what is the centrist viewpoint on what should be done? guest: what i would have done as president is worked with the congress, figured out an amount of money we should have allocated, and then got the experts in the room. not politicians, but people who know something about border security, which i don't think the president falls under that category, and said give us your recommendations how to best deploy the taxpayer money we've allocated against border security. i suspect they'd come back with technology solutions, more personnel in certain places, more money for law enforcement, and probably some barriers in certain places. what i would do with the congress is say to them, that's what we should do. host: the president in the lead up to this said he talked to members of the border patrol. who else would you have talked

to? guest: i think the border patrol clearly have insight into this and expertise on the front line. they are dealing with it. i would obviously look to border control in those discussions. but there's a lot of other people who have good ideas. i've talked to some technology peoples who believe -- technology companies who believe using drones and sensors with powerful cameras that they can secure huge parts of the border at relatively moderate pug costs -- moderate costs. you need people on the cutting edge of security. you need our law enforcement and people working at the border. you need a lot of voices. they should develop a consensus. we should decides how much money we want to invest. that's what democrats and republicans should agree to do. that's what normal. people would do if this was any other -- that's what normal people would do. if this was any other context, if you have an issue you had to deal with, you'd figure out your budget, bring in experts, listen

to them, and proceed that way. you wouldn't turn it into a political stunt. host: that's a centrist viewpoint. guest: it's a problem solvers viewpoint. host: it would probably work in congress. what make you think it would work at a presidential level? guest: because it is what the american people are so desperate for. i've done 14 trips to new hampshire, 23 trips to iowa. i've done 350 events in these two states. when you sit and talk to people in their living rooms and coffee shops, they want us to get things done. they are dealing with issues with their health care. pharmaceutical prices are too high. we've seen communities hollowed out by how our economy has changed. they are worried about where our of nation -- where automation and artificial intelligence is taking us. they want solutions. they want progress. they don't want the political parties to keep fighting for their interests and not the

interests of the american people. host: john delaney joining us to talk about his bid to become president of the united states. if you want to ask him questions, (202) 748-8001 four republicans, (202) 748-8000 four democrats, (202) 748-8002 independents. guest: i've always believed in my life you have to be all in. you have to own your ambition and your goal, and put everything you have behind it. i don't want this kind of cat and mouse game or hedging my bets. that's the entrepreneur in me. i was the youngest ceo in the history of the new york stock exchange with my first company. if i have a goal, i go out and put everything behind it. host: we have a lot of names entering in the last couple of weeks. guest: i guess i haven't cleared the field. host: does that bother you? guest: no, i thick it's great.

it frames the conversation. change.climate i've been a huge advocate for doing things against global warming. i was against the xl pipeline. i introduced a carbon tax in my first term. i was part of putting in place the first bipartisan carbon tax proposal in the congress last year. so i have a very clear view as to how we get something done soon on climate. now we have this green new deal that has emerged with a bunch of people who have gotten behind that. that is completely unrealistic. that is never going to happen. that is a step backward on climate change. in some ways, i think having other people in the race sharpens the focus around the voters as to what they are looking for. i think with me, they will get someone who will focus on finding common ground, solving problems, getting things done, restoring a sense of positive moral aspiration for who we are as a people that we can actually

work together and build a better future to start reading this country back together. host: when it comes to the green new deal, what is wrong with it? guest: the goals are impractical. we need to get a zero carbon in this country by 2050. if we pursue my plan, we can get there. there is no way we are going to get there in 10 years. to tien't make any sense action on climate to universal health care to universal basic income. i am for universal health care. i am not for universal basic income. sf you try to tie those thing together as a condition of action on climate, you are basically saying i'm not going to do it. every structure in this country. i think if everyone stopped working in this country right now, dropped everything they were doing, and started working on trying to rebuild and restructure, we wouldn't be able to do it in 10 years. it is those kind of things. it is just not honest with the american people about the path forward. host: do you reach out to environmentalists about your ideas compared to the green new deal?

guest: they love my ideas. host: compared to the green new deal. guest: i think they have been careful. they obviously think the energy around the green new deal and the fact that it is shining such a bright spotlight on climate change is terrific. i applaud that as well. the more people who are focused on climate change and the significant risk it is to our prosperity and national security, the better. but i think the environmental community also wants us to get things done. the bipartisan carbon tax bill i introduced, which i believed i could make law in my first year as president, i believe the coalition exists to get that done. the environmental community also understands we need to do something right away on climate. climate is not a linear problem. it is an exponential problem. it gets worse and worse with each passing year. harder and harder to deal with. so the key to climate is not only doing something big, but doing something immediately.

i think one of the problems with the green new deal, 80 for the makes it harder to get something big done. host: we have because lined up for you. this is spread it -- we have calls lined up for you. ted, you are up first. caller: good morning. guest: good morning, ted. caller: hi. you said you traveled to iowa and new hampshire. my question for you, will you travel down to the border and interview some of the people living along that border and get their opinions on, you said drones? guest: yes, that's part of the solution. i've been to the border twice in the last six months. i went about a month ago. my wife and i traveled to a place in texas about two hours outside of santana tonio -- of san antonio. there were 1700 women and children fleeing central america

, seeking asylum in this facility. . the reason we went is we took 14 woorgetown law students and t to spend a week helping these asylum-seekers processed their cases. so i had very good insight as to what is going on with asylum-seekers and understanding the conditions that they are fleeing from central america. it reminded me why we have asylum laws in this country and why it is so important that we would do things to help stabilize countries in central america. about three or four months before that, i went to a different part of the border with some of my colleagues to understand some of the on the border security issues and some of the trade issues going on. so i've actually spent a lot of time on the border, which i think you have to do. i think your question is a good one because we shouldn't be talking about these things unless we've seen them and talked to the people and

understood what is going on. host: from washington, d.c., angela is next, democrats line. caller: good morning mr. delaney. i just have a couple of quick questions. how do you see a way forward to bridging the gap between the divisiveness in race relations throughout our country? is what isuestion your plan for bringing up the middle class and making it more fair for hard-working people in this country? guest: let me deal with your first question, which is about healing these racial divisions and these other divisions the president, in my judgment, has exaggerated and cultivated and encouraged to some extent. i have a totally different view. obviously i think the president should be a voice of clarity in this country in terms of

standing up against hate, bigotry, racism, sexism, whatever the case may be. i think a president should wake up every day and basically swear never to divide the american people, to do something in their power every day to try to bring the country together. from time to time that means standing up strong against hate and making sure the president's voice is present in conversations. sometimes it is physically present, where you have to show up when something has happened and speak with clarity about who we are as a people and what our values are. but if you can't do that, it means speaking out against it. i think the current president is in many ways the divider in chief. i think he wakes up and tries to divide the country. i am the opposite. i want to bring the country together and stand up against bigotry and hate wherever i see it. the second question is around the bear class. we've seen -- the biddle class. -- the middle class. we see in this country.

