government shutdown. wilson center hosts a conversation on the u.s.-mexico-canada trade agreement. we will hear from the director of the white house office of science and technology on the advancement of american science. on c-span2 at 10:00 a.m., stacey will talk about race and political power at the brookings institution. at noon, a look at u.s. relations with north and south korea and the possible outcome of the upcoming summit between president trump and kim jong-un. thewsuit claiming affordable care act individual mandate is unconstitutional. coming up in an hour, the heritage foundation discusses the trump administration economic record and the impact of the 2017 tax law. the 2017 tax law. at 8:45, eugene mulero discusses

prospects for a major infrastructure deal. at 9:15, john larson talks about his legislation to perform and expand social security. [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] [video clip] >> on this boat, the ays are 300 nays are, -- and the 28. the congress has adopted. host: the house followed the senate approving a $333 billion spending package to keep the federal government open. the president is expected to sign the deal which includes $1.4 billion for the border wall, but not the $5.7 billion he demanded. the president is then going to declare a national emergency on the southern border in order to build all of his promised wall. we will begin with your reaction to the president using emergency

powers on the southern wall. republicans, 202-748-8001. democrats, 202-748-8000. 202-748-8002. you can join us on twitter @cspanwj or go to facebook.com/cspan. the president will make the announcement and sign the bill at 10:00 a.m. eastern. we will have coverage on that on c-span. we want to get your thoughts before that happens. tell washington what you think of this idea of declaring a national emergency along the southern border. this is how the speaker of the house reacted yesterday. [video clip] doing aroundent is about congress and the power of the purse, article one, the legislative branch. the power of the purse, the power to declare war, many other powers listed in the constitution and, of course, a responsibility to have oversight.

we will review our options. we will repair to respond -- prepared to respond to it. i know republicans have unease regardless of what they say. the president had -- can declare emergency on something he has created as an emergency. think about what a president with different values. you want to talk about the national emergency, let's talk about today, the one-year anniversary of another manifestation of the epidemic of gun violence in america. that is a national emergency. why don't you declare that emergency? i wish you would. a democratic president can declare emergencies as well. the president the president is setting is something that should be met with great unease and dismayed by republicans. host: the president is using the

1976 national emergencies act to declare this emergency. it says in that law the president has complete discretion to declare an emergency. he must specify which powers he intends to use. he then reports to congress every 6 months on emergency related costs and emergencies must be renewed. congress can end an emergency by passing a joint resolution. house emma kratz, led by -- democrats led by the democrat of new york yesterday saying he told a reporter at politico the house would bring a resolution of disapproval to try to terminate the national emergency. if that fails in the senate or is vetoed, house democrats will sue. more to come on this. that last point of the 1976

national emergency act is important because democrats say they will bring a resolution to the floor. it is likely to pass in the house and senator mitch mcconnell on the phone yesterday with the president according to -- according to the report told the president it would pass in the senate and then it would require the president to veto it . that would go back to the house and senate and require a two thirds vote to override his veto which newspapers say is likely democrats would have the vote for that. what is your reaction to this idea this morning? let's go to calls. kat in baltimore, a democrat. caller: good morning. i think what he is trying to do it,ave his cake and eat too. he's trying to appease the majority of the american public by passing congress' resolution, but also trying to please ann coulter anna sean

hannity and his base by declaring a national emergency. a moot point because the ranchers are going to court, i heard there is a butterfly sanctuary that will take him to court and this will get tied up in courts for years and the wall is never going to happen. by that time, he will be long out of office. it's a big mess. host: how do you think democrats should respond? know.: i don't i think put pressure on him, increase public pressure so folks call their congressmen and senate leaders. hopefully with enough pressure, something will happen. every day i wake up and i don't know what is going to happen that day. host: going to ike next in

arkansas, independent. good morning. ike, you are on the air. ike in arkansas. , one last call. caller: can you hear me? host: yes, we can. what do you think about the president declaring a national emergency? caller: i could not agree more. life for all of ann coulter's book. i would give my life for her and the president. the very first day in school i said let's write on what happened this weekend. one of the papers in 1970, 10,000 people coming across the was in they and i park. i heard a man the other day mining.he was for the we don't have to worry so much

the people trying to come into the united states, the mind party would blow the dickens out of them. host: all right. ike's thoughts in arkansas. the president according to politico, shocked the gop with his emergency declaration. they have plenty of quotes from people like senator chuck grassley of iowa who says he wished he would not do it. marco rubio calling it a good -- bad idea. you also have tweets from republicans as well. senator susan collins saying she disagrees with this idea, putting out a statement declaring a national emergency would be a stake on the part of the president. i don't believe the national emergencies act contemplates a president unilaterally out -- reallocating billions of dollars already designated for specific purposes outside of the normal appropriations process.

towas intended to apply major national disasters or catastrophic events such as attacks on our country on 9/11. it susan collins, republican of maine disapproving and senator rand paul also tweeting i am disappointed with the massive, bloated secretive bill that passed with the president's intention to declare an emergency with intention to build a wall. tweet from bill kristol, republican commentary and he tweeted out some video -- 2014 ofmike pence mike pence criticizing president obama for that. [video clip] >> i think it would be a profound mistake for the president to overturn immigration law with the stroke of a pen. issues of this magnitude should

always be with the consent of the governed. it is not leadership. i would implore the president to reconsider this path and to demonstrate the kind of leadership the american people long to see, that this administration would sit down with this newly minted republican congress and find genuine common ground, border security, there is a series of piece by piece reforms i believe could be advanced in this congress that would be of long-term interest to the american people on this issue. host: that is bill kristol's finding video from our c-span 2014.y from you can go in our library and search for video and different events. headline that the president back in 2014 once

called as beckett of action -- called executive action dangerous, unconstitutional, and impeachable. there are republicans in supporting the idea. one of the negotiators for the spending deal agreed to last night, the government funding deal makes a significant down bordert on potus' security goal. i plan to support the national security -- emergency declaration. this legislation did not address the humanitarian and security crisis on our southern border and left president trump with no other option then to declare a national emergency, which i support. do all of you support it? let's go to barney in florida, a republican. caller: yes, i support it. host: why? caller: when the democrats get in there, we can declare a national emergency on gun laws. --t: that is actually

exactly the point speaker of the house nancy pelosi made. caller: that is something we really need. all these high capacity magazines, let a democratic president get in there and declare a national emergency on guns. host: do you think they should do that? caller: yes. host: that is the point nancy pelosi made and others are making in the papers as well. the opinion pages, editorial board of the wall street journal saying trump's political emergency and i note -- they note if climate change will end life as we know it in 12 years, why not impose part of the green new deal? no one believes more than we do the president needs flexibility to move with dispatch during wartime, but congress must appropriate money for public purposes. lucky if this

emergency declaration does not end the same way. matt in maryland, a democrat. what do you think? caller: how are you doing today? host: good morning. ander: as far as i knew nancy pelosi has said over and over and over again that there is no money going to this wall and i don't know why the media insists on projecting it this way. what is it money -- -- the $1 billion going to the going,hey said it wasn't she was not putting money toward a wall. i wanted to clarify that. this is criminal. he is stealing the money that is supposed to be going to puerto

rico, california. i bet if these workplaces that voted for him, they would not be take -- he would not be taking it from them. this seems criminal to me. host: robert, independent. what do you think? caller: i think he should veto this bill and declare a national emergency. the bill they are handing him is nothing but him signing catch and release opening the borders. the point of the illegal immigrants crossing into our wantry, the democrats these illegals coming in here so they can saturate the country and take over, completely control the electoral college. if you take the electoral votes on the southern border, that is 54 electoral votes plus california, that is 55. that is what this is about. that's why they don't want any

border control, they want to saturate that for electoral votes. the other reason they want to do that, they want to return the southern border, the southern area back to mexico because the evil white man stole all the land from the immigrants from the mexicans. that is what this is all about. that is why they don't want the stuff stopped. trump has the right, he has the law on his side and good luck stopping him. host: let's return to the law, the 1990's -- 1976 emergencies act. the motivation behind it, this was post watergate. congress was attempting to pull back the president's emergency powers put in place in the 1950's. what they discovered were there were 470 statutes granting the president special powers in times of crisis and acted by

1976. at that point in 1976, there were 470 statutes granting the president special powers. they set up a special committee and the committee found these statutes conferred enough authority to rule the country without reference to normal constitutional process. what they decided to do with the 1976 national emergencies act was limit the emergency powers and as we showed earlier, the president has the discretion to declare an emergency, but he must specify which powers he will use and report to congress. congress can end an emergency by a joint resolution which house democrats say they are going to do. mike in north carolina, a republican. caller: good morning. watch alls amazing to this, the this ingenuous nest -- disingenuousness. i support the president.

he has got the constitutional authority as the leader of the executive branch of government. he is tasked as commander-in-chief to protect the nation. above all, that is his primary job. let's get that out of the way. he has got the authority to do this. it is not about whether he can or whatever. democrats don't like his solution. .econd point, there is an issue there is a national emergency and crisis on our southern border. i am 63 years old. we have got an issue in this country with unsecured borders. all the talks about borders are secured, it doesn't add up. the numbers might be down currently, but that doesn't matter. it's just like the price of oil. the price of oil is down, let's

wait five or 10 years, it will go back up. the way the people come across the border varies. the caravans, we've got 20 million in illegal aliens plus or -$5 million. we don't even know. that tells you we have got a problem. we don't even know who is running around our country. they are not checked like my grandparents were that came to ellis island. they don't have sponsors. there is a crisis. i don't see how you cannot identify there is a problem. we had two migrant children dragged through the deserts of mexico. if they had done that in the united states, their kids would have been taken away from them. we put parents in jail for leaving kids and dogs in their cars at the supermarket parking lot. they show up at the border with sick children and hand them over

to customs and border patrol and they die after customs and border patrol try to resuscitate them and give them medical attention. humanf drugs, trafficking, narco gangs all happening along the border. i lived in colorado and arizona, i saw it firsthand. that being all said, the amount of money we are talking about, $5 billion -- $5 billion was incredibly reasonable. it is politics. we spend $12 million a day running this country. the amount of money he requested for a reasonable request to extend the policies of prior presidents and administrations. we already have walls, we already have fences. we have people on the border. he is not pulling this out of thin air. he is basically saying let me continue to do the job that past presidents and administrations

have done. i want to shore up the order wall, add some more. i want to decrease the areas where migrants are trying to cross stretches of deserts and dying. they are dying. we want to try our best to route them through ports of entry. host: i am going to leave it there. new york times, critics note the number of people crossing the border illegally is far lower than it was a generation ago. the new phenomenon of the caravans of migrants consist largely of families who present themselves to border officials and request asylum rather than trying to go deeper into the interior on their own. most illegal drugs are smuggled in through ports of entry and there has been no instance in the modern era of a terrorist attack on domestic soil committed by someone who sneaked in across the southern border with mexico. that on the table. paul in wisconsin, democrat.

