mathur looks at proposals for paid family leave. "washington journal" is next. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2019] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] ♪ host: good morning. it is monday, march 11th. the house meets at noon eastern paris to the senate reconvenes at 3:00 p.m. and both chambers get there look at the 2020 budget proposal when the white house delivers the spending plan later this morning. we begin on the renewed debate over lowering the voting age in this country. last week, the house decided against the measure aimed at lowering the age to 16. we want to know what you think about that idea. if you support lowering the voting age to 16, phone number is 202-748-8000.

if you oppose that idea, 202-748-8001 is the number. you can catch up with us on social media. on twitter it is @cspanwj. on facebook it is c-span.org --facebook.com/cspan. a very good monday morning. you can start calling in on this question about lowering the voting age, this effort being led by freshman democratic congresswoman ayanna pressley of massachusetts. she offered the amendments on the floor of the house last week that was eventually rejected to a vote of 126 to 305, but she did renew the debate as the hill puts it in their headline on the idea of lowering the voting age to 16. we want to hear from you. first, we will let you hear from ayanna pressley on the floor of the house last week. [video clip] >> when we step into that voting booth, we bring the totality of our lived experience a. some have questioned the

majority of our youth. i don't. a 16-year-old in 2019 possesses a wisdom and maturity that comes from 2019 challenges, hardships, and threats. they bring the fears that their father's insulin will run out before the next paycheck, the hopes to be the first in their family to earn a college degree, the lessons they learned picking up shifts, waiting tables to support their family while their mother was deployed. a 17-year-old will bring the solemn vow to honor the lives of their classmates stolen by a gunman and now is the time to 2019 courage0 -- that matches the challenges of the modern day exchange and -- 16 and 17-year-old. host: democrat narrowly supporting that measure. all but one republican in the house opposed that measure. here is pushback against .owering the voting age to 16

mike huckabee saying ayanna pressley introduced the bill to lower the voting age, liberals don't think kids know what gender they are, but they are smart enough to vote? it is a brave new world. more from the floor debate. this is rodney davis, republican from illinois beaking on the floor about this bill. [video clip] is bad enough because i believe it will institutionalize a democrat majority in this house of representatives. it to be so brash and possibly unconstitutional to decide to try and lower the voting age only for political reasons is something i don't think this institution should be doing. i have two 18-year-old boys who got to cast their first vote this year. would getknow if i their votes. since then, they told me they voted for me and in a close race

like mine, it made a difference. this policy is not well-thought-out. it is not constitutional, and should not be part of this bill. host: the overall bill this amendment was looking to join that large bill that moved in the house last week on campaign finance, ethics, and voting issues. this amendment was not eventually included. we want to talk about it since it sparked a discussion. if you think we should lower the voting age to 16, it is 202-748-8000. if you oppose that idea, 202-748-8001. as wen keep calling in show you comments from social media. seth writing there was a west wing topic -- episode on this topic. we are burdening the next generation with debt, how about we give them a voice. again writing only democrats believe they need to get so desperate for voters and one

more from chase saying the argument concerning the education level of 16-year-old is flawed. -- understands the basic abilities of the three branches. 16-year-olds will of at least just learned about them in government and history class. david on the phone from north bend, oregon on those whose -- on the line for those who support the idea. good morning. caller: good morning. i do support it. what i really feel is these -- in fact, there was a group of elementary students confronting dianne feinstein, that was on one of your programs that i listened to a few days ago. at least it was a critique about the situation. it wasn't the actual program, where they confronted her and she was sort of -- it sounded

like she just did not know where to turn. the greatest issue facing us as human beings is their survival of civilization. it's not covered very much in the media, but it is a fact. if we can get all the 16-year-olds to vote, because so many adults are so bound up in just trying to stay alive and get their bills paid because of a -- lagging wages in this shake thingsuld up. i think it would really shake things up. i tell you quite frankly, i don't see it politically even feasible. host: why is that? --ler: wasn't there about of a vote a few years ago -- host: it did not pass the house, 126 supporting, 305 opposed.

the confrontation between dianne feinstein and some of those young students over the issue of the green new deal and climate change, it was the graphic used by no in their piece letr lasky, in his column, 16-year-olds vote. then is next in maryland on line for those who oppose the idea. why do you oppose it? caller: to echo mike huckabee's sentiments, they were not terribly pc, but pretty accurate . i think it is an obvious ploy from the democratic party to gain votes. i don't know if you remember being 16, but i do and everything was really idealistic and my views were a lot more payral before i had to taxes on work for a living and all that stuff. i think it is a ploy from the

democratic party to gain votes. centerhe pew research has their ongoing trends and party affiliations. they break it down in any way you want to slice it. this is the trends when it comes to the age of voters, specifically the trend for millenials, the democratic advantage now in millenials for those born 1981 to 1996, 30 5% identifying as democratic, 17% saying they are republican, 44% saying independent. you can see how that gap has widened in that chart from the pew research center. a lot closer as you go through rumortion x, the generation, and the silent generation predict joyce in ohio, you are next. host: i don't think -- caller: i don't think a 16-year-old should

vote. at 16, you are idealistic and what you see is black and white. there is no other way to look at anything because they don't have the experience or the knowledge, even though they understand the wording of the situation, i feel that if steen-year-olds are given the right to vote, it will of theirly on a basis feelings they had at that time. if a 16-year-old can vote, why sign upt a 16-year-old for the military? we are responsible until the age of 18 or 21 according to the laws in this country, for what our children do. they are still children even

though at that age, they are considered young adults. youngwhy do you think americans are open-minded and less apt to see things in black-and-white? caller: yes. host: why do you think that? caller: pardon? host: why do you think older americans are more open why did -- open-minded? caller: they have more experience. their judgment is clouded, but they have the advantage of looking at situations in two or three different ways rather than just a black-and-white type wording, okay? behindve had experience them in some effect or another. host: that is joyce in ohio, this is teresa in georgia this morning. go ahead. caller: i absolutely think the new generation at 16 is responsible enough to make an

opinion and vote in politics because we allow them also to drive cars. you get a learners permit and we put them behind the wheel. the responsibility is definitely there. just as you stated earlier with the previous caller, older adults can be cloudier as well as young adults. it is really not a good comparison there. host: james in virginia, you are next. go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. i have never heard so many full of people in my entire -- fool ish people in my entire life. critical thought process happens at eight 23. why don't you just allow interns to do brain surgery?

i am so shocked at this egner ends. host: you want to raise the voting age? caller: most positively. until your brain has arrived at the station where you are able to calculate what is going on, you make decisions that are so foolosh and that is part of learning, making lots of mistakes and having role models allowed to catch you so you don't die. it is unbelievable to me anybody could possibly think a 16-year-old child could make a and couldhat would influence all the things in our world. people don't realize how foolish americans are already, you certainly will realize it once a steen-year-old has a capability to make decisions for you. host: back to that column at cnn.com, here is how he starts

his column, my son follows the news closely and watches john oliver every week. he is angry his parents and grandparents generations left him with a rapidly warming and unlivable world and joined demonstrations against gun violence and was involved in student-led efforts to change the name of columbus day. he thinks donald trump is "a racist, sexist, homophobe." for those reasons, he would like to vote, but he cannot. 16-year-olds can get a license to pilot dangerous, violent hunks of metal at high speeds, but cannot vote. young people need and deserve the right to vote in the country would be stronger if they had it. -- yourking your phones calls on phone lines for those who support lowering