we really have to do things to invest in the biddle class. one of the things that would -- the middle class. that would bengs in my first 100 day agenda is a doubling of the earned income tax credit. i think it is a much better tax policy than the tax cuts we saw that the republicans put through in the last congress, eight was largely focused on people who didn't need to benefits3 the earne -- benefits. the earned income tax credit is a bipartisan idea. i think it should be doubled. i think it would be material in terms of listing up -- of lifting up the working class. then we have to do things to improve education, invest in communities that are left behind , doing things to create ongoing job training programs, create a health care system that is

universal. there's a lot of issues the american people have with health care. i have a short-term and long-term agenda for helping the middle class. it starts with putting money in their pocket with the earned income tax credit. then we start doing things to ensure they can succeed in the world that is changing so fast. host: how would you approach taxation on the corporate level? guest: i think they cut it too low. the corporate tax was 35%. my companies always paid the full corporate tax. we didn't have any loopholes or deductions or anything special. that was the highest rate in the world, and it was hurting our competitiveness. so it should have been lower. i favored loving it to our -- lowering it to about funny 7% or 28%. that is what -- about 27% or 28%. that is what president obama wanted. the business community wanted 25%. the republicans cut it to 21%. no one even asked for 21%.

that was an appropriate. the difference between 25 and 21% is $400 billion. you see the kind of deficits and debt we are accumulating right now? almost $1 trillion deficit, the debt is at almost $22 trillion. 25% and it from 35% to we had $400 billion in the coffers of the treasury, or if we took that and invested it in the national infrastructure, something we desperately need. host: the next call from michigan, this is mark. you are on with john delaney. go ahead. caller: oh yes, john. , i haveately aspirations to run for president of the united states. i'm trying to offer a silver bullet in texas that our politicians cannot offer the ouric -- in taxes that politicians cannot offer the public.

a five-year tech cycle, prorated every year come which means they would be receiving 1/5 of whatever he or she was expected to pay in city, state, federal tax. he will receive 1/5 of it back during the year. they can spend or save it better than the government can do. then our government can raise the tax on whatever issue they can pretend they want to pay for. there's still one year. you and i both know it won't pay for nothing since you haven't put anything down on the deficit. from that standpoint, are you willing to run on that type of issue? other than that, i really would like to get in contact with you. guest: great. you can obviously reach out to our campaign. what you are basically calling for is a 20% across-the-board tax. you in one out of every five

years, no one pays any tax. that is not my tax plan. i have a lot of specific plans. i talked about the earned income tax credit. i talked about what i would do with the corporate tax rates. i talked about what we need to do to make our tax code more competitive. the fact we are creating all this money to fund this deficit is a big problem. i think we are leaving an immoral debt to our children and grandchildren that they cannot repay. someone has got to run present -- run for president like i am with a real plan to get a physical trajectory on a much more sustainable basis. i am not in favor of the tremendous deficits we are accumulating which i believe the republican tax cuts contributed materially to. we are running at almost $1 trillion deficits at a time when the economy is actually pretty strong, and that is a really bad formula. it is not just the united states. the whole world is over levered right now. when i say the world, i mean

countries' soverign debt. this is a big crisis the world is going to have to. deal with interest rates are low -- have to deal with. interest rates are low. people don't realize how much debt you have until interest rates go up. everything will return to the norm and this is going to be a shock to the global financial system. i want to make sure the united states prepares its own house so we are in a good position. host: how are you finding your campaign? guest: great. we were just in new hampshire for several days. i was doing town halls in small towns in the middle of a snowstorm, and we had 50 or 60 people. i did a big event with the aclu last night, my last event before i drove to the airport and got the last flight back. we are getting great turnout. i have six offices open on the ground in iowa, 24 terrific team members, and we are organizing like crazy. we opened by manchester office this past trip.

i've got six terrific team members there. we've got by far the best ground game going on. host: are you self funding your campaign? guest: not entirely, but i am investing in my campaign. not from corporations or packs, just individuals. s,pledged i wouldn't -- or pac just individuals. i pledged i wouldn't do that. but we are also investing in my campaign. the reason i did it that way as i thought the 2018 cycle was so important, and i spent a lot of my time last year campaigning for other candidates. i didn't want to distract people. if someone wanted to give money to a democrat, i wanted them to give it to the people running in 2018. a bunch of people who know me just gave to the campaign, but i think over time it will be about 50-50. i will raise half and fun half. -- and fund half. that's what we did with my congressional races. host: what kind of numbers do

you have to see in iowa and new hampshire given the amount of people that have to be in this race? guest: i plan on winning both of them, so i think that will do just fine. host: let's go to kentucky. kathy is next. caller: hi. i wanted to know his thoughts on alsoedical marijuana, and his thoughts on what it would ane to get wages up to $15 hour. host: we will leave it there. guest: i am supportive of medical marijuana. i think everyone should have it available to them as prescribed by their doctor. to me that is a very straightforward issue. as it relates to wages, i've been on the legislation to raise even among wage to $15 -- raise the minimum wage to $15. it should have been indexed to inflation all along. it should go up little bit every year. that would be good for the

worker, and business would be able to handle it. i support getting it up to $15. i think you've got to phase it in carefully. there are some regional disparities. i think when we talk about the minimum wage, both sides have to acknowledge that $7.25, the current federal level, is way too low. if you work full-time and earn minimum-wage, you are living below the poverty line. that doesn't pass the look yourself in the mirror test as a country. we also have to acknowledge you can raise the room wage to high -- the men wage -- the minimum wage too high and a lot of people would lose their job. you have to find that right place on the continuum where you are boosting wages, but not putting companies in a position where they accelerate layoffs or movements to robotics and other technologies that replace human beings. 15.hink we can get to $

i think having it rolled out on a regional basis makes sense to me. in other parts of the country to stefan -- country it is different. host: what comes to your mind when you hear the term medicare for all? guest: i think the medicare for all bill in the u.s. senate, i'm not sure everyone understands what it really means, but it has been defined in the u.s. senate, where they have a very specific bill a lot of people have signed on. i think that is bad policy, that specific bill. i am for universal health care. i think everyone should have health care is a right of citizenship. i think it is a human right and smart economics. right now we have a universal health care system. it is called the emergency room. by law, they have to take care of you. but the problem with the medicare for all bill, it gets rid of private insurance, which doesn't make sense. most people on private insurance like it. goes to people who have paid into medicare, our

seniors, and tells them we are going to take your health care and give it to everyone else. that is not going to be very popular. the other problem is a simple economics problem. if you look at medicaid, it pays about 80% of costs. if you look at medicare, it pays 95% of costs. commercial insurance pays about 115% to 101% of cost. another example -- to 120% of cost. payser example, medicare half of what commercial insurance does. there is no evidence to indicate the government, if it is the only payer, will ever actually pay the cost of health care, which will ultimately result in reduced quality and access because no one is going to invest in health care. i was just traveling around a hospital in new hampshire this past trip. i said to the administrators, let me ask you a question. if you were to take all of your commercial insurance receipts last year and cut them in half, which is what would be if

medicare was paying all the bills, could you keep the doors open? this is a hospital providing unbelievable care in its community. this is a true community hospital on the front lines, dealing with the needs of its committee. they run at about a one point percent buffer margin. they are a nonprofit. he said no, we would not be able to keep our doors open. so i think when people embrace such a radical change to the u.s. health care system, 1/6 of the u.s. economy, and basically propose a reimbursement system where there is no evidence the government will ever pay costs, i think that would be ruinous to our health care. what i am proposing is very different. everyone gets health care is a right. leave medicare alone. you get a health care program is a right when you were born until you are 65. we roll medicaid into that. it is a basic health care plan. it travels with you. you have it all the time. but you can also buy supplementals on the market just like people with medicare.