caller: i don't agree with trump's national declaration. i think it is all about racism. to -- people up, go get the brown people, the people you don't like. is,s all racism, is what it if you want my opinion. mexico is a friendly country, we don't need a border all the way across mexico. it is not like they are our enemy. to -- of his base and all his racist republican -- that is what the gop is, one big racist hate party. that is what it is. host: paul in wisconsin. the measure that passed the senate and then the house, the sevenillion package had spending bills in it and the washington post -- mike says

this is also what is in the legislation, $1.4 billion for the new border barriers, more technology, port infrastructure, customs and border protection officers, the most money that has been invested in the agencies in this legislation. i.c.e. the tension capabilities on how many people they could detain, arguing they needed to focus on criminals. other government agencies, a federal pay raise which reverses a pay freeze instituted by the trump administration last year. it increased money for the census, $1 billion increase in the census bureau funding. there are no poison pills on issues. negotiators largely sidestepped -- on gunrejecting

policy, democrats rejected a gop proposal preventing the justice department from tracking certain sales of multiple guns to the same person. what is not in the bill? back pays for federal contractors was not included, the angst engine -- extension of the violence against women act is not included and disaster aid, lawmakers from both parties pushed to include billions of dollars for victims of hurricanes, wildfires. negotiators opted to leave the aid off the bill. the bill broke down this way, 213 democrats and 87 republicans voted yes. 19 democrats voted no along with 109 republicans. that in the house. on the senate side, 16 senators voted no, 11 republicans, and five democrats including

presidential contender senators --y booker, jell-o brand, brand, brand -- gilli lamala harris not voting for this -- kamala harris not voting for this. the president says he will sign and is also declaring a national emergency. c-span for our coverage. in chicago, independent. good morning to you. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. caller: i just wanted to of ust, but i am so sick as americans being separated into lumps of categories left, right, republican, democrat, independent and being coerced, forced into giving opinions on

these three to four issues -- let's call it five to six issues, this being one of them every four years while the root of the problems never get fixed. like education continues to go unchecked. we have citizens talking about $1 billion, $4 billion, $6 billion as if it is nothing, rounding errors. on one hand, we have people billion, 4illion, $2 billion dollars are rounding errors on the other hand we feel so sorry people who were not paid with the federal dollars when the government was shut down not making hundreds of dollars are destitute and have nothing. on the one hand we are like, they are not getting paychecks and they have nothing and on the other hand we are like a billion dollars is a rounding error. we have half of america acting like there is no security at all

on the border like there are not americans working the border every single day and the other half is acting like there is no immigration issue at all. i am sick of focusing on these three to five issues while bills and laws are being passed every day we don't talk about that affect our lives, drain our tax dollars and don't get allocated to the root cause and concerns and we follow the shiny ball. we focus on a single person, whoever the president is at the moment, insert name here, trump, obama, bush, and we fail to look at the government as a whole. we are bad bosses. i am ready for us to be sick of this. host: an independent in chicago. kurt in montana, republican. caller: hi. .ood morning to you i guess my thoughts are i think

there is just so much political bias in this that the whole point of what i guess -- the whole point in securing the border really comes down to if something happens in this thesey to where -- and terrorists come across the border and they are able to do something in this country somewhere that really is a terrible thing, the conversation on this whole thing would change for a little while and it would be right back the way it is right now. the thought of -- i am in favor of securing the border. i don't care what party it is and i am also in support of a wall. of the thing that bothers me the most is all the time we have talked about the democrats are calling it a racial thing and anybody that believes that has got to be from some other

country. the problem being that not too long ago, i think it was 2013 is when the $25 billion was approved by all these democrats now who don't even want to pass a $1.4 billion. there are so many stipulations, i doubt if he could use it. why don't we look at it and the fact that if it was your children that got murdered by an you would berant, supporting the wall. it is as simple as that. the people that won't support it, it won't come down to anything more than this is a political thing for 2020. when it happens to a person -- things are different. it bothers me the democrats will not even meet with families that have lost loved ones to this. .t is bizarre

i think this needs to be looked at in a sense of protecting american citizens first. int: kurt's thoughts montana. the new york times notes the president would be able to forcate about 8 billion barriers -- $8 billion for barriers in the plan would combine money included in the spending package for funding with funds he can diverge from this programs by declaring national emergency. that is the plan. mo brooks, the congressman from alabama spoke out in favor of the president declaring a national emergency on the floor last night. here is what he had to say. [video clip] >> america invaded iraq and afghanistan based on 9/11 terrorist attacks that killed .oughly 3000 people in response, america spent

trillions of dollars and lost thousands of lives in military afghanistan.aq and while 9/11 was horrific, 9/11 deaths pale in comparison to hundreds of thousands of americans who are dead or will die over the years because of illegal alien homicides and overdoses caused by deadly drugs poorestacross america's southern border. a minimum of 50 americans die each day we delay securing our southern border. that is a minimum of 15,000 dead americans each year. that death rate easily justifies a presidential declaration of a national emergency. 58fact, not one of the national emergency is declared by a president since 1979 is

supported by a worse death rate or threat to america than american lives. extraordinaryn weak and conflicted congress is of no help. this congress is a hindrance. as such, i urge president trump as america's commander in chief to invoke title 10 united states code section 284, declare a national emergency and use every other authority statutorily and constitutionally he possesses to direct the military to secure our southern border, build a wall, and protect and save american lives. host: congressman mo brooks on the floor yesterday talking about his support for the president to declare an emergency saying many have been done in the past. according to abc, these are the recent national emergencies. president trump declaring and a18 the violence in nicaragua

national emergency as well as preventing foreign interference .n the 2018 election president obama in 2015 declared chinese cyber attacks, russian invasion of ukraine, the threat of somali pirates as national emergencies and george w. bush declared the threat of nuclear weapons in north korea as well as the september 11 terrorist attacks as national emergencies to give you an idea of what previous presidents have done. congress can end an emergency bypassing a joint resolution. jerry nadler says that is what they are going to do in the house, they are going to bring a resolution to the floor opposing this national emergency and he said according to rachael bade of politico that if that fails in the senate or the president were to veto it, they will sue the president. the new york times notes mr.

mcconnell, the majority leader was on the phone with the president yesterday and said -- he told the president he expects house will pass a resolution terminating it in a form the republican leader cannot block from a floor vote in the senate chamber. at least five or six republican senators expected to vote against the president and potentially forcing mr. trump to veto it. mr. mcconnell said he warned mr. trump he has less than two weeks to try to persuade wavering republicans to support his national emergency effort otherwise he will face the prospect of a bipartisan rebuke by congress. the washington post has more color on yesterday cost that can forth. it was not clear whether the president was going to sign this $330 billion packet. the washington post says the majority leader was on the phone with the president at least three times during the course of

the nerve-racking day pressing him to stay the course and asserting democrats had lost the spending site according to two people familiar with the discussions. shirley, an independent. your senator, susan collins thinks this national emergency is a bad idea. what do you think? caller: i think she is right. i think this is all played out like a big drama and i think the president just seems to always want his own way and he will go to any measure to get that, to get what he wants and if he does not get it, he is going to declare an emergency. there is an emergency in this country right now. i am the five. i have never been -- i am 65. i have never been so poor. i cannot pay my bills, i cannot

eat. there is nothing helping the american people right now and if they want to guide the border, they should think about -- guard the border, they should take care of the people there because they are our sister allies. america,ng happens in we don't need a border, we need our allies and canada doesn't do that. why doesn't he go after canada? for all he knows, drugs are coming in through the canadian border. it is just a whole bunch of excuses as far as i am concerned and when i see my friends and my children and grandchildren struggling just to pay the bills, pay the rent, eat and then he wants this money for a border, you cannot eat a border. you cannot live in a border. there are vets, the homeless.

there was a homeless veteran, it was freezing cold, raining sleet -- i should say. this man was under a blue tarp because he had no place to go. i don't get what mr. trump sinks because it is all for him, it is his ego at the top of everything . i think the people that have told the american people what is going on like julian assange and all --, i think they reality winner, i think they all told the truth and they put whistleblower laws so nobody can hear what is really going down in america. host: i am going to move onto mary in south carolina, a democrat. caller: good morning. i don't agree with what the president is doing, he is

setting a bad example for future presidents. he cannot just go and declare an emergency for a wall when these people are trying to come to this country for asylum because their country is dangerous for them to live in. mexicans are not flowing over like they did years ago and that visast a slow, that was and different things they overstated. it's not just mexicans, other people from other parts of the world. he doesn't know what he is talking about. republicans don't know what they are talking about because the wall that he wants to build is not going to help. the thing going on right now is there is a lot of hate going on against people trying to come over here the right way as possible. these people is caged up like animals. it's a shame the way the united states has begun a -- become a

hate country and don't want to help people. it is wrong. host: a conservative magazine website says will regret this. he writes the simple fact is that failing to get the budget you want from congress isn't a national emergency regardless of how much you invoke national security and talk about invasion and it is obvious most of the people cheering the news are not relieved a pressing national security threat is about to be averted, they are cheering because they see this as political triumph for the president. the lack of political triumph for a president isn't a national emergency. democrats could use this as well. he is setting a precedent for president ash emma kratz to say the green new deal is needed or something on climate change as well as declaring a national emergency on guns and other issues. patricia, a republican. good morning. caller: what i would like to say

to the president immediately is he needs to stop the mexican truck drivers being able to come in here and delivering their product. one thing nancy pelosi is right about is the drugs are coming through the port of entry. that was allowed in 2011 when they basically started that pilot program. it used to be american truck drivers brought in all the product from mexico and that changed in 2011. the president should pay attention to that. what i would like to say is what life is like in san diego. i hear the environmentalists talking about we should worry about that, let me tell you about the impact. i have lived here for 35 years. the average apartment is $2000 a month for two bedrooms. a house in a decent neighborhood $650,000.um of why? because there is a civil war in mexico. 2500 people were killed in

tijuana in 2018 compared to 1700 because that war between the cartels and everything is going on. and people who live there, the middle class have to come here for their safety. i am telling you the politicians know this. i am also telling you -- in my own neighborhood, there have been kidnappings. not americans, but definitely some mexican nationals who have made this area there residents. you all should tell people that teachers in san diego have to go to training now on how to recognize kids that might be human traffic. host: what do you think lawmakers should do? caller: i think maybe they should recognize we have a vet allproblem, that -- these people coming over. if you are a family coming over

with kids, you automatically get amnesty. they have the poison pen -- that is the term i have been hearing, things in this bill. it doesn't matter what trump does. they hate him so much, they don't care about america. when i hear they don't want ice -- they want a law enforcement agency to be defunded question mark you have to wonder whether or not these people are on the cartel payroll. mexico was a great country, but they have totally given into the cartels. they are the business model in mexico. carl, white house correspondent for abc tweeting out a scoop last night that the department of justice warned the white house and emergency declaration is nearly certain to be blocked by the court on at least a temporary basis, preventing immediate implementation of the president's planta pay for the wall. the white house believes they can ultimately win on an appeal.

that is from the doj to jonathan carl. the wall street journal notes this is likely to go to the courts and what they say is the plaintiffs will likely find some federal judge to enjoin the emergency declaration and the ninth circuit court of appeals may agree if the supreme court doesn't step into let the president proceed, mr. trump will be stymied well into 2020. if he loses in court, mr. trump will have heard his standing and the power of his successors. obama whene fault of he took political shortcuts. mr. trump could find himself running for reelection having lost his wall in court and congress. bob in kentucky, independent. do you think the president to declare a national emergency? caller: yes. thanks for taking my call. i believe 100% because i am 80

years old and this is the first patriot president i have ever seen. if trump tries to wait for the democrats to do anything, he is spitting in the wind. -- one time i was a democrat they are not the democrat party of old. they have lost their way. they are the traitorous party with all of them sanctuary cities and all that. emergencya national at the same time, i hope these mayors of these sanctuary cities are tried for treason. host: william barr is the new attorney general the senate approved 54-45 and he was a mealy sworn in at the oval office yesterday. that was closed to the press,

but they released pictures. here is mike noller, white house correspondent with cbs, doj post the white house photos of chief justice john roberts swearing in william barr as the 85th u.s. attorney general as president trump looks on. the first order of business for mr. barr is a major decision on what to tell the public about the results of the mueller investigation. balance the public's appetite desiresrmation and the of a president unlikely to be satisfied with anything other but -- anything other but -- anything other than total exoneration. joel, a democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. host: do you think the president to declare a national emergency? caller: no. even starting to build the wall right now, i was in construction, not concrete

construction, steel, it would take over 10 years to build that wall. it's not going to stop planes from flying over it. it's not going to stop boats from going around it. thebiggest thing that illegals are here is because they overstay their visas. concentrate on that, not guarding the desert. host: the president will make this announcement the white house is saying at 10:00 a.m. eastern time and that will be live on c-span, c-span.org and you can listen with the c-span radio app, he is expected to sign the spending agreement that includes seven spending bills for a price tag of $333 billion and then declare a national emergency. 10:00 a.m. eastern time here on c-span or listen with the free c-span radio app. let's go to diane in north carolina, a republican.