that will allow there to be a baseline government plan, and then a vibrant private market on top of it. that will do the three things we need to do in health care. it will improve access, make it universal, do things to lower cost over time, and eliminate quality disparities, and i have a plane to pay for it. the first thing we should do is fix the affordable care act, though. to some extent, my plan is the next step in the of horrible care act. host: jean -- the affordable care act. host: gene in ohio, go ahead. caller: i would like you just be to nepotism and the amount that is going on right now in the white house with the president and all of his relatives there, as well as to the revolving door of people who come in and out of various administrations when the republicans are in. they call in the old republicans out of senior bush's administration, out of gw bush's administration.

the democrats call in the swamp masters out of the clinton administration -- and i am a democrat. i just what you do speak to the nepotism. guest: nepotism is a form of corruption. when you hear the word nepotism, it sometimes sounds a little benign. the words you are really hearing his corruption. what is going on with nepotism is you are basically saying i am in a trusted position for the public good, and i am hiring not the best and the brightest, which is what i should be doing. i am hiring a family member and putting money in the pocket of that family member at the expense of hiring the best and the brightest and doing what is right for the american people. that his corruption. there's a lot of ways corruption manifests itself. nepotism is a form of corruption. that is my view on nepotism. as it relates to the revolving door, i agree with you. it is unseemly. that doesn't mean i'm against people who have had public

service experience, and then they leave public service because there's a change of administration, and then when you are building up a new government you tap their expertise. i am not against people doing that. but i think you always have to be bringing in new ideas. you don't want that revolving door where people leave government, go to the private their, cash in based on government contacts, go back and do it again. it is very situational. but i think we need new people. we need new ideas. we need fresh perspectives in general. host: lisa from rhode island, you are next. caller: hi. just want a quote to tell u.s. far as the wall. we do need a wall down there because i have family that works down there. what that lady just said, she's full of it because no one has gotten anything on trump and i'm so sick of hearing that. third of all, i just got a raise and have never got one in eight years with the democrat with obama in.

i don't want to hear a word because i'm on income which is small, and finally got a decent raise. host: thank you. guest: congratulations on your race. -- on your raise. i think that is terrific. host: mark from new york, you will be the last call. caller: thank you for taking my call. i hear you are running as a centrist and a person who wants to reach across the aisle and get things done. my concern as a democrat as i see the republicans keep moving in a very extreme direction. they ran donald trump, who runs on demagoguery, nativism, and racialized politics. how can you get things done when the other side is going so far to the extreme? he has very high support among republicans in those politics. guest: that's right. first of all, i think you have to differentiate a little bit from some of our republican elected officials and republicans of the country because of things like gerrymandering. elected officials don't really

represent the people to some extent, which is another problem in and of itself. the other thing i would say is if you look back over time at all the great things we've ever done, whether it be medicare, social security, sending someone to the moon, it's always been done when you build a big coalition. that's how we have to get things done. i am about solutions. bipartisanship is a means to the ends of getting things done. i just think there's a fundamentally better conversation to have with the american people in this country. one of the things i plan on doing at my inauguration is looking out at american people and saying i represent everyone of you, whether you voted for me or not. to prove it in my first 100 days, but i'm going to focus on is five or 10 big things that already exist in the congress in terms of bipartisan legislation. where good minded democrats and republicans have worked together and found common ground. wouldn't it be amazing if a leader in their first 100 days totally changed the tone in this

country and said we are going to do things for people, not for politicians? here's a bipartisan immigration bill, criminal justice reform, infrastructure, digital privacy, national service, launching a national artificial intelligence strategy. things that make sense and are responsive to the problems the american people are dealing with, and position us for the future based on what is going on with technology and globalization, the most important forces in the world. there are some good things where people have already found common ground, and i know they exist because i've worked on a bunch of them in the congress. they are there, and there's good minded people on both sides of the aisle. i want to champion those things in the first 100 days, and then i think we will change the tone in this country. then i'm going to go to the congress once a quarter and say let's have a debate. i will go to the floor of the house of representatives and debate about the important issues of the day. we need more transparency. we need our officials to focus on common ground and get things

done for the american people, and i believe with my leadership, we can do that, and i believe it is exactly what the american people in their hearts know that we need. host: john delaney is the former u.s. were presented to from maryland, and he is the first democrat to declare his intention to become president of the united states. thanks for your time. coming up, we are going to hear from republican freshman chip roy of texas. is going to talk to us about border security issues and whether or not he's prepared to vote for that conference report later today. today marks one year since the deadly shooting at parkland, florida. we will be joined by an expert on school safety to talk about what is going on specifically at schools. but first, we wanted to show you a moment on capitol hill yesterday that's gotten a lot of attention on social media. it is an exchange between the democratic congas roman elana mark and the u.s. special envoy -- congresswoman

elana mark -- congresswoman ilhan omar and the u.s. special envoy to bit as well. >> you dismissed as communist propaganda about the massacre in ,hich more than 800 civilians including children as young as two years old, were brutally murdered by u.s. trained troops. during that massacre, some of those troops bragged about raping a 12-year-old girl before they killed them. you later said that the u.s. policy in el salvador was a fabulous achievement. yes or no, do you still think so? presidente day that frome was elected --

itsident duarte was elected is a fabulous achievement. >> do using that massacre was a fabulous achievement that happened under our watch? >> that is a ridiculous question. >> yes or no? >> no. >> i will take that as a guest. >> i am not going to -- as a yes. >> i am not going to respond to that personal attack which is not a question. >> yes or no, would you support an armed faction within venezuela that engages in war crimes against humanity or genocide if you believe they were serving u.s. interests as you did in guatemala, el salvador, nicaragua? >> i am not going to respond to that question. i don't think this entire line of questioning is meant to be real questions, and so i will not reply. under your watch, a genocide

will take place and he will look the other way because american interests were being upheld. it is a fair question because the american people want to know that any time we engage a country, that we think about and our actions could be how we believe our values are being furthered. that is my question. will you make sure that human rights are not violated and that we uphold international and human rights? >> i suppose there is a question in their, and the answer is that the entire thrust of american policy in venezuela is to support the venezuelan people's effort to restore democracy to their country. that is our policy. >> i don't think anybody disputes that.

the question i had for you is that the interest, does the interest of the united states include protecting human rights and include protecting people against genocide? >> that is always the position of the united states. announcer: "washington journal" continues. host: this is representative chip roy, republican of texas. he is here to talk about, among many issues, border security. good morning. what should republicans do with the border security deal being reported on? guest: were i advising the president and making the decision myself, i would say we should do a two week cr. i think the folks who worked on the deal, the compromise, should get back in the room and come up with a solution that actually secures the border. i don't believe this is going to take the steps needed to get the job done.

more importantly, it is an 1169 page bill which i just got a link to about 30 minutes ago. this is the swamp in action. we are going to get this long bill and have to pour over it over the next 24 hours before a vote is called, if a vote isn't called tonight or tomorrow. i don't care what your view is on the merits of the bill, we should take at least a week or two to make sure we are getting it right and doing our job. i certainly believe we ought to have more resources for building physical infrastructure. more beds, more judges, and all of the things to deal with the actual crisis at the border. i spent some time in the rio grande valley, where i saw 400,000 -- i'm sorry, a couple hundred people coming across the river, and was told by border patrol we have 400,000 people coming through the rio grande valley sector, of whom 200,000 will not be branded, and 90% will be captured and released. there was a stash house in houston with 54 people in it young held hostage to pay ransom to the cartels, the gulf cartel,

which has operational control of our border. the state right across the river is a level four state. that means it is a no travel zone. it is more dangerous than under us, guatemala, some of the countries -- then honduras, guatemala, some of the countries where people are traveling to the united states from. we should have a safe, legal way for people to come to the united states. we need to push back on the cartels and secure our border. host: the current bill, is it the dollar figure that concerns you? guest: that is one of the concerns. i think one of the bigger concerns is we are looking at a 1200 page bill to see is their funding and therefore beds -- is fore funding in there beds? athink the $1.7 billion is far cry from what we need to build structures on the border.

that was the baseline number in the 2018 funding, by the way. that is less than what was on. the table in december. i'm not sure what we've been doing over the last 45 days if that's the deal we want to cut. host: you said you advocate for a two week cr. should be go another shutdown route? guest: i think we should do a clean two week cr and go back and look at it. we never should have shut it down. we should have just had a clean cr. host: did you vote for shutdown last time? guest: i voted to fund the government when we had bills that would have funded the government right way instead of with priorities that would not have gotten the job done. we are not going to do something that doesn't secure the border. we can do crs while we continue to have a robust debate. i don't understand why my colleagues on the other side of the aisle feel they should not be doing their job to secure the border and put the physical infrastructure in place. judges, beds. this is the basic duty of a sovereign nation. i think the gop is winning.

i think we are winning the narrative of the american people that we need to secure the border, and this is better for our american citizens. jared vargas was murdered last july and my home district, or near my home district. 's family is a beautiful family. i was with them yesterday in the capital. they are up here with angel moms and angel families. there are real impacts to real people, including the migrants coming to hear. the two little girls i talked to in my very broken spanish on the rio grande river 10 days ago, it is heartbreaking. the travel here from honduras by themselves with no parents. andnow 1/3 of these girls women are being abused along the way. it is absolutely unconscionable that the united states of america is allowing this to be the state of our border. host: chip roy serves as a republican. you can join us on the lines this morning.

for republicans, democrats (202) 748-8000, independents (202) 748-8002. if you live in a border state, (202) 748-8003. what are using would change of the president decided to take that route? guest: we would have a chance to look at the bill and see what is in it, which is a novel concept in washington, d.c. you think how money pages a minute you have to read over the next 24 hours just to read the whole bill. first of all we would have time. second, i think they should be forced to go back in the room and answer how this is actually going to solve the problem. this bill, to me, takes a step back because if we don't address the asylum in the issue with respect to the mandatory catch and release that judges have created, the so-called florez decision, if you don't address that and have judges in place,

beds in place to be with family so we can figure out how to process, right now we literally have people streaming across. i saw it with my own eyes. streaming across, getting on buses. we have border patrol taking them to a processing center, where in 43 hours they are processed, sent back out, and released into the united states. that is only half of the people who are caught. how is that remotely a solution? this bill will do virtually nothing to solve that problem other than begin the process of continuing to build some infrastructure, which i support, but we need immediate action. if it is an emergency, let's go. host: first call comes from a viewer in arizona. johnny, you are first up for representative chip roy of texas. caller: you all call that place up there the hill, and i believe that all you politicians have your head in the sand like ostriches. i would never go up there.

i would never bring my children there. you can't play baseball in the park. you get shot. i've never heard anything about that person. host: caller, do you have a specific question for our guest? caller: i just think that you politicians are in denial. host: ok. guest: well, i understand why the american people are frustrated. i would be, too. when you look at what happens in washington, we are living it. in 1169 page bill dropped at 7:30 in the morning, and now we are expected to vote on it within 24 hours. of course the american people are frustrated. they are frustrated at $3 trillion in spending we are facing this year. health-care costs are going up because government is not doing what it needs to do to get out of the way and allow lower health care prices. of course the american people are frustrated.

i understand it, and that's why i came to washington. texasd rather be back in on valentine's day, but i'm happy to be here fighting for freedom. assistant attorney general of texas, senior advisor to former governor rick perry, from illinois, joe is next. caller: good morning, pedro. i've got a question for the congressman. you are a member of the greedy old party, which i call the gop. why don't we take the subsidies you are giving to big oil, tobacco growers? here in illinois, the government pays you for it. take all those billions of dollars and build your wall and be happy instead of taking our taxpayers after mexico was supposed to pay for this wall.

it is all greed, and he republicans, all you want to do is fatten your wallets. guest: thanks for the question. look, i think there's significant resources we could deploy to secure the border, which is our fundamental constitutional duty. i believe this is part of national security. i agree that there are way too many subsidies flying around this town in all directions both parties. i think that should end. we should allow the markets to work. i think we should have low tax rates, low regulation. allow that to create wealth, opportunity, jobs. allow you end americans to do what they do best, which is go out and create jobs, opportunity, and drive this economy. all washington does is get in the way of that. we need to address some of the subsidy issues, but right now today we need to fund border security, and then get busy

balancing the budget, which nobody in this town has any real interest in talking about doing. you rarely hear that conversation. host: what did you think of senator cruz's idea to take money from el chapo to apply to the wall? guest: i think that is great. i have no problem taking all or from a hardened criminal like that to do what we need to do to secure the border. most importantly, this isn't a question about the resources. we are talking about $3 billion to $5 billion on what the president asked for. this is a political fight.

host: john yarmuth said there is no way to balance the best budget. guest: that is pure washington talk. the american people have to balance their budget. states like texas have to balance their budget. washington, d.c. likes to spend other peoples money without respect to whether or not we should maintain fiscal sanity and order. that needs to change. of course we can balance the budget. you've got to constrain discretionary spending and mentor spending. that is not just social -- made a tory spending. -- mandatory spending. it is not just social security and medicare. it is the form subsidies. it is food stamps. caps, which really put us on a path to restricting spending and getting to the chance of balance. what have they been doing the last two or three years?

by the way, both parties. they blew past the gaps for two consecutive years by about $140 or $150 billion. i would love to have a suburban to drive around and come up but i have a much smaller car because that's all i can afford. that's what the american people do. we look at our budget, figure out what you have, and act accordingly. washington needs to do that. host: this is from connecticut, independent line. milo. caller: good morning. i've just got to go against everything this guy just said because he just blamed the food stamps. basically he blamed all the poor people for the troubles america has. 2.3 president just gave trillion dollars tax cuts to the rich. together that your giving $1 million to every single american in tax credit

like $350 only billion. what did he do with the rest? guest: cbo did a study last spring which showed the tax cuts put in place largely had already paid for themselves. we are heading right down the path where the economic growth generated by putting more money in the pockets of the american people is paying for itself. time will tell, and we will look at that. that is the kind of economic growth that is going to get us out of the fiscal situation we are in. languishing in economic growth during the obama years. that is no way to be able to have jobs, wealth, opportunity. what i am going to say is that is money that should stay in the economy.