good morning. caller: how are you? host: doing fine. go ahead. caller: yes. comet wanted to ask how everybody hates president trump so bad? look at what we had the last years, that did nothing. he has done more in two years than they did in 16 years during i didn't like him to begin with, but i think he is doing a great job and i support him immensely to have that wall built. we don't need no more mexicans in here. host: you sound like you don't like them -- you just don't like mexicans. why is that? caller: because i lived down in colorado. host: you are saying all mexican

immigrants are bad? caller: yes, they are. host: you have no evidence of that. caller: i know what i saw and what i remember. i am 75 years old. host: cj in baton rouge, louisiana, independent. caller: good morning. to whentop referring illegal murders or rapes on american -- can we refer to them andelosi-schumer murders rapes? can we start doing that? go to mexico,cans guatemala, nicaragua, wherever and murder people and rape people?

could you give me a number of how many? host: does that happen in the united states by american citizens? caller: yes, ma'am, but we are born here. that's like somebody coming to your house, walking into your house and sits down on your couch and watches tv with you and then gets up and urinates on your rug. would you like that? host: cj in baton rouge. wendy in florida. hi, wendy. here we go, wendy. good morning. caller: hello. yes. mix.e put something in the something isn't being put out in the media and americans should know it, but they don't. congress gets at least two to four reports a year and have gotten these reports for 40

years when these problems are going on and not being fixed by congress. they are derelict, they have been derelict for 30 years. they know what is going on on the border. that wemost treasonous do not hold congress, which is the main body that protects this country. we do not hold them accountable and some of these people in congress have been up there 20 plus years. nobody can say they don't know what is going on and they have refused to fix it. it is just insane to me that america does not demand more from these people they put up there. it's almost like we should all be voting for everyone in congress because we all are being literally punished by these people elected in these other states, especially blue states that will not protect

everyone in this country. host: we have about 10 minutes left in this conversation. debbie wasserman schultz went to the floor last night to oppose a national emergency on the southern border. here is what she had to say. [video clip] >> i cannot stay silent on the president's threat to declare a national emergency. in this runaround congress is a craven act built on lies and distraction. the president would steal funds we use to support our brave young soldiers just to pay for an agent -- ancient monument. our nationalegrade security to steal his way to hit -- his totem to vanity and hate. wants toresident compromise our military with his tinpot authoritarian tactic, he will have to come through this congress to do it. host: that was debbie wasserman

schultz saying he will have to come through congress for the national emergency because under the 1976 national emergencies to, congress has the ability end an emergency bypassing a joint resolution. if that comes to the floor, which democrats say they will do and go to the senate and mitch mcconnell, majority leader warning the president on the phone according to reports in the newspaper that it would pass in the senate and it would be up to the president to veto it. congress would need two thirds to override a veto which newspapers say there are not the votes to do that. but hear from robert in missouri. an independent. caller: good morning, greta. how are you doing this morning? host: i am doing well. caller: that's great. i am a vietnam veteran. aonce great american said nation divided against itself

cannot stand. american oncet might.at right makes life, iy 55 years of have seen colonialism fail, nationalism fail -- communism, socialism, communism all failed during my 55 years of life. the reason each of these people fail is they forgot the number one principal god gave moses on the mountain. democracy is the greatest philosophy. democracy principles are what made this country strong.

host: i am going to leave it there, difficult to hear you this morning. let's move to estelle in texas. caller: hi, thank you. they are calling this a manufactured crisis. i want people to know how i have been affected by these crises. she was sitting in the back of the classroom on the floor while an immigrant that could not speak english was sitting in her seat. she had to give her desk up for this girl to sit when she had no idea what they were trying to teach her. in 1984, i worked for a citrus group that grew citrus and grapes. i am handing out payroll checks and i come across my dead brother's social security number

. i went on a hunting trip in the desert 25 miles from the border in california. in the middle of the night, someone is pulling on my camper door. i looked out and open the door these i sic my dog on mytards trying to break into motorhome. she kept them distracted while i got my gun and i guarantee you they have bullets in between their legs and the tip of their ears. host: in glendale, california, independent. caller: good morning. i think this problem of illegal immigration is all caused because there is work here. people come here because there is work here. they should penalize the hire thesewho

people. they cannot stop them from coming because there is work here. american drugs, the pharmaceuticals and dispensaries are doing a fine job supplying this country with all kinds of drugs. as far as murders, american people are doing a fine job murdering their own people. i think none of this is going to peopleless they penalize from hiring these immigrants cheape they enjoy the rates of labor and long after the wall is built, they will .till keep coming for work you have to take the incentive out of this.

that is my opinion. thank you very much. host: we had a conversation on the washington journal about e-verify. and we go to our website had a one-on-one conversation about what it is in its history. ray in massachusetts, democrat. caller: hi, greta. how are you doing? host: i am good. caller: i haven't talked to you in a while. i am interested in why republicans did not do their thing when they had the ability. they had the house, the senate, they had no interest in getting a wall. why didn't they do it? host: that is a point some were making. why wasn't it a crisis when republicans had control of the house and the senate? is a crisis -- if there was a crisis, donald trump has been in office two years, aen he came in, there was

prices prayed all of a sudden there is not a crisis when nancy pelosi is in charge. if you want to get all the brown people out of the united states, that is fine. it's all white people, norway can be here, it's all about the color. this guy is never going anywhere, he is a terrible president. host: ray in massachusetts. paul is a republican in pennsylvania. caller: good morning. host: good morning. we are listening, paul. caller: you are getting some real good ones this morning. the woman earlier complaining about money and if we put the wall up, we won't have all these people coming across illegally that we have to pay for to house and take care of and have doctors and stuff. the other thing is the

separation of the children. -- a big dealhe about that. if they are even the parents bringing the kids, you take an american woman and have her start walking across the country and children's services will take her kid away so quick it will make your head spin. host: james, chicago, independent. you are on the air. caller: hello. pass along would mandatory one year in prison $500,000 fine for anyone that hired an illegal alien, i believe it would stop. host: okay, james chicago. james in charlotte, a democrat. good morning to you. caller: yes. why doesn't america do something about kids killing kids in this country?

there has got to be more of that is mexicansn there killing people. host: you think democrats, if they get power of the white house they should declare a national emergency on violence? caller: yes, on gun control. host: gun control. james inost: charlotte, tennessee, democratic caller. the headlines on this this morning, we will start with the washington post. the emergency pledged as budget deal advances. the new york times frames it this way, president to call emergency to get funding for the wall. in wall street journal this morning, trump to call border -- trump to call and border emergency to da,. a democrat. hi, david. caller: good morning. i'm on a to point out that the

idea of the wall is to prevent central american immigration committee are not building it in the middle of a river or along the side of the river. it is probably at least a mile or so. tryingentral americans to get across and into the country, all they have to do is get across the river and they are in texas. and there are still a mile away from the actual fence. all they have to do is stand there and wait for border patrol to pick them up, so it will not serve the perverse for which it is intendant. intended.-- the other point is that a national emergency gives power to seizeesident the land along the border privately held by texans. we are not much on the government coming in taking things from us here in texas.

republican politicians better perk up and pay attention. greta: we live you with his comments. coming up, the heritage foundation's stephen moore discusses the trump administration's economic record and the impact of the 2017 tax law. and later on, a senior congressional reporter, eugene mulero, talks about the prospects for a major infrastructure deal. but first, john dingell was laid to rest yesterday in washington. 1955rved congress since until 2015. the remarks yesterday by those who attended the service were president clinton, his colleagues in the house, steny hoyer and john lewis, and you can see the flags at half staff of the capitol this morning.

john lewis, democrat from georgia, delivered remarks about his memory of john dingell. here is what he had to say. rep. lewis: john the new that love is everlasting. he loved the house. he loved america. he loved his family. from that love and the compassion of john dingell. he realized our work as members of congress is not a job, it is a calling. it.rnment is what we make government is you, government is me, answering the call to represent the will of the people. it is a mandate to use our power not to advance our own ambition but to serve. my beloved brothers and sisters, to his sweetain

you for holding up and standing by our friend. a great man. a brother. john dingell. if you need us in the days to come, call us. and we will be there. and let me say again to my , to brother john dingell, i want to thank you for all of your help through the years, for all your love and support, thank you for your friendship. i will miss you. we will miss you. but i do leave deeply -- i believe deeply in my heart that we will see you in the morning.

[applause] announcer: washington journal continues. greta: joining us from orlando, florida is steve moore memo. he. is with the heritage foundation and he is also the co-author of ponomics: inside the america first plan to revive our economy." you have this window into the president can we have advised him on the economy, what has he accomplished so far? steve: i-greta. i love this journal and know what you all the time. record of is a great achievement. i saw the president a couple of weeks ago and i said, mr. president, stop reading so many jobs, we don't have enough

workers. we have 7.2 million more jobs today than people to fill them, it really is phenomenal achievement. i don't think we have ever seen that happen before in the united states. haveve the fact that we the lowest unemployment rate in 50 years, not just for all americans, but for black and hispanic americans. we love that the economic growth rate -- the economy was growing at 1.5% under barack obama and andwe are up to 3.1%, people really good about things. a couple of days ago you may have seen a new report out this red accident percent, almost seven out of 10 -- 69%, almost seven out of 10 americans, feel confident about their economy. a difference from four or five years ago, when only three out of 10 americans believe their country was going in the right

direction. there are still problems to solve, i am worried about the china trade situation come as a shutdown has not been good for the economy. but for the most part, i think most americans are pleased with this economic performance. greta: was sort of impact do you think the government shutdown could have? steve: negative. not usually negative, it is interesting to me that in january when the government were shut down during most of that period, the private vector still , so it just000 jobs so it does suggest that maybe some of what the government does is really kind of irrelevant, maybe we could start trimming back on some of these agencies and programs that we don't need any longer, which are obsolete, --undant or an effective ineffective. i think most americans believe, 20 to 25 percent of every dollar we spend in washington is wasted

. if i were to give president trump a great on the economy, probably an a-. but i don't think he has been tough enough on the budget, we need to do something about these and ibudget deficits, think it means cutting back on this unnecessary government funding. greta: we showed that debt clock to our viewers, past $21 trillion this month. if it hits -- but headline is that it reaches $22 trillion. so, what should the president be doing? stephen: one larry carlo and i started working with president trump three years ago just to kudlown -- when larry and asked him to working with president trump three years ago, we told him that the first thing to do to get that under control is a grow the economy faster. over the previous 10 years, we growth.a 1.8% rate of

and net is not going to get you the jobs and income, it will not get you the companies coming into the united states and profitability to raise enough the talkue, so for all about the tax-cut causing these deficits, the truth is that in 2018, tax revenues were higher than they have ever been in any year. the problem really is spending. donald trump spends a lot of money on the military. people could argue whether that was the right or wrong thing to do. national security is the central function of our government. but i think there needs to be across-the-board cuts, cut everything by 5%. he called for that, by the way. you have to look at your budget. headsold his department -- cabinet members a while ago. greta: are you saying that president should not deal with medicare? stephen: certainly, they should. stamp out the cost of

obamacare, it has been hugely expensive, not just for the government. costs of insurance premiums have almost doubled since obamacare was put into effect. so we need to put things about giving people more choices and health care. you are right, medicare is one of the drivers of these big deficits. may be the first thing we should start thinking about is how cockamamie this idea of medicare for all is. the system is already running gigantic deficits. if we put 350 million people under medicare, the cost would absolutely explode. thea: last month, before budget committee, cbo director keith hall talked about the consequences of this growing national federal debt. i want to show our viewers and get your reaction to it. >> one of the consequences of high and rising debt is debt rose to the amounts the cbo

projects, there would because aggressors. as interest rates continue to rise toward levels more typical than today's federal spending and interest payments would increase, surpassing the amount of defense spending by 2025 in our projections. second, because federal borrowing reduces national savings over time, the capital stock would these smaller and productivity in total wages would be lower. third, lawmakers and have less flexibility than otherwise to use tax policies to respond to challenges. fourth, the likelihood of a fiscal crisis in the united states would increase. in closing, i will emphasize that debt is an unsustainable an unsustainable projections.o lawmakers will have to make significant changes to tax and spending policies.