it is not about who it is being given to. it is about dollars that are able to fly around the country, creating restaurants and many if we really did that in health care, the economy would take off like never before. we have a historically low unemployment rate. we have a low unemployment rate among minorities. everything that is so good about the economy right now, we can make better. host: host: what do you do with the $2 trillion debt that's $22 trillion debt? guest: the cbo said we are already paying for that. the issue here is where should the money sit? it should sit with the american people and create economic growth, creating more opportunity and growth in the economy.

we do not have an income problem in washington. we have a spending problem. we need to be spending a serious amount of discretionary spending. these guys will not do their job to restrain spending. we saw that just last year. $150 billion over the caps. this year, we have the opportunity. if we follow the caps, we can constrain spending. deals will be cut based on wanting to have defense spending and deals will be cut on nondefense discretionary. we should hold the line on the caps. the american people deserve that. host: from south dakota, democrats line. dennis, hello. they are goinge to build the wall along belongs to private citizens. i used to live in california.

they took our property to widen the street. my son worked there for 14 years. you purchase a property first, sir. vietnam veterans -- i'm considered one. they brought all these people home after the vietnam war. they were refugees. i understand that. -- youve little saigon people seem to think we can take everyone in. president trump hires illegal immigrants for his golf courses. guest: i appreciate the question. could not agree more. we worked really hard to fight back against the egregious key takingcision, government it and not using it for public use. that is absolutely important.

sum of five friends in the house -- some of my friends in the house, we are working on we are asking border patrol agents right now to go down to the river in laredo and the rio grande valley, often times they are down in the river, you have an agent down by himself, it's dark, you cannot see the river because of the cane, you cannot drive laterally because there's no road there and you don't have a physical barrier to funnel people who are coming illegally. some people coming illegally wish us no harm. some do. are ms 13 and who gang members. any rancher who doesn't agree, we should work with and figure out proper property rights. a fair market

value and do it with minimal impact, allow farmers to have access to the river and rio grande valley. we just need to do our job to secure the border so that migrants are safe and american citizens are safe. host: from columbus station, ohio. ed, good morning. caller: this is not rocket science. president trump -- i'm a conservative. sat on his hands, president trump won the primaries against every other republican on securing the border. i was 30 years in the military. this will get pushed around by the liberal media -- they have everything against them.

they have their heads in the sand. i've never missed an election in my life. that's aublican newcomer, i'm voting for them. this should have been done a year and a half ago. guest: i appreciate your passion. this is why iran for congress last year. -- why i ran for congress last year. i'm frustrated with the republican party just as much as i'm frustrated with the democrat party. is fundamentally broken on both sides of the aisle. i'm happy to stand with the president on border security. i'm not happy to continue to do the same kind of deals here in washington that keep sticking it to the american people and not doing our job. they keep spending money we don't have.

and go out toals the american people and pretended to good deal when it's not. host: our guest serves on the budget committee and oversight and reform committee. representative chip roy of texas. the change would allow staff of house committees to conduct depositions without any lawmakers present. your committee would be involved in that. what do you think of that change? guest: there was some discussion with that. some agreement within the committee, the chairman was accommodative to our concerns, making sure members would be present for depositions. it was not agreed to as a hard rule. i wish it had been. members ought to be present. if we are going to be asking

american citizens to come before a committee, then members ought to be responsible for ensuring that is conducted fairly and appropriately. toy ought to take the time be there for the depositions. i felt strongly about that. congressman jordan pushed that issue pretty hard. promisesman made some that we would ensure to have members there -- it should have been a rule. oversight is important. the whole reason we have an oversight and government reform is to make sure that the article one function of congress is doing its job to check and look at and review what is happening in our government as a whole, including article one. i take that response ability very seriously. runaway,n't have a

politically motivated agenda in a committee that is there for -- we should be looking at how money is spent and how regulations are getting propagated. we should be looking at the size and growth of the executive branch and looking at things whether there are concerns about any wrongdoing. not politically motivated vendettas, which is oftentimes what drives the agenda in d.c. host: phoenix, arizona. glenn, go ahead. caller: thank you for hearing what i have to say. i wanted to say that i am a .onstruction worker in arizona i work with a lot of illegals. i know that. is an unfortunate amount

of fear mongering going on over the issue. i don't necessarily see these people as criminals. they are here for a better life because where they come from sucks. crime andrugs and gangs. , the onlyget here crime they do is they cross the border because they cannot afford the fees and the time it takes to go through immigration. when they get here, they try to be americans. they learn english. i teach many of them english. they work hard. most of these company's want to hire the most qualified employees. a lot of times, the most qualified employees are illegals. guest: i appreciate that call. i represent texas, the 21st district. are a significant

number of people present who are here illegally. other than crossing the border illegally and the stealing of --uments for identity besides that part, the vast majority of people coming here are seeking a better life. i do not begrudge any person who wants to do that. i don't begrudge the families seeking to come here. i do begrudge the extent to politicians like to pat themselves on the back for allowing a broken system to continue that endangers american citizens when some come through who are dangerous, that empowers cartels, which endangers our border, which endangers citizens to the flow of drugs at ports of entry and between and endangers the migrants you're talking about.

the 54 people i discussed earlier who are paying ransom to the cartels, huo their lives -- who owe their life like indentured servitude. we need to have compassion in how we deal with all of this, but dealing with this through an open border is bad for our country and bad for the economy. host: derek from maryland. democrats line. guest: this guy is a piece of work. host: you're on with him. go ahead. that's whytax cuts, we are in so much terrible debt right now. trump is running around talking wast how great the economy when everybody knows the economy was already great when he got to it. all the mess he's in -- look at

the mess you started. anybody would have been and have the same result with the economy. republicans do what they do best -- give tax cuts to the rich and corporations. that's how you get your big national debt. guest: i appreciate you watching c-span and for turning in and for your passion. i always think it's interesting when people think history started in december of 2017. the tax cuts will save us from a lot of the problems we did inherit through massive spending with languishing economic growth for eight years under obama. in the united states history, prior to 2008, we had a trillion

dollars in total national debt. we double that. -- $8 trillion in total national debt. economic growth languished. it was often in the 1-2% area. history, we've had 3-4% economic growth. we need to return to that and make sure we have money back in the economy. corporations are these esoteric entities. they are human beings who own them. people who have ownership in stock and equity, whether it is a savings account or retirement account, the american people have ownership over these companies. we want to make sure those companies can create more wealth, more jobs, more opportunity to grow the economy. that's what we believe works. the american experiment has literally changed the world.

people pulled out of poverty, both being lifted, lifespans increasing around the world following the example of the model of what freedom and opportunity represent in this country. that's how we should govern. host: bridget in north carolina. caller: how you doing? guest: how are you? caller: i'm fine. --onder where the money where did that money come from? i don't understand where the money is coming from now with the bill you are talking about. guest: thank you for that question. if you are talking about the money we related to the order secured a bill -- border security bill, what is on the isle in this 200 page bill

funding for the rest of government that was not currently funded to date through september. i think it busts the caps by another $2 billion in non-border related spending. with moredealing spending for dhs and for trying to deal with the border. where that money comes from, right now, it comes from taxpayer money and the debt we keep racking up. by perpetually blowing past the caps, we are adding to the debt. it's coming from borrowing and coming from taxpayer dollars. as we look ahead to the 2020 fiscal year, we ought to get serious about balancing the budget and concerning the spending. dust constraining the spending. host: you are eventually going to have to vote for the bill. guest: we shouldn't be forced to do this. .e should pass a cr

i don't believe it doesn't up to secure the border. the funding level is basically where we were in the previous fiscal year, 2018 levels. it's not as good as the deals that were being discussed in december. the beds and judges and facilities are critical for dealing with humanitarian crisis at the border. roy: representative chip serves on the budget and oversight and reform committees. thank you for your time. it's been one year since the shooting in parkland, florida. areext to discuss where we as far as school safety is concerned, amy klinger. she will take your questions on the topic when "washington journal" continues. ♪

>> our live coverage of the funeral for michigan congressman john dingell continues today at 10:30 a.m. eastern. a funeral mass will be held at holy trinity catholic church in washington, d.c. speakers include president bill clinton, steny hoyer and john boehner. watch the funeral services for congressman john dingell,, live on c-span and c-span.org. or listen with the free c-span radio app. talkale street could received three oscar nominations for original score, best supporting actress and best adapted screenplay. we will discuss the movie based on the james baldwin novel with the washington post deputy local editor. >> i thought the film was visually beautiful. the thing that really sticks with you is just how lovely the

film is. writing really does deal with love, whether it's oneself, love, loving love between people and society, that is the overarching theme. a lot of people see him because he was so passionate and fighting for the rights of african-americans, sometimes, people mistake that forwashingt. is themy klinger cofounder and director programs for the a sum long. -- for the educator's school safety network. tell our viewers about your organization, what it does, how it is funded. guest: we are a national nonprofit. we work around united states.

we are unique in that we are a nonprofit and we come from an educational perspective. my background is 28 years of experience as an educator and an administrator. we come to the work of school safety from a variety of perspectives, but first from an education one. host: when it comes to the topic of overall school safety, particularly in light of school shootings as this day reminds us, where our schools generally one year later when it comes to improving how safe their schools are? guest: there are pros and cons. we can unpack them a little bit. clearly there is the tragedy that lingers and the other horrific acts that have happened. there of been tragedies in schools that were not related to an active shooter. we have had bus accidents, violent incidents. the work of school safety continues. the good news is, thanks to the

attention and scrutiny and even the activism of folks after parkland, i think we are doing a better job of looking critically at what we should be doing. i think we have given kids more permission to make disclosures and to talk about what they see. we have seen a big uptick in threats during the last school year. some of that is because of this willingness to disclose and to tell people what is concerning them that maybe was not there before. unfortunately, we also have seen a heavy emphasis on law enforcement based intervention and practices. we have spent a lot of time talking at schools but not a lot of time talking with them. we have been overlaying a lot of law enforcement sort of things with metal detectors and guns and sros and lots of other things. we have not focused as much, for my perspective, on the idea of prevention.

we are having conversations about active shooter's, as we should, but at the expense of looking at all of the other safety concerns that are much more likely to occur in a school than an active shooter. we have to achieve a better balance between what we need to look at law-enforcement wise but what we need to look at education wise? we do for prevention instead of focusing on response? we should not focus so heavily unjust active shooter response. by a bus inhit parking lot because we did not have adequate supervision. that is a tragedy. we need to do a better job of looking at all hazards will be at school safety. host: what is the approach when comes to prevention? what is a specific you can offer as a way of improving things? guest: one of the biggest things we advocate for that we are not seeing is providing direct training, ongoing, all hazards training to the people that are going to use it.

that is the educators in the field. the people in classrooms, the people working in schools are not getting the training they need. when they do get training, is typically active shooter only as opposed to all hazard and it is typically delivered from a law enforcement perspective instead of an educational perspective. that is not a knock on law enforcement, but a school is a unique setting. it has unique constraints and situations that we have to acknowledge. we cannot do the same thing that we would do in a shopping mall or hospital to secure a school or train the people there. it is about training for everyone, for students, for parents, for support staff, for educators. that is not happening. when it does, it is few and far between and usually not education based and almost always focused on active shooter instead of more likely events a school is going to face. host: from an educator's perspective, what would they offer as far as training is concerned verses from a law

enforcement perspective? guest: clearly, we need to do active shooter training. we need to know what to do about that particular most terrific of incidents. we also know there is an incredible rate of bomb threats and incidents in schools. we need to provide training to staff on how to recognize those things and how to respond to threats. we have a big uptick in all kinds of threats. we need training for educators and administrators and how to respond to threats, how to evaluate them, what they should be doing. we do not want hysteria and fear because that creates more threats. on the other hand, we have to respond. we also need training for educators in disclosures, how to get more kids to tell us what they know, to disclose the concerns they have and the things they know are coming or that are happening. it is important to provide staff with training on de-escalation, how to deal with aggressive

parents come out what to do with a violent intruder, how to de-escalate the situation with a student. we need to provide training and medical things as well. it is really looking at all the different things that in educators going to confront in their professional career, not necessarily on a daily basis, but pretty frequently, and giving us the tools and give abilities they need to do that, not just saying you need to wait for law enforcement to show up and they will take care of it. that is unfair to law enforcement and it is a dangerous situation to create in a school. if we do not know what to do for the five or six minutes it takes for law enforcement to arrive. for: our guest with us about a half hour to talk about school safety and crisis response. if you want to ask questions, we have divided the phone lines differently. educators, (202) 748-8000 if you are a parent or student, (202) 748-8002. lawou are a member of enforcement, that is (202)

748-8002. for all others, (202) 748-8003. most of those shooting threats, some of those bomb threats, is a big concern. at bomb threats as when someone he has indicated that they are going to have some sort of explosive device. we think that can possibly definitely think that cannot possibly happen but it does and we are underprepared for that. identify -- we have difficulty identifying specific items. our bomb threat protocols are not necessarily up to date. people do not have training and what to do. we look at threats that involve guns, or someone has a gun or brought a gun worth talking about some sort of shooting threat. that is prevalent. so far, when we compare last fall to this fall, that rate has stayed the same or gone slightly up.

we are not getting better in those areas, although there is a positive to that in the sense that at least we are continuing to hopefully get disclosures we do not have people ignoring things that may be in the past they would not have said anything about. speaks toed threat these vague threats of violence. sometimes the school or law enforcement does not divulge with the nature of the threat is, which i respect. appropriate and other times it is a generic, unspecified desire to do harm about any particulars about it. we have those to deal with too. schools are a tough situation. we cannot ignore threats. we cannot say that is probably just a threat. on the other hand, we cannot close school every time we have a threat. we are averaging 15 to 20 threats per day nationally. schools are impacted all the time. schools are trying to meet that sweet spot in the middle where

they are responding appropriately to the threats but not losing instructional time and consuming resources and creating anxiety and fear. that is a tall order, all of which they are doing with not enough training. host: your research highlights that before the park when shooting, the average was 7.2. after, 24.2. huge increaseas a after parkland. everyone assumed. we had kids that were saying something about a threat that was made in march that they would have ignored or not said anything about in january. that is part of -- if there's anything positive that can come out of these events -- it is that it raises an awareness and makes people understand it is ok to say something. if a school does not have a mechanism to do anything about it, kids are not going to say anything. one of the biggest reasons kids do not disclose his they do not think there is going to be