him,: do you agree with and what tax and spending policies need to be changed? stephen: i agree with most of that. i have been in washington for 35 years, and i think in the last 35 years, we have only balanced the budget four or five times, which was when clinton was president. i think more americans do believe there is a crisis. i disagree a bit about one thing the cbo director said -- the most important thing by far is to get the economy moving faster. if you keep -- if we had stayed on the bush-awww path of less , you and i could cut everything in sight and we still would not generate enough revenues to get the budget in balance -- the bush-obama path. did the tax-cut, the

congressional budget office now says the economy over the next 10 years will be $6 trillion larger than they thought it would be. that is telling you that the best way to balance the budget is to get americans working, get welfare, get more factories and capital come into the u.s. so we have prosperity. when people are working, they pay more taxes. cap.is the first th we have tos deal witht the crisis in health care costs, we have to dealep. with the waste in government and all these things. i hope donald trump in his second term will take a much stronger stance on that. greta: we want to invite the in this to participate conversation. are they optimistic or not? the phone lines for republicans, (202) 748-8001 democrats (202) 748-800 0, and independence (202)

748-8002 . our first caller on the line. good morning. caller: i don't know what you all are saying, there is nothing here in west virginia. if you could come stay with me for a week, here in my home and see how tough it is, there are some days when i don't even get to eat. doing wellomy is not in clarksburg, west virginia. stephen: sir, i did go to west virginia many times with donald trump during the campaign. it is a state which i think we won west virginia with a bigger margin than any state he won. there was an economic depression going on in west virginia and part of that was because of the coal. democrats now say they want to

completely eliminate the coal industry in the united states, which would cause further devastation to states like pennsylvania, west virginia and ohio. we had 500 years worth of coal in this country and it is in saying that we would not use it. it would be like asking people in nebraska not to grow corn. we want to see a revival of the coal industry, we want to see better terms in west virginia. i know what you're talking about because we went to a lot of those towns in west virginia. the statistics on the state, there was just a report in the wall street journal that west virginia is doing better than it was two years ago, but there is still much progress at least to be made in the appalachian region. greta: is cool coming back -- is coal coming back, though, the way was before, and will is supply the jobs or have the jobs it did in decades before? stephen: that is a great question. we have seen declines include production mainly because

natural gas -- the big story of the u.s. economy for the last 10 years, by far the biggest, is we are in the mid of a massive shale oil and gas revolution which has changed america -- it has changed ohio, texas, pennsylvania. you see more natural gas production in pennsylvania now, north dakota, it is amazing. by the way, this idea that she heard alexandria ocasio cortez and that we are going to shut down american oil and gas production -- that is really one of the stupidest things i have ever heard. . we have 10 million americans directly or indirectly by the oil and gas industry. we are the new saudi arabia of oil and gas production, why would we want to shut that down? losing, wejob we are are producing more and more oil and gas jobs, which are high-paying. i was in midland, texas, drunk

drivers are making $100,000 a year there. blue-collar workers are making really good salaries. to -- obviously, we need to use renewable energy come of that we need to continue and expand our out of oil and gas. are exporting a lot of cool now to countries like india and china, providing more jobs for the united states as well. greta: rob in stockton, california. .epublican caller: i would let a couple of minutes to make a few observational comments. i don't know where the democrats are, but they need to get real and get serious. full of the internet and see how 2018 inders in 2017 and mexico and close to the border. growing exponentially

in murders because of the drugs chaos and the cartels. it is more murder, which is why they are trying to get out of there. it is not about race. the democrat liberals try to use the race card. trump has never said anything against the spanish all the el salvador. but because of the socialism arerams in el salvador that bankrupt, the whole continent is coming into our country. we saw that thousands of them coming up. don't tell me we don't have a crisis. the next thing on the list, democrats are so hypocritical, they are concerned about people being separated at the border. what about abortion? i heard the other day that the abortion amount in new york, that there are more black babies being deported than are almost being born to react greta: ok rob. --d this

tie what he said about the debate and the president declaring a national emergency for the border wall. could there be a national impact? stephen: first-come of them you go back to what he said about president trump being labeled a racist. he is a racist president, he hates brown and black people -- let me be clear, i don't think he has a racist bone in his body. it was amazing when i would go to rallies or just be around him, how many people work for him, how many people were in his entourage that were blacks and hispanics, this man is not race. you can disagree with his policies, but he is not racist. the best evidence of that is that we have the lowest black and hispanic unemployment rate since the beatles were still playing together. this is a man who cares deeply about the most disadvantaged people in the country. i object to people calling

donald trump racist. the economic impact on immigration, i agree with the gentleman, i think most americans believe we should secure our border, you cannot come into this country illegally. as a nation, we have to secure our border and we should build a wall on parts of the order. i have been to the southern many times and people just clamp over the fences and run into the country. now we have a more secure -- people just climb over the fences and run into the country. donald trump said in his state of the union speech that the united states needs more illegal immigration. people who come in lawfully to work and create a better life for themselves, that is the system we want. we want people to come to this country but you have to come in lawfully. greta: go to gary who is in maine, independent. caller: i don't know what he is

talking about, all these jobs, but i can tell you that the health insurance industry is what is breaking our -- the r.676em is we need h. because anyone who is 55 years or older cannot find a job because no one wants to hire is going toe it cost the employer five times more for their health insurance. so until we get that straightened out, we aren't going anywhere in this country. you are on one side or the other. you are either on the side of ore, love and and innovate, you are on the side of death, hate and destruction. all our military does is destroy everything. everything they build or make use in order to destroy and cause our enemies to hate us and cause death. that is all the military does. greta: that was gary.

676, he was h.r. referring to the medicare for all bell? stephen: he made an interesting point. -- he was referring to the bill.are for all stephen: he made an interesting point. the economy has changed. a lot of the jobs evil had a long time ago have changed -- employers need entire different skill sets now. we need training programs. many people have worked in a factory other lives in the be at age 55, maybe the factory isn't there any longer. the good news is that. we are doing that. we are seeing older people entering the workforce other high pace, because we have 7 million unfilled jobs, employers

looking and he were they can to find workers, they are retraining some of our older workers. benjamin is right, health care is a bit problem. we passed the effort of will care act and since it was passed, insurance remains doubled. so i didn't make insurance less expensive, it made it much more expensive, and this gentleman is right, it is hired for employers -- it is hard for employers to hire older workers because of health care costs. give people more choices. if you want obamacare, you can have it, but let people purchase plans. a young person in their 20's, if they didn't have to buy an obamacare-compliant when, they could buy a plan tomorrow that half thet about obama compliant plan. greta: in the have been stories in the newspapers of people are getting smaller tax refunds than they expected.

you have katie porter, democratic congresswoman, twisting out that the average tax refund is down about 8.4% this year. orange county families can no longer deduct their full state and local tax bills. the changes in the g.o.p. text scam are bad for working families. stephen: first of all, there was a lot of misinformation here. i felt a very, very strongly about this, that we should cap the state and local tax reduction, and the reason for that is that if you live in a low tax state like texas or florida, or tennessee, or utah, north dakota, nevada, why should you have to a much higher taxes to pay for the bloated government services of states like new york, california, illinois, new jersey and connecticut? it is a matter of fairness.

york and in new connecticut want to continue spending make they do, then the people who pay for that should be the people who live in new york, connecticut and new jersey , not those who live in texas tennessee. secondly, because of the $10,000 cap on state and local tax deduction, that means that by our estimates, 90% of americans are not affected by the state and local tax reduction because their state and local taxes either don't reach $10,000, or because we doubled the standard deduction, there taxes is going down or up. the deduction, this is important, the best majority of the people affected by the state and local tax reduction cap are millionaires and billionaires. so what does congresswoman is saying, if i understand her correctly, it sounds like she was to go back to the old system, it would give the biggest tax cut in american history to millionaires and

billionaires. why would we want to do that? iowa on the in democrat line. caller: on my god, i can't believe what i'm hearing. you had, iller fall in-line with his ideology and a was really impressed with him. stephen has been out in paid for by the heritage foundation and big oil, and this trump philosophy. so i will make my point to both of them. the trump administration economic record is a plan of uncontrollable debt in america. here we are, none of his plans pay for themselves, the debt is going up exponentially because the tax cuts went to 85% of the rich. back to the point he said about the economics, the 2% growth obama,bush and 2% during

when bush came into office, the -- $7as $7 billion trillion. because of supplemental budget incumbent when he got out of office, people did not know how much they were in debt until obama put the debt on the budget. greta: randy, we have to leave it there. .o ahead, stephen stephen: like i said, think the one a negative mark on trump's record has been his deficits. but let us be honest, whether you are republican or democrat, the facts are the facts. when barack obama was in office, the debt was $10 trillion. eight years later, it was $20 trillion. indoubled the national debt eight years, which is a spectacular record of fiscal misappropriation. now, donald trump has not had

much better record, although the ratio is about a half of what it was under obama. we are borrowing too much money. we have to spend less money washington. we have record tax revenues but we are spending too much. you and i, greta, could look through the budget and find hundreds and hundreds of programs we don't need and we are still spending when he on. so it is going -- still spending money on. it will take a bipartisan effort and budget control, and right now, unfortunately, i don't see that. but the increase in the economic growth rate and the prosperity we are seeing now will help us get out of this debt situation. greta: how much does the u.s. economy depend on global growth versus domestic policy? stephen: that is a great question, because when i started this conversation, i sent in by saying that there are a few things that worry me. i am really bullish on the

united its economy. i think we are that bash on the united states economy we aren't -- i am really bullish on the united states economy. everyone is envious of us. we are living in a global economy and it is hard for the trump economy to continue to grow like we are doing and creating all these jobs, when the rest of the world is flat lined. so it does worry me because if europe is not growing and they are not buying our stuff, china's economy growth rate has fallen in half, does cause problems for the united states economy as well, so it is a death cloud on the horizon. in corpus christi, independent collar. caller: my comment is that society is tied to our economy and the other way around. yep.n: caller: i recently had a kitchen

reroute done and everyone of the workers was a mexican national. when two of them showed up, i asked them their names. i speak spanish, i am hispanic. then, 10 guys showed up to dig the trench and i asked them, and they told me to go fly a kite, that as far as they were concerned, i was el chapo. the idea of honor has left the planet. i just does the where the issue is honorably disputed or discussed. that is my comment. greta: your thoughts? stephen: thank you for that call, i agree with what the gentleman said. it is one thing to disagree, but can't we be, why do people have to be so do yourself agreeable -- so disagreeable? i think it is a negative thing for our country. less. l comet together and get behind a program that is making america

more prosperous. we may disagree about how to do that, but i hate to the name-calling -- donald trump is misogynist, he is a racist, come on, let us look at what is have running with the economy -- what is happening with the economy. construction crews now -- we're in the middle of the biggest construction. boom in united states history from orlando to san francisco to portland, maine, to portland, oregon, all you see is building. .e are rebuilding america it is interesting how many times you see immigrants, who are the ones working on these construction crews, alongside americans. if point i would make is, immigrants are some of the hardest working people in the world, it is one of the reasons we benefit from immigration. they come into this country and work so hard, and it is inspiring for all of us. there are not taking jobs from americans, they are helping to build our economy.

greta: do you agree with some democrats who say that under the trump administration's economic all aussies, the wealthier in this country have become even more wealthy? sure. everyone is getting wealthier. not everyone, but we are seeing a rising tide is lifting all boats as john f. kennedy used to say. what is wrong with people getting wealthy? what is wrong with people getting rich? that's what the american dream is. i don't know about you, but i would love to get rich. that's a good thing. we are also seeing middle-class is doing better. look at the record on wages. we got really nice wage gains in the last job report we got 300,000 new jobs. we are seeing because of the from tax cut the average middle-class person is saving about 1500 to $2000 here in their taxes and incidentally, i

never answered your question, when you asked me about those tax refunds and why those are down in the very simple reason for that is because we changed withholding tables and we encouraged businesses to change the withholding tables so that americans would see that tax cut immediately in their weekly paychecks. they may be getting smaller refunds in april that they got bigger paychecks during the year and that's better for people because you get the money up front, you don't have to wait a year to get it. host: in pittsburgh, republican. caller: real quick, i want to mention that i'm not a religious person but if you have to look at what started the whole thing is when god breathed life into man and put men in charge of everything. and with the response the -- the

responsibility keep life first because without life, we have nothing. it monitors how we are obedient to that and leave a president right now that says that beforet rates is taken anything else, before we are concerned about america. he is bragging that he doesn't pay any taxes. if our economy is to profithe 't pay any taxes. has taken wife's first place. that's like life is supposed to be first because that's a responsibility, because without that, the profit because of the given paint with the coin has assumed its place. that's always talking about, we are making profit on our health care system is in the trash because our economy is controlling it. the market rate is controlling it.