anything done about it. it is important for schools to have mechanisms in place, a variety mechanisms, not just a tip line or you can email us. the most effective way to get really good information and disclosures is by having a relationship based culture where kids feel someone cares about them. there is someone that is going to listen. it is safe to tell someone. even some vague, unsettling things that are not necessarily direct threats and someone will be interested and do something about it. that is a tall order for schools but something we must do. host: how just technology help, especially that last part? we have a story saying some students have access to an app that can anonymously let them report these concerns. do you see technology having more of a role? guest: technology helps us and hurts us. it is great we have that that kids can report anonymously, but we also know that more than half

of all threats come in through social media and they are passed on through social media and they become pervasive and passed around and take on a life of their own through technology and social media. it is important that we have these technological means to get threats or information from kids. if i have a statewide tip line, i am more likely to call that when i know base pacific threat of violence, someone has a knife, someone said they were going to shoot up a school. not going to call a statewide tip line because my friend nicole is acting withdrawn and strange. that kind of information i am more likely to disclose to a trusted adult in the school, someone i have a relationship with. we cannot just say we have an app, we do not have to worry about talking with kids. we have to have both things to be effective. host: we will start with lauren in alexandria, minnesota, republican line, and a parent. >> they talk about background

checks on guns. i think they need background checks on the fbi and law enforcement. they had all kinds of warning signs on this boy that needed help and they did not do it. that is my comments. we know not just in the tragedy at parkland but will we look back at most school shootings, there were warning signs in many cases. up to 80% of the time at least one adult or more was concerned about that individual. we know individuals who perpetrate school shootings engage in planning and preparation behaviors, anywhere from three months to a year before that happens. that is not just at parkland. that is looking back at our long history of the sort of events. that we have a means to connect the dots. we have to have multiple systems in place.

we have to have a law enforcement approach, to have a full approach. individuals are giving off warning signs and it is important that we are able to find them. that speaks to the notion of prevention but it is not enough to have a reporting mechanism. we also have to have a system in place to do something about it. not just say that is the person we are worried about. what are we going to do about it? we have to have those systems in place and those were multiple failures we saw in this horrific event. host: from west virginia. caller: hello. host: you are on. caller: good morning. what i'm wondering about is the effect of the illegal drugs. it is a huge burden on our economy. teachers and students. i am over 75 and when i was in

toool it was possible simply on aour name online statement that you were of age. host: nancy is in texas, and or.ocati what point we crossed the line in training the ?eachers in all aspects we have start tests. we have the assessments for school shooters. kindse to train for all of things that do not involve our actually educating the children. at what point is enough going to be enough? i know everything can be improved upon, but our days are so limited now.

sports, but how many days are they out for sports? i love debate and all that. raises a great point. that is that sort of dichotomy that schools are up against. is toimary function educate the kids and we need to spend professional develop a time and training and that. that is a valid point. that is what people went into the field for. we also have the harsh reality that our number one mission, our number one professional response is the safety of kids. fear and concerns -- their primary concern is the safety of the kids. --have to give equal rate wait to providing educators with the skills and capacities they need to respond.

all professional development in the world in your subject area does not help educators in the hallways of parkland trying to save kids' lives. that does not give me pleasure in saying but that is the reality. we need to train people in the way to save their lives and the lives of the children in their care. i wish we did not have to do it, but the reality is both of those skills and capabilities are important -- prevention, response, and the other things that go into the profession of being an educator. it is a tall order to be an educator. we have to give people the tools they need to be successful in the hand they are dealt, which is our society in 2019. host: off a putter, the goal is twitter, the time to ask what if is gone. another child will bring a gun to kill someone. someone must be there to stop the shooting. guest: that is a valid point.

we see so much of an emphasis on acts of control. we do not want anyone to come in the school. you need to be aware of who is coming in and what they are doing. 80 percent of the time or more, the perpetrator is already in the school. this bogeyman notion that there is someone out there is not typically what is happening. it is typically someone who is already in the school, who is affiliated somehow with the organization. we have to keep in mind, having someone in the school to respond is important in terms of a law enforcement officer, sro, whatever. they cannot be everywhere and do everything, no matter how big or small your school is. on one personnt magically being in the right place at the right time and see all the warning signs into everything necessary to ensure the safety of people. that is not going to happen and it is unfair to that one individual to say you need to keep everyone safe, to be everywhere and know everything.

we have to empower multiple people, all people within the organization. we have to empower and train so they are able to respond. some people maybe have more training. some people have different responsibilities. everybody that is in that building with the kid needs to know what to do, regardless of whether you have one sro, no sros, or 20 or a squad of police officers. everyone in that building needs to know what to do. host: with that go as far as arming a teacher? guest: from my perspective, no. there are lots of other things we can do that are more effective. my concern with arming teachers has nothing to do with my position on guns or political opposition or this whole raging debate about guns. let's start with what we can all agree on. nobody wants kids dying in schools. let's build from there. there are many things we can do about prevention, but disclosures come about training, about all of those things that

we can stack up and do before we ever get to a conversation about would it make sense to arm teachers. there is lots of evidence in lots of instances that demonstrate that is not going to be effective, that it creates additional hazards that outweigh -- theelihood specifically unlikely notion of actually having a shooter. it does not have to do with your position on guns. it has to do with the pragmatic notion of let's spend our time and energy and money on things most likely to occur. you are likely to have a medical emergency, do have aggressive students, to have issues with supervision, with kids that are engaging in risk-taking behaviors. if we look at that priority and start moving up, arming teachers goes far down in the scale of things we can spend our time and energy on. host: amy klinger with the educator's school safety network. she is the cofounder and

director of programs. next call is donald, a parent in illinois. problem -- the solution to the problem is to bulletproof. .etal detectors enough resource officers to do school. to protect the we protect airports, the white dose, anything that has to with making money, but we cannot protect our kids in schools. i understand the sentiment to that. that is reflective of the frustration people have of why are we still having this conversation. this april is the 20th anniversary of columbine. why are we still having these

things happen and these conversations? that raises a valid point, but we can make our schools bulletproof if we lock those kids in and never let anyone in and never let them move around and we want to have armed guards at every turn, we can do that. it is called a prison. there is a huge cost to that. how do we run schools in an educational way that provides a supportive environment for kids but does not treat them like inmates in a prison or that they are in acu should were under fire -- in a siege or under fire? there is research that shows how much learning is suppressed in an environment that is considered unsafe it also in an environment where we are punitive, authoritarian. we have metal detectors and someone watching every move you make. there is a cost to that and we are going to pay it and it does not necessarily prevent violence. there is some evidence that his guests -- that suggests more

authoritarian and prisonlike atmospheres are more likely. to have violence you're not going to get disclosures. you are not going to have a relationship based culture. teachers are not going to be trained to respond. we are instead in this lockdown state where we have everybody sequestered and we are watching everyone. we are doing surveillance instead of interaction with kids. we have to be careful that our frustration and fear does not lead us in a negative direction that is going to have significant unintended consequences for kids. host: from vermont, this is silas. caller: i have a question about disclosure. should teachers be brought in to doctor-patient relationships and be alert to medications that have known side effects of a hasn who is a teacher who

which identifies problems with side effects due to medications that were prescribed and causing different types of behaviors? guest: that raises a great point. we have a lot of kids who are medically fragile, court currently in school, who are in many -- on medications that you maybe would not have had 25 years ago. we do need to have conversations about balancing that individual's right to privacy and how do we involve the school and how does a teacher get information that they need to be able to manage the behavior of that child but still protect the confidentiality of that student? that is a medical concern that really goes beyond just school safety also in terms of academics and concerns like that. we know there is not a high correlation between medication and school shootings or violence

but we know we have kids with behavior issues and that teachers struggle to manage those behaviors. any kind of resources we can provide to teachers that would assist them in that way it's going to be a positive thing. that is an important conversation to have. students are part of what you'd need to reduce these incidents. how do you build that rapport with teachers and people within a school system that need to know information to keep things s from happening? guest: we see a lot of schools that are hesitant to talk to students and parents about safety issues and that is a mistake. students and parents need to be part of the conversation. they do not need to be intimately involved in every detail what we are going to do and those sort of things, but parents and students need to know what are we doing to prevent violence? what is their role? what can they do to assist? what do we need them to do and not do?