our government is in the trash because all they are concerned about is to keep profits first with the money. when we going to stop this? we need to as americans, we need doing withwhat we're the coin, you know, to see. being a black american and republican, publications save the children from labor, they from labor and everything. i wanted to comment on one thing the dome was saying about the whole world profit. -- the whole word, profit. it's become a dirty word along people in the media and these companies are making these big profits. businessesyou have in america and the reason anyone starts a business whether it's a

lemonade stand or trying to create a great theater company like bill gates did, is to make a profit. without profits come you don't have businesses and without businesses, you don't have jobs. i hate the idea that somehow profits are bad or companies are too greedy. we want our companies to be profitable. we want when companies become more profitable, one reason we did of business tax cut was so they would have more money so they can hire more workers and expand their operations and bring their operations from overseas back to the united states because we want to create jobs in the united states, not india, china, mexico. profit is not a dirty word, it's what makes our free market economic system work. host: we hear from kyle lenola cut city. moore has been the king of crony capitalism in debt for years now. if you drilled out as the average middle-class american

and he talks about the wages are up and this and that, the average american of 50-year-old doesn't have $50,000 to put towards retirement. the average middle-class family in america has no plans of ability to pay for their kids today and the separation between the wealthy in the middle-class, there's been a class warfare and it's been on the middle-class and it's been from an economist like stephen moore, the wages come you just mentioned the tax cuts. today andhalf of these tax cutt towards buying back stock. we've seen them live at the stocks, laying off their employees and they don't pay wages and bill gates of microsoft. the average employee actually cater to a good wages and pay for health care. the problem in america and it's been this way for decades, even with the unemployment rate under 4%ack obama was 4.7%, it's

right now. barack obama created 13.5 million jobs and bush created 6 million jobs under to text is under george bush. this crony capitalism, this fake capitalism that we've been living with for decades while multinational corporations continue to take health care away from their employers and take pensions away from their employees and all the wealth is getting sucked up into the executive boards and ceos and cfos and they are just raining. -- draining. host: we urge report. guest: the middle class is doing pretty well. we would like to see the middle-class to even better that we put into effect, during the campaign, i traveled with donald trump and we went to middle america and michigan, ohio, pennsylvania, west virginia, kentucky, iowa, wisconsin we ask

people how is that obama economic recovery going for you and people say what recovery? there is no recovery in eureka and, or flint, michigan. there were whole areas of the country that were left behind under the obama recovery. in silicon valley, or wall street, or washington, d.c. come everybody got rich but not so much the rest of the country and we are proud of the fact that median family income now for the middle-class is higher than it's ever been before. we would like to still see big gains we are not saying we salt of her problem of where things better today than two years ago. a month before the 2016 election , barack obama said donald trump he's going to bring out these specialties ready for action jobs back and he's going to create 3% growth and barack obama said how is he going to do that? wave a magic wand? trump has a magic wand because we've greeted one million manufacturing just since donald trump was elected. there are still needs from

preventable we are on a good track right now. mike in harrisburg, pennsylvania. independence. caller: we have a booming economy and a record low unemployment that yet the budget deficits are rejected to be $1 trillion for the next 10 years and the national debt keeps going up. you have more people working, more people paying in, but the national debt keeps going up. doesn't that leave the outrageous tax cut for the rich as a cause for not enough revenues coming to the federal government or not? guest: we have record levels of revenue into the federal treasury in 2018 come up slightly. the highest amount of revenues in american history. the problem in washington is not that the government doesn't have enough tax revenues. it's the fact that we are spending over $4 trillion a year. trillion we spend in

washington. when i first came to washington in 1980's, the budget was less than $1 trillion trade and shame on both houses and both parties the neither party has wanted to do anything to control her out-of-control government spending. the review stolen mentioned crony capitalism and corporate welfare. i don't support that. i've written whole books on the tyranny of corporate welfare. let's start by getting rid of all of these grants and loans and subsidies we give to business, to the solar companies and wind companies in all this other industries that are just sucking on the federal kit -- tit, we should get rid of that. say $150 billion. host: brian in georgia, republican. caller: thanks for taking my call. steve harvey were great. i'm sick of hearing this is obama's economy, that's a bunch

of baloney. my wife immigrated here legally from thailand, or english skills aren't that great but she slammed away in a thai restaurant as a cook for years and then the tax cuts come and now she's working for panasonic and they retrain her. she's working for panasonic premium job. she gets really good health care, 401(k), everything. without those tax cuts come i don't that she would've gotten a job and the obama economy, she was sleeping in the kitchen. in the trump economy, she's working on assembly-line fixing radios. host: steve moore. guest: i hear those kinds of stories all the time in my book omics, the last chapter of the book is called a light switch is flipped from off to on. i came from a story from with a guy who

works in auto repair shop and he has 15 mechanics and 45 servicepeople, about 20 employees. ask people howi is business and almost universally people today say business is good or great which is fantastic. the gentleman said to me something really interesting, he said steve, it was almost like the day after the election when donald trump was elected a light switch in my business was flicked from off to on and he's ever since then, it had more business than i can possibly handle. in its reverberating throughout the economy. as obviously a lot of areas in the country it was the ultimate big improvements and is the german from west virginia was talking about earlier. ands a very healthy economy this could not be the obama economy because so much of what we have done has been to reverse obama's policies. he increased regulations, we reduce regulations. he put us into that insane paris climate accord deal that was so

anti-american and one of the first things trump did was get us out of that deal. all the other countries in that dealer already completely missing their targets about how much they were going to cut pollution levels. it's been a very positive record and we need improvements. we need to keep this going. i think we will. in staten island. thanks for taking my call. in reference to the economy, every single person i talked to the so happy with everything that's going on come everybody is working and making more money , that is definitely no secret. i think the biggest problem we have here is that this president , mainstream media will not give them an inch. it will never mention anything good this man is doing, for two years -93% coverage. 93% coverage. host: do you agree?

host: it's not agreeing -- guest: it's not agreeing or disagreeing come at the factual truth that over 90% of the coverage in the mainstream media, washington post, new york times, cnn, msnbc has been negative. this gentleman is telling the truth. as an example, a week ago friday, we got one of the great lackluster jobs reports ever. report, spectacular 300,000 new jobs and more manufacturing jobs, more construction jobs, wage increase, there is not anything not to like about that report and yet the media kind of yonder and a lot of networks didn't even cover the jobs report. we get negative news about the -- the because sometimes taiwan. when the economy is good, the don't even cover it. it's unfair. why don't we get a media -- that's what i love c-span, thank you to c-span for giving honest

and balanced coverage of what's going on in america. you present both sides of the equation and you will have a conservative like myself in a liberal as well. and that's the way people can learn. when the media is 90% against trump, and if they are considered biased against them. moore with the heritage foundation, co-author of the book inside the america first plan to revive our economy. thank you for the conversation. we will take a short break and then turn our attention infrastructure with transport topics in your congressional reporter eugene mulero. and later, congressman john larson, democrat from connecticut is discussing his legislation to reform and expand social security. we will be right back. ♪ >> c-span, where history unfolds daily.

in 1979, c-span was created as a public service by america's cable television companies and today, we continue to bring you unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court, and public policy events in washington, d.c. and around the country. c-span's right to you by your cable or satellite provider. >> if beale street could talk received three oscar nominations for original score, best supporting actress, and best adapted screenplay. sunday on "q&a," we discussed the movie based on the 1974 james baldwin novel with washington post interview local editor monica norton. >> i thought the film was busily -- visually beautiful in the thing that really sticks with lovely and how loving the film is. writing really does

deal with love, whether it's universal love, loving oneself, love between people and society, i really think that some of the overarching theme. a lot of people probably see him because he was so passionate in fighting for the rights of african-americans that sometimes i think people mistake that for anger. and i don't think -- i think he forceful iny, but his denunciation of racism. >> sunday night and got eastern "c-span'ss "q&a," -- q&a." >> congresswoman ayanna pressley wonder democratic primary last year for the boston-based seventh district. she previously served as an at-large member of the boston's city council. this isn't your first experience of congress know. she worked for former

representatives joseph kennedy and former senator john kerry earlier in her career. representative lori trahan is also a former congressional former and she served as representative marty meehan's chief of staff in the early 2000. prior to her election, she was ceo of a consulting firm. representative crist -- chris pappas has been involved in state and local politics since the early 2000 including serving three terms on the executive council which advises the governor and two terms in the state house. co-owner of puritan background, a manchester, new hampshire restaurant. is the first openly gay person elected to congress by the venture voters. and representative jahana hayes first came to national attention on president obama named her 2016 national teacher of the year at a white house ceremony.

she's only the second african-american to represent connecticut in congress. congressman gary franks, republican, and also represented the fifth district in the 1990's. , new leaders, watch it all on c-span. >> that you seen c-span's newest look? the senate, hundreds of gorgeous photos. senator historian richard baker says mesmerizing photographs establish this book is the ultimate insiders routour. to order your hardback copy for $18.95 plus shipping visit c-span.org/senate book. of gorgeous photos. >> "washington journal," continues. host: eugene mulero, a senior congressional reporter with transport topics here to talk

about potential for an infrastructure deal. let's remind viewers with the president had to say at the state of the union about working with democrats and republicans to pass a major infrastructure legislation. >> both parties should be able to unite for a great rebuilding of america's crumbling infrastructure. [applause] i know that congress is eager to pass infrastructure bill and i'm eager to work with you on legislation to deliver new and important infrastructure investment, including investments in the cutting-edge industries of the future. option, this is a necessity.

eugene mulero, what have we learned since the date of the union? how much money or both sides talking about and what are the priorities? guest: that aspect of the president's speech was very testing because he did not outline any funding requisites. so basically, lackluster when he talked about having the need for $1 trillion, this year, the signaling was for congress to take the lead in for congress, especially the house democrats, to craft the bill since the student union, what we've had is a battery of high-profile hearings and events around d.c. on infrastructure. the chamber of commerce had a daylong mini preview of infrastructure week in which the chairman of the transportation committee came in and really talked about the urgency for crafting an infrastructure bill.

he followed that up with a very marathon length herein in which great transportation leaders, commuter transportation leaders and the governor of minnesota for instance and even former transportation secretary ray lahood were you really reminding lawmakers of the time to act is now. with that said, there is no legislation yet introduced and is expected to have something out this summer. senate republicans had a hearing they went over the priorities of a stumbled on how to fund structure bill. there's no real consensus on how to move forward to they went ovr the restore the highway trust fund. there's a lot of push for federal increase of the gas tax. but the republicans of your not be endorsing that and

republicans in the house don't like that as well. the democrats are excited to be the one with a first draft of the legislation and is expected to if not go straight with the fuel tax to have an all of the above funding approach. viewers want to invite to come in, pelicans, call (202) 748-8001, -- republicans, call (202) 748-8001. democrats, call (202) 748-8000, independents call (202) 748-8002 . what would it all of the above proposal look like? guest: former transportation secretary ray lahood laid out very nicely he was before tni this month. take aically, if you

funding mechanism that has a fuel tax increase that has not been increase of the federal level since president three, you index that as well. the new motor vehicles miles traveled fee which is to put them through device in your car or have a device on your phone the tracks the miles that you travel and capability in the month. in a letter phone bill. project that oregon is leading the way on these talking about having a nationwide pilot program committee into proposal. in the public-private partnerships which is what we saw in the white house leisure. -- last year. public-private partnerships are really code for tolling. there on how much they can do in the big picture.

then you have other options like recycling. in the event taxes and some fees on what vehicles. the concern with electrification usingce they are not gasoline, they're not using the tax. let's her mind viewers why the highway trust fund needs to be addressed. -- remind viewers why the highway trust fund needs to be addressed. this shows the end of the year shortfall from 2017. this is what's going to happen with the way the highway trust fund currently works. explain that first and what is happening here. basically,- guest: the highway trust fund relies on the diesel tax and gas tax.

goes into the trust fund. through formulas of funding directives, the u.s. dot allocates that revenue back to the states based on needs and other priorities. what's been happening for many years now is that the revenue that the federal government takes in from fuel taxes is not sufficient for the needs of the states are presenting and obligations. the cbo is estimating that by 2021, there's going to be the need for another cash infusion, injection into the trust fund to keep it operational and these supplemental funding fixes is something we saw three dozen times prior to the passage of the 2015 law. that is the conundrum that lawmakers have with this highway trust fund, by law the highway

trust fund cannot be insolvent, which is why they have to take money from the general fund. and with the current highway law expiring in the fall of 2020, lawmakers are working on a deadline. and because we have a presidential year next year, lawmakers from the stakeholders are saying the windows this year, not next year to do something on the trust fund. let's here with the priorities are for americans. james, good morning. caller: yes, i was wondering should we have went through this james, good morning. when obama was president and in had all kinds of the signs come infrastructure being rebuilt at all , just spent a lot of money. if anythingr different is going to happen now.

the media doesn't keep these people accountable. host: concerns about waste, fraud, and abuse. i want for lately suggests he may have conflated the recovery act with the highway bill. obviouslyry act was the initial job screening measure that the obama administration advance and it presented states with grants available money for radio projects. -- ready to build projects. the debate is out on how beneficial it was but there were states that received money, but they didn't have the authority to move on that money quickly. that's why some of those things didn't see quick action on that. a valid point as to how states and the federal government manages its money. one key concern primarily coming

from the freight transportation industry is that the highway splitfund distribution is 75-25,t roughly whichever angle you want to look at. for service transportation and transit prop -- projects. transit projects don't feed into that revenue for the fuel taxes so for the freight industry saying how about we have a separate account just for transit projects? and that have the highway trust fund just benefit service transportation or highways and bridges. that's been an ongoing debate on the and advocates for public transportation are you if you have a nice operational system, that takes the congestion and helps alleviate congestion. there are concerns at the state level with fraud and abuse in with projects and contracting, etc. host: dave in palm city,

florida, republican. caller: good morning. i think the dirty secret in the gas taxs that has not been increased and i don't know how many years. war that's a political the democrats want the public and the president to say what's reasons they can go after them in election. the republicans are waiting for the democrats to come to the table. nobody likes to raise taxes. years's been how many since they raise the federal gas tax? host: let's talk about the politics. 1993. guest: the politics surrounding this fuel tech's debate are very, very intricate. let's go back to this time last

year, president trump had a behind closed doors meeting with the transportation leaders on capitol hill. meeting, senator carper, the reagan democrats on the highway committee, he told people he heard the president endorse $.25 feels tags -- fuel tax increase. the white house has not denied the president had such an endorsement which mirrors what the chamber of commerce has been proposing. but by not issuing a public support for the fuel tax, congressman defazio, the head of the t&i committee he's saying republicans don't have cover. they can't rally behind the president, let the president lead the way. as we know, president trump is very animated at his rallies. f he starts calling on his

supporters to -- explain the dynamics of a fuel tax increase, who knows? maybe there's going to be nationwide support. republicans have been avoiding this fuel tax for a long, long time. their talking point now is the fuel tax is regressive because of fuel efish yield back the balance of my timecy -- fuel efficiency. the cars are more fuel efficient, revenues will go down. at the same time, some of these republicans have signed a pledge saying they are not going to raise fuel taxes. he so their concern is that if they support a tax increase in a primary challenge, their opponent will say, hey, you violated your pledge. that has been the ongoing back and forth with whether or not you raise the taxes at the federal level. one last point, the state level you had 27 states in the past decade raise their fuel taxes. and many associations like the american road and transportation

builders association, they have done analysis to note that republican legislators didn't get voted out of office for taking those votes. host: ryan, port orchard, washington. independent. caller: good morning. i just wanted to say there was a survey done in 96% of people in washington, liberals, do not want to pay by mile. we just literal don't want to. we're already about a dollar over the national average. as far as -- i get it. i get the pollution. so the green cars we're putting on the road are supposed to help with pollution. you still want to find a way to keep that money coming. we're sitting in traffic jams everywhere. we just closed the viaduct. the bullet train just closed down, the project in california. it seems to me you guys literally no matter how much money we throw at you -- no matter what it's for, you guys just take the money, raise the

prices. next thing you know you're trying to charge us for going over bridges. you are charging us if we want to save our time in a lane that's faster. the whole thing is out of control. i can't think of one thing you guys have ever done as a government that ever made our lives better. host: ryan, referring to the government. not obviously you. talk about the sentiment there. they don't trust the federal government to do this type of policy. miles driven. tax. they don't want it on top of all the other money that they send to washington. guest: that's within the concern. again this goes back to how the transportation officials manage the money. but what proponents of infrastructure funding, what they point to, is the increase in demand for the services. but we have had more drivers using

our bridges. look at the george washington bridge. it was supposed to have x number of cars in the 1960's. that has nearly tripled in half a century. just the demand is so great nationwide. that's why you have so much congestion. most of the sentiment that the last caller shared is something that we heard from the free transportation industry before the senate commerce this week. they were saying people are stuck in traffic. trucks are stuck in traffic. this is slowing down the economy. there needs to be a quick injection of money at the states so the states can can rapidly have -- can rapidly have available funding so they can increase capacity. one way the proponents are saying is raising the federal fuel taxes. the counter argument we heard from senator mike lee of utah is just not only is the tax

regressive, it could hinder low-income families at rural districts. and also the management. do you want bureaucrats in u.s. d.o.t. saying based on studies that the money should be going here rather than there. and how long is the money going to take to get to that transportation agency at x state and how are they going to allocate the money. this is a very intricate process on how the money is distributed. valid point on the management. notwithstanding that the -- most nearly unanimous consent for the transportation community that v moneys need -- money's needed right away. host: george in virginia. democrat. hi. caller: greta, can you hear me? host: you are on the air. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span and all that you do. moving on to my question. my concerns. listen, i think each state, in

the united states, kind of messed number their long-term plan. i know virginia has. virginia, virginiadot. what they did they did not project all of the new development as far as housing, was going to come about after the housing boom. fell apart things of this nature. however, let me just say something. i think one of the other callers mentioned that. i think that the talking point when it comes to infrastructure. president obama, to me he came out there wrong. let me say this he came out there wrong. sara palin and john mccain said, hidden, we need to get joe six-pack back to work. how do you do that? infrastructure, jobs. that's what it creates. when do you that, focus on that, you can can get people back to work. get our infrastructure. i think he came out there wrong with the health care plan. however, it needed to be there,

but right now president trump, he said working together to do infrastructure. he's been here two years and nothing's been in place. don't think it's going to be anything in place. host: let's take his point about jobs. how many jobs do we know, or what's the equation for infrastructure creating jobs? guest: you know, they vary state by state and project by project. so there's no real x number that a project is going to give you 10,000 jobs, etc. but if you look at the chamber of commerce, what they argue is that thousands of jobs will be created if you do a renovation and upgrade to let's say a major structure such as a bridge. again it's -- it all varies unthe length of the bridge. project is different. the at that pan debridge has

employed -- tapian debridge has employed people -- project tapa bridge has employed people directly and indirectly. there is a valid point that infrastructure projects do not only help the local community but regionally you get contractors buying parts from here and there. the trucking industry, you rely on trucks to come in. there is no magic number that will vary. with that said, the other argument on the economic benefit -- this is something that defazio talks a lot about often, is that when you expand capacity and when you alleviate congestion, now what you have done is that in a short term you have enhanced the economics of that region because now everybody, the florist, you name it, is not spending x amount of time in traffic. they are doing -- spending less

time in traffic. host: cindy in florida on our line for republicans. hi, cindy. caller: hi. good morning. a couple things. i was hearing the other callers talk about the george w. bridge. for decades that bridge has been a nightmare. for truck drivers it's one of our only routes and really the state of new york with all their tax dollars they charge everybody, they should have been working on that bridge decades ago. back to the other topic, i really feel strong about the united states security. i think the wall should be built. if it stops one terrorist, one pedophile coming into our country, it's done its job. and that should be number one. host: move on to pete from kentucky, independent. hi, pete. caller: how you doing. -- connecticut independent.

hi pete. caller: how you doing. aim calling about the gas tax. i drive a car that's gasoline. and i go to the fuel pump. i pay taxes. i look over at the service area and people are plugging their electric cars in and getting refueled for free. not paying any road taxes. and they are just driving away. why don't you tax them, or train station, leave it there overnight. host: that would be part of the idea, right? behind this new proposal. you would be taxing electric cars as well. guest: policymakers are looking at nationwide policy that would impose a fee on electric cars. and that is something that has been talked about with the green new deal that we saw recently unveiled. senator markey and congresswoman

ocasio-cortez, they proposed electricfication in cars of zero emissions over a decade. electric cars is one avenue. the concern with that is ironically the infrastructure. forget -- you're charging a fee for people who buy elk trick cars -- electric cars, is where are you going to have all these? you have to create these plug-in areas. you have to retrofit all the gas stations to accommodate these cars. it's doable. we saw it with our current vehicles. so it's something that can be done. whether it can be done in 10 years, obviously that's extremely ambitious. but this conversation on how do you treat high fuel efficiency vehicles, electric cars, etc., is ongoing and there is a very high expectation the people i talked to that a infrastructure bill, if it comes out this year, will have language that will present some sort of fees or

taxes for electric vehicles. host: freddie, los angeles, republican. hi. caller: thanks. i remember doing the obama administration and los angeles two roads i drive on constantly. four lane roads. the obama infrastructure, spending plan will boom the economy, which it didn't. it turned these four lane roads into two lane roads. we had bicycle lanes. right now my travel to work increased 25%. this is the way it works, guys. everyone knows it. oh, yeah, we got to do this. therefore we have to increase taxes. they increase the taxes and nothing gets done. in fact, things get worse. you could do it almost every section of government. education is bad we need to spend more money. you spend more money on education, education never gets better. might get worse. it's a constant lie. you're not looking for solutions to the problem except tax us. so someone gets some money

somehow, some way, and nothing gets done because they don't really give a damn. they just want the money. it's a con game that's been going on for over 80 years. smarten up, america. o not pay taxes. guest: this is something that was really addressed by the head of the chamber of commerce, tom donahue. , perception, the messaging the impression that people have of the federal government. the chamber and other, the associations, they point to examples of infrastructure modernization that when they are completed they have economic benefits. and they point to projects that are bottle next. go back to the g.w. bridge on the new jersey side. a new report listed as the top bottleneck in the country. with the longest weight times

for trucks and cars. -- wait times for strucks and cars. that is an area that became very infamous during the chris christie administration for political reasons they are debatable. he shut down access to that entrance. what we saw was bumper to bumper traffic, the likes that north jersey hadn't seen in decades, right? the argument is that if new jersey gets more assistance at the federal level, they'll be able to expand capacity at the entrance of the g.w. bridge going into upper manhattan. that is something that you have other governors arguing that the states -- i go back to former secretary lahood when he was the transportation committee, he was saying that his home state, illinois, is scrambling for dollars. that's what you hear other governors say. they are really -- that's why they have to proceed with a fuel