we also need to have this conversations with students and parents about response. what do we need you to do in these situations? what do we need you to not do? we need to have conversations about the use of technology during crisis events. it is not helpful to overwhelm the 911 phone system, to put 75 tweets out making allegations about what is happening that are not accurate. -- we need toe have conversations about what they can do, what is their role and responsibility in these particular situations. we need to talk to parents and students about outside of school. schools are a reflection of what is happening in society. we are forced to deal with it. need to have we conversations at social media and violence and violent videogames and all the different things that are happening influencing what is happening within the school and what parents can do to assist in that. i would love to see more

collaboration and communication between what is happening in the school and terms of safety and crisis response and planning and what is happening with students and parents. we make a mistake if the only people talking about safety and crisis prevention is the principal and law enforcement officer. those conversations need to be much more decentralized so that everybody understands. reasons parents have so much anxiety about school safety concerns, not just active shooter but others, is because they do not know what is happening. we have not clue them in. we have just said trust us instead of saying here's what we are doing. here's the training we are providing, the problems -- programs we are implementing. here is what i need you to talk to her students about, here is the vocabulary we use. this is the way -- this is what we say. this is what you do when there is a lockdown at the school. all kinds of important

conversations that tend to fall behind. before ancritical event occurs. host: an arizona parent. caller: good morning. it is not the government's problem. problem. the school's it is the parents. you're talking about minors. i do not talk to my children about my bills. they are minors. you're putting so much stress on these children. an arizona, babies die in cars because they forget their child. what does that say about a parent that the first thing they do not take out of a car is their child and then they do not even get arrested? the parents give the children the guns. put the parents in jail.

you raise an important point. this is a significant impact, the role of parents has a significant impact. i want to speak to your first part talking about anxiety and fear and students. when we have conversations about school safety with students, we should not be causing anxiety and fear. we should be mitigating that. there is a little bit of a test here. the know that violence has potential to occur in a school. if we refuse to talk about it, that causes anxiety and fear and that you are not safe here because we refuse to talk about potential for violence. it is interesting because we talk about the potential for a fire. we do tornado drills and talk about the potential for severe weather. we need to talk to kids in a develop mentally appropriate way, not a scary way. here is what we are going to do,

what you need to know how to do. that is a critical piece of what needs to happen. unfortunately, we see many schools to go overboard to the other extreme and they say we are going to do an unexpected drill and simulate gunfire and scream and rattle doors and we are not going to tell anyone this is a drill. that is an incredibly traumatic my ridiculous experience to put , forthrough for no reason no endgame. -- did not get any and if it you did not get any benefit. we need to have conversations with kids that are developmentally appropriate that talk about safety and provide them with the reassurance they need that we will protect them. we will take care of them. we know what to do. that does not cause anxiety and stress. that decreases anxiety and stress. we have to have an involvement

of students but it has to be in the right way. host: our guest is the author of a book, keeping students safe every day. what is the book about? guest: the book provides an awareness overview of all the issues of school safety. we talk about active shooter's and lockdowns but also all the other components of school safety that often fall to the side and do not get dealt with. we talk about parents and threat assessment management and how we can identify a threat and manage individuals of concern. that is a huge piece that has not come into the conversation yet here and nationally is the idea of the prevention. we spend a lot of time talking about prevention and we also talk about simple, low cost strategies. there is so much we can do. the book came from the frustration we have had from people saying this is just the hand we are dealt. schools are the way schools are this is the way it is.

that is not the case. going to want people school with their fingers crossed going i hope nothing bad happens today and thinking that is the only thing they can do is hope for the best. in reality, there is so much that every person, student, parent, educator, administrator, support staff, communicator -- there is so much everybody can do. in the book, we try to look at that big picture of what could we all be doing? i feel it is an optimistic book that empowers people. these are things we can do. it doesn't have to be like this. host: this is connie in michigan. caller: thank you for taking my call. i think educators have a responsibility to the students to realize that racism is taught , that racism needs to be removed from curriculum. it needs to teach that there is

one race, not many. we are one race, the human race. this generation has a chance to change. how future generations act and respond when racism occurs. like a fire drill, you should be prepared. alarm,meone pulls the they should understand why and what they could have done. maybe they could have put that fire out before putting everyone into panic mode. teachare educated, if we -- and i'm not saying just teachers are responsible. parents are as well because it is a taught response. host: thanks, caller. guest: i do not to speak to the racism thing because that is not what we are talking about here. i do not want to comment either way, but i think one of the things i hear you saying is that one piece of school safety is this notion of creating a safe and supportive environment in our schools so that kids feel

safe, they feel accepted, they feel like they belong. that sense of belonging and connectedness is crucial in violence prevention. when we look at schools with high rates of violence, it is typically a school where kids do not feel it they belong. they do not feel they are valued, that anyone cares about what they are doing. it is interesting that you can see that manifested in supervision. if you think of a teacher doing supervision in a hallway or cafeteria, when the supervision is standing against a wall staring at kids like i am waiting for you to do something or standing there looking at your phones saying as long as you are not beating each other i'm not interested -- that sends a clear message to kids about how they are valued and what kind of relationships take place in the school. a simple shift of that teacher standing up, walking through the cafeteria, mingling with the kids, listening to what they are saying, talking to them and

interacting, developing relationships. that 15 minutes of active supervision will yield a lot of good information about what is happening. it will give you information about potential threats and perhaps most significantly it sends a significant message to kids about their value. that i value you. i'm interested in you. i want to talk to you. you can talk to me. that is an important message that we need to send to all kids. host: amy klinger is with the educator's school safety network. schoolsafety.org is the website. what can be done in the federal level as far as improving the situation? guest: one of my frustrations since parkland and before is the lack of an education voice in this discussion. when something happens, on television, you will see lots of talking heads who are security based or politicians who will talk about what is wrong with

schools and what schools need to do and those sorts of things but you will not see an education voice. you will have commissions and have forces that will not educators. educators need a seat at the table and a voice in this and so far they've not gotten it. we have given it to law enforcement and not loud -- allowed educators to help solve this problem and they need to be intimately involved. they need to be the majority of discussion, not one single person. host: we will have to leave it at that. thank you for your time. we now go to the house rep is in it of [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] tempore: pursuant to the order of the house of january 3, 2019, the chair will now recognize members from lists submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning hour debate. the chair will alternate recognition between the parties. all time shalleq