tax increase, which former new jersey governor chris christie did. because they couldn't rely on the federal partner anymore. and they had to come up with their own funds, raise taxes to ameliorate the connectivity not only on surface transportation, public troorgs, etc.. -- transportation, etc. while it's a valid point -- i'm not trying to apologize for lawmakers. we see mishandleding can shall -- mishandling of funding all the time. time-out, when you look at infrastructure there are some -- at the same time, when you look at infrastructure, there are valid points that when you dedicate monty solely for a project that -- dedicate the money solely for a project that you have a final project that you can can argue is economically beneficial. host: eugene covers these topics, transportation and infrastructure. follow him if you go to tt ews.com or fwitter at --

twitter@transporttopics. when we come back, representative john larsen, democrat of from connecticut. the c-span cities store book tv and american history tv traveled to springfield, illinois, to feature the city's history and literary life. here the springfield mayor talks about the city's most famous resident, abraham lincoln, as well as the history of race relations. >> sprinkfield, illinois, is the capital of illinois. pretty centrally located with regards to geotraffics of illinois. we're a three-hour drive from chicago, hour and a half from st. louis. springfield best known for being the home of abraham lincoln, our greatest president. we have other -- a lot of other things to offer. when you think about springfield, a lot of people know, he was the great

emancipator. he gave the great house divided speech which his words ring true today as they did back then. house divided amongst itself cannot stand. we're seeing that play out on the federal level. we have seen it here in illinois play out on that level as well. fast forward to president barack obama, the first african-american president, he had his legislative roots at the capital. so that brought that whole dynamic where you had the great emancipator all the way to barack obama. a lot of people don't realize is the unsavory path we had. that's when the 1908 race riots. there is actually shops being burned. racial divide in the city of springfield. lynching is happening. from that came the formation of the naacp. there are people in new york that saw what was happening in springfield and formed the naacp, the national association for the advancement of colored people. springfield, illinois, has that arc of race relations, how we have come all this way through

time and made things better by working together. people come here for abraham lincoln, but they learn so much about our history that we have, especially how we relate to each other. >> "washington journal" continues. host: congressman john larsen joining us this morning from hartford, democrat of connecticut. member of the ways and means committee. congressman, you have a new proposal on social security. i want to get to that in a minute. first i i want to ask how you voted last night on that $333 billion spending bill. and your reaction. guest: i voted to keep government opened. i voted to keep it open. host: your reaction to the president in less than an hour declaring a national emergency on the southern border? guest: well, i think the president dating back to december has been itching towards that. i think he felt bad that he was talked out of it. those were his instincts from the outset to call this a

national emergency. it remains to be seen of course, with everything that's going on in the border. there is concern about security. i think everybody acknowledges that. but i i don't think this rises to the level of a national emergency and i think congress will have something to say about that as well. host: you you would support a joint resolution ending this type of national emergency? guest: yeah. frankly the crossings are down to an all-time low. i think there are a number of fixes, a number of which we're including in the bill yesterday in terms of technology and manpower. we have to be mindful that there are concerns. we ought to listen to our representatives there like will hurd, a republican from texas, who has the longest stretch of border of any member of congress, and he has said this would be an absolute waste of money. i think we have to rely on our

representatives who are there in the field and understand what's going on. i understand the president's concern because he's been turned down on a major campaign proposal, but the nation has to move on and focus on important things like saving and expanding social security. host: let's do that now. this is how we're going to divide the lines. if you are 50 years and older, your line is morning is 202-748-8000. all others call in at 02-748-8001. those are the lines this morning. let's hear a little bit first before you start dialing in from the congressman about what your pro-- what you are proposing. why do you think it's needed now? host: i think it's been needed for some time. nancy altman of social security works the last time the government moved to expand

social security benefits was more than 50 years ago. and the last time we did something to make sure that social security was solvent was back in 1983. ronald reagan was president, and tip o'neill was speaker of the house. we're long overdue because this is america's number one insurance program. now, i say insurance program because every one of your listeners out there understands this. why? because all they have to do is look at their pay stub that says fica. federal insurance contribution. whose? theirs. it goes into social security and medicare, but we're -- our focus is social security. and the last time we did something to make social security actuarially sound was in 1983. so now it's incumbent can, especially with those who have tried to label social security as some form of entitlement or

welfare, as opposed to it being an insurance program that people have paid into, and are expecting when their insurance policy matures and comes due they are going to get a payment. so of course as i like to say since 1983 have any of your other insurance premiums gone up? have you seen an increase in that? of course the answer is yes in rder to keep up with actuarial changes in life. and just inflation in general. you would have seen an increase. but there hasn't been anything since 1983. so that has created concern that in 2034 the social security system itself would pay out about a quarter less than it is now. and that would be a disaster given that more than five

million americans, more than three million women retire into poverty currently under our stem, and with 10,000 baby boomers a day becoming eligible for social security, it would be an atrocity to look the other way and not take the action that's needed to make sure that social security is what the actuaries call sustainably solvent. meaning that it is solvent beyond 75 years. and then to also enhance social security in a modest way so that it reflects the needs of the people who are actually receiving the policy and going to guarantee to our citizens most notably millennials that the system is there and it works. it's never missed a payment. it's the most important insurance plan that we have and

it's just not simply a pension plan, either. it also provides disain't -- disability, spousal, and dependent coverage, as well as death benefit. that's why we believe this program has to be enhanced. and we have done it in three ways, primarily. we increase across the board the amount of money that people receive back by 2%. so everybody who is in the social security program will get a 2% increase. we also make sure that nobody can can retire into poverty. as i mentioned and unfortunately this happens to far too many women, because they were both caregivers at home and while they were in the work force they were earning about 77 cents for their -- to their male counterparts' dollar. we make the new floor for social

security 125% of poverty. as determined by the federal government. that will be a tremendous boost. nobody's going to get wealthy on this plan. but everybody is going to be able to sustain themselves in society and that's the notion. the notion that economists have said in doing so that money goes right back into the economy. it's not as though people are hoarding the money they get from social security. they need this to get the essentials in life they require, including nutrition and food and heating and cooling their homes and prescription drugs and doctors visits. that's why we have a cola also that reflects the actual expenses that the elderly incur. we call it c.p.i. for consumer price index, e, e standing for the elderly. anti-expenses they incur over a regular basis. previously it was done by the c.p.i. which not many elderly

are out purchasing ferraris and wide screen tv's and modern technology. we want them to have a cola that reflects their actual concerns so they can sustain themselves in this economy and also at home or in a nursing home. wherever they happen to be. the thing about this -- host: a cola being the cost of living adjustment. guest: cost of living adjustment, correct. yes. thank you. and also to make sure what conservatives and moderates and liberals have been calling for, to make sure that social security is sustainably solvent. not just solvent but sustainably solvent, meaning that sustainable over the long period of time. by law it's 75 years. the bill we have introduced, social security 2100, aptly named before the next century,

which is more than 75 years away, and this will take the program into the next century with the enhancements that we have called for. then we pay for it in two ways. we pay for it the way we have always paid for social security. we make a contribution. we call for 1% increase, but then we phase that in over 25 years. so it actually ends up being a .05% increase. many economists have said people probably won't even notice or feel this. so if you are making $50,000 a year, it's going to cost you 50 cents a week to get an enhanced social security provision that sufficiently solvent for the next 75 years. i say social security, that's a pension benefit, disability

benefit, spousal and dependent coverage, as well as a death benefit if the recipient has died prematurely. host: congressman, let's get to calls. as we have predicted the lines have lit up. rick in citrus heights, california. caller: yes. i am a person born disabled and so -- because both my parents have worked into the system and because i have also worked into the system, i now get social security instead of s.s.i. i also get section 8 housing and the colas i get out of the allowed -- because section 8 housing i can can can only pay for -- housing i can only pay for -- what i'm trying to say is social security, it pays for my rent as long as it's section 8 housing. the social security is more

important than the border wall. and i want to point out that there is a law going through congress right now that says that people with disabilities whose widow has died, that's also disabled, they are able to -- they will allow them to maintain -- get survivors benefits from their widow. i get survivors benefits because my dad has died and i also get it from my mom, even though she hasn't died but she's retired. and what not. host: congressman, go ahead. guest: rick is absolutely right. but the program, imagine, hasn't been -- it's an insurance program. and you can't find any insurance company in the private sector that would not have made any since ent to the program 1983. i think members of congress are hearing this loud and clear. certainly the more than 200 who dropped the bill on what would

have been franklin delano roosevelt's 137th birthday, did so because we understand that we need to not only sustain the program, but we have to enhance it. and the caller is right. people who are impacted with disabilities also receive social security payments. and it's posh -- important because the disability side of social security was -- just a few years ago, rumored to be roblematic by the year 2024. adjustments have been made, but the program now in 2034 would face a decrease if congress were to do nothing. and we plan on doing something. we're excited about the prospect of putting this legislation through congress. we think it's commonsense. and i know a number of republicans are interested in

this as well. they all have mothers and sisters and brothers and fathers and uncles who are all in the process of receiving social security for about -- social security accounts for about 90% of all the income that about 50% of the nation receives. it's a very important and critical payment for americans. and it's never missed a payment. host: derek in chicago. caller: hello, good morning. good morning, congressman. i am so happy. i tried to get in on the last topic. i think the -- his name escapes me right now, i think he's from the heritage foundation. because every time the republicans get these giant tax cuts, breaks for the wealthy,

the first thing they talk about is trying to privatize or take away social security. and it scares the living hell out of me. it really does. and the congressman just said that republicans have relatives that receive, but they'll cut their nose off to spite their face. host: congressman. guest: i you don't think that that's true of all -- i don't think that's true of all republicans. it's going to take a bipartisan effort. frankly the president has a probably been the strongest republican on this. you may recall that during a debate with 16 other republicans where they tried to get him to say that this was anonymity, he resisted. and said, no. this is an earned benefit. people have paid into it. they have earned it. in his book he also writes that it is not anonymity. but to the caller's point, for so long the right wing has tried to label sths as -- label social

security as though it's some kind of entitlement. a form of welfare. everybody who looks at their pay stub and who has paid into the system knows that that's not true. it's an insurance policy that you paid into. it just hasn't been paid actuarially sound. but to the caller's point, they call it anonymity, then as he pointed out they passed a $ trillion tax cut -- $2 trillion tax cut that disproportionately goes to the wealthy and is unpaid for and creates a debt -- adds to the national debt and turn around and say, oh, we don't have the money to invest in programs like social security because we have this large debt. the public isn't buying that. they want common sense, straightforward manner in which we can can make a system solvent and provide the nation with the basics that they need. that's what -- nobody is getting

wealthy on social security. on average people receive around $14,000 from social security a year. so that's not going to make anyone rich. it certainly is going to help sustain them and hopefully they have saved some money and got a pension. but for many people, how about those in 2008, who saw their 401-k during the great crash become a 101-k. if you are in your mid to late 50's, how you do you make that up by the time you are ready for retirement? but their social security payment is there for them. always. never missed a payment. host: tom is joining us from dubuque, iowa. good morning. caller: good morning. why no lways wondered politician has ever spoke of a simple, easy fix. and that is removing the cap,

income cap on social security. it would remain solvent forever if that was done. thank you. host: tom, you're right. tom, removing the cap is part of our proposal as well. and i you should have explained that better. we remove the cap on people over -- who earn over $400,000. it might surprise people to know that the cap increases every year. this is the first time we have even been able to get a hearing in eight years. i have submitted the bill for the last six years. when i first submitted the bill, the cap on social security was $114,000. it's now $132,9,000. the cap does go up. here's the only problem. you are absolutely right, bernie sanders has had a bill forever

on this. for more than 20 years. by lifting the cap, that would help out dramatically. but it only makes social curity solvent through about 2048. so it doesn't meet the 75-year requirement. if you are going to make it sufficiently solvent, that's what you have to do. but both senator sanders and i are also co-chairs of the expand social security caucus. and we're locked arm in arm to make sure that we -- that the american people understand we need to expand these benefits and that we're going to pay for them. and certainly scrapping the cap as it's called is a way of doing that. we just think that it's a more effective way in terms of meeting that 75-year sustainability and making sure that we're able to uplift the

number of people who are currently on social security and living in poverty. host: congressman, "usa today" editorial board says this about your plan. this is not a fiscally responsible approach for a program already in actuarial horror show. this year social security benefits paid out are expected to exceed taxes paid in by about $82 billion. in a decade, that operating deficit will top $300 billion and swell by mid century to nearly $1 trillion. while the democratic plan would pay for the increases, and in fact put the program on more solid long term footing, it would do so at a staggering cost. the measure would gradually the increase the 12. payroll tax to 14.8. on income up to its cap, currently $132,000. the new weight would also aplay to over $400 thousand. every penny raised would be a penny that does not go toward deficit reduction. or urgent causes democrats claim

to care about. guest: i think people who get social security will be surprised to hear that instead of making their program solvent, they should now be contributing or there should be a separate tax to reduce the deficit. we responded to the article as well, greta. first, a number of the premises, they cover a lot of ground here. we make this program not only solvent, but sufficiently solvent. it's the only bill out there that has the social security actuary. we sent "usa today" and asked them to read this. read the nonpartisan actuaries report that said if you want to make social security solvent, here's what you have to do. you have to pay for it. and you have to do so in a way that makes sure that the programs and enhancements we're

calling for are both paid for and are going to be there beyond the 75-year requirement. and then they say this will be a tremendous cost. they cite 12 and 14%. well, currently social security is together because as everyone knows the employer pays half and the individual pays half. let's talk about the employer half just for a moment. the employer half is tax deductible. nowhere in their article do they say the employer doesn't pay that. that's a tax write-off. it's the individual that we're asking to pay for it. what is the individual get -- what does the individual get for that? the individual understands that very clearly. not only do they get a pension that's guaranteed, that's never missed a payment, and while, as our chairman, rich neal likes to say, you can can outlive an

annuity, but you cannot outlive social security. again the attack from "usa today" is to make social security seem like it's some kind of anonymity that we can't afford. no, this is personal insurance that has been taken out of your payroll through fica on a regular basis. it needs to be adjusted. an adjustment for someone making $50,000 of 50 cents a week. when polled americans say, yes. we'll gladly pay for something we know we're going to get and see in return. it's when they pay into a program and see the program diminishing before their eyes and millennials feeling like it might not be there for them that we should be concerned about and that step forward in a very practical, pragmatic, paid for way, take care of a program that

has been the greatest social program for the country, the genius of franklin dell he know roosevelt, and other presidents, including eisenhower and reagan as well who ultimately saw that he we needed to fix this because the american people need this in order to survive. host: let's go to johnson who is in glen comb, new york. jonathan, thanks for hanging on the line. caller: good morning. good morning, congressman. thanks for being on c-span. as long as we're talking about updating social security, i have a suggestion about the integrity of this system. right now social security numbers contain nine numeric digits which gives one billion possible combinations. there are about 325 million americans. he so that means if you take a number arbitrarily, there is about a one in three chance that it's a valid number.

credit card companies use 16 digit numbers which gives 10 quadrillion combinations. you have about a one in 30 million chance if we went to a 16 digit social security number. that would limit the potential for identity theft. and also since so many social security numbers have already been compromised, issuing people new numbers might have some advantage there as well. i wonder if you would consider adding that to the bill. host: i think that's a separate bill. but i think it's a very good point. one of the things the committee will be laser focused on and you raise an excellent point about identity theft. we usually always start all of our meetings with warning people about giving out their social security number and making sure that -- even for children that are -- end up being the

caretakers of their parents. ecause they are susceptible to fraud and abuse. we have to use technology. i think there is a number of way that is we can utilize technology. i'm not sure that your solution will be the panacea, but it's one that should be discussed. any time congress convenes, when we hear from our citizens, logical, practical ways, we ought to hold hearings, bring forward the experts, and get at the truth because what we should be doing constantly is trying to improve and upgrade and do the most efficient thing that we can for the taxpayers. it's ideas like this that i think are important. we're going to be happening a number of hearings on that as it relates to fraud and abuse. and i would add also that a bill that again senator sanders has

sponsored for years focuses on making sure a lot of -- that the best way to stop fraud and assist people is to make sure that social security is appropriately staffed. you heard me mention at the outset that 10,000 baby boomers a day became eligible for social security. and yet the overall social security administration has decreased by about 14% in the budget while we see an increase in the number of baby boomers who need that. the best way to combat fraud by all the independent studies that we have is to make sure that we have people in our offices, in our field offices dealing with these very issues. when we can add to that a technological advantage, we ought to be doing both. host: we'll hear from judy next in ohio. hi. caller: hi. host: you are on the air with the congressman. caller: hi. i'd like to ask why you would he

reduce the age to 55 when in fact you were talking about increasing it to 70. second, i would like to he know why you have borrowed money out of social security, that's why social security is having a problem. and third, i have a real problem with bernie sanders is involved in this legislation program. thank you. host: well, one of the other things that we blan to do on the committee is to hold a hearing where we -- plan to on the committee is to hold a hearing where we debunk some of the midst. starting with the fact that social security is a entitlement program. think, judy, we're not proposing that we lower social security to age 55. what we're -- social security as you point out currently now is

at age 67. when you actually start to receive it. that was passed back in 1983. that requirement. what we're saying is that we shouldn't continue to raise the age when you you are eligible for social security because that amounts to a pay cut. on the other hand, and i think this is where the confusion might come in. we also encourage people if they are currently working and even though they may have turned 67 and be eligible for social security, if you don't need it, you are better off waiting until you get ae 70 because greater return. also social security you should know is a co you get ammon myth, well, what happens is we have borrowed from social security. we have been fighting continuous

wars. has there ever been a bill to pay for the war? the short answer is no. when we go to war, it's the full faith and credit of the united states government. that is not the case with social security. you you should know that there are -- you should know that what happens is that there are designated t-bills, meaning treasury bills, and they are actually housed in west virginia, that are setaside for social security. understandably as people talk about future debt or how we pay for this and since social security is the full faith and credit of the american people as they have paid for through the federal insurance contribution act, that there is this notion that we're borrowing from the social security fund. that is not true.

and our goal is to make sure that the fund as it's stated in law is sufficiently solvent. that it's not raided. so people like judy, don't know if you receive social security or not, get it. but i would also note this. has anyone ever missed a sths payment? -- missed a social security payment? the answer is no. host: kimberly, pennsylvania. caller: good morning, greta. how you doing? host: good morning. caller: i'm sitting here looking at one of my pay stubs. and the only other tax that's higher than social security on my stub right now is the federal. remind you, i claim zero dependents. my issue with the problem is every time people on social security get a raise, their them re, medicaid charges

more. is it like a cahoots thing? it's like we give them a raise, we'll have to pay more. host: congressman? guest: no. them more. is but i can understand -- i understand the point she's trying to make. under fica your social security payments have been consistent. and they remain there. i think what she's talking about is it seems like even when you get a cola and you are on social security -- i'm going to assume that she probably is on social security although she says he she still gets a pay stub, and that changes in part d of medicare, which is a whole other issue, oftentimes will say, the increase i got or the cola i got on my social security was taken up by the cost, the increased cost of medicare. but that's a whole other issue with respect to medicare.

the point is with social security we want to make sure that you have are cola that reflects the actual medical expenses that you incur. host: to hanover, pennsylvania, sharon's watching there. caller: yes. thank you. initiative.your would you please look at tax laws for self-employed persons. hours a week 0 delivering papers. the only deduction i get is mileage. 12 1/2% or y that whatever it is. court decisions of newspaper deliverers are not self-employed, but i must carry this burden.

i live right at poverty level. two mortgage bailouts and struggle the best i can to pay all these bills and keep an ld car running for my job. there is a very unfair element .here for self-employed thank you. guest: i thank the viewer. we oftentimes hear cases like this. i should have also in laying out our proposals we have what i like to refer to as a tax break for working seniors. how does that work? well, again, back in 1983 they did not index social security as it replates to -- relates to

social security being taxed. if you are single and make more than $24,000 or a married couple and make more than $3 ,000. what we have done with our -- more than $32,000. what we have done with our bill is raise that to $50,000 as an individual and $100,000 per couple. that means that 12 million americans will get a tax break. again, they are not going to get wealthy. that would be money like the caller -- like the caller just indicated, who is struggling to get by and probably exceeds that .hreshold and then sees not only working but sees her social security taxed as well. in my mind that is a form of. and double taxation. it's why we moved to make sure that that was included in the bill to make it solvent.

to have a cola that reflects your needs, to make sure that no one can can retire into poverty. to improve it and index it so you're not getting taxed. at a level that was put in in 1983. and also to make sure that it's sustainably solvent. so that you you know that the program will be there and be there in a way that pays for a multiple of concerns whether it's your pension, your disability, or dependent and spousal coverage as well. host: nelson in st. louis, missouri, you are on the air. caller: good morning. thank you very much for taking my call. congressman larsen, that was good news what you just said out raising the amounts from $50,000 for singles and $100,000 for adults before you are taxed on your retirement income. that's -- i was going to speak

to that point. you answered my question before i asked it. also you mentioned earlier that the thought is that we borrowed money from social security. there are i.o.u.'s to social security, right? don't we pay like $88 billion, $89 billion interest? why do we pay interest if we didn't borrow money. we should restore that money to social security that would solve our problems and stop giving away any more tax breaks. maybe hold back some of the money go to foreign countries to he restore social security first. i think that would solve our problems. low pressure the whole goal of this legislation is not just to restore social security but expand it in a way that's common sense, because it's last time the congress seriously looked at this, ronald reagan was the president and tip o'neill was

the speaker. there is a certain irony here because ronald reagan was a republican and of course tip o'neill was a democrat. well, currently donald trump is a republican and nancy pelosi is a democrat. in the senate mitch mcconnell is a republican, while howard baker was the senator back in 1983 also a republican. point being is they came together because they understood that the american people demand that this program be solvent because they understood just how vitally important it is to each and every one of them to sustain themselves in retirement. i hear story after story of so many caregivers who are trying to take care of elderly parents and who are mindful of how important that monthly check is to each and every one of them.

and to enhance these things in a way that they make sense. in a way that we both protect the integrity of the program, make sure it's sustainably solvent. provide an opportunity to continue to encourage people to work either out of necessaryity or because they want to still -- cessaryity or because they want to still feel vital and have a cola that actually reflects what their needs are. these are commonsense things. nobody is going to get wealthy on these proposals. but the economy is going to get better. and certainly the individuals are going to be better able to take care of themselves. because they know this is the insurance they paid for. this is no entitlement. this is what they have paid for. and they are entitled to get -- receive back from the insurance

they have paid in over a lifetime. host: congressman, when will this legislation come to the floor? guest: well, it's currently in committee. and the one thing that we're doing -- i said earlier we haven't had a hearing on this in eight years. my counterpart at the time, sam johnson, an american hero, iconic, as fine a person and gentleman i kept on asking him. sam had a bill as well that would have been sufficiently solvent, but it got there by raising the age and cutting benefits. i think -- it deserved a debate. as does this proposal to enhance social security. but the leadership on the republican side would not allow this distinguished chairman to hold that debate.

it's only now that we're going to have these hearings and do so in what we call regular order, which means they'll be open to the public. we welcome the vitality of ideas. you heard one of the callers calling in about how the private sector does it with numbers, etc. those are the things that you have to test out. you have to bring in experts. but that's what governments should be about. i believe that there are many republicans as well, starting with the president. he very boldly stepped out on this issue. it will not surprise me at all that in the end, if nancy pelosi and donald trump do what tip o'neill and ronald reagan did in 1983. and solve this on behalf of the american people. host: congressman john larsen, democrat of connecticut, thank

you for the conversation this morning. guest: i enjoyed it very much. thank your listeners and those who called in. appreciate it. host: the house is about to gavel in here for just a quick pro forma session. then after that here on c-span we'll take you over to the white house for the president's national emergency declaration. also happening in washington today, stacey abrams, the former candidate for governor in georgia, democrat, is speaking at the brookings institution. she's going to be talking about the african-american vote in the 2018 election and going forward. we'll have coverage of that on c-span2. c-span.org, and you can also listen with the free c-span radio app. then also conversation this morning, a look at a potential outcomes of the upcoming summit between president trump and jim -- kim john une that's on c-span -- kim jung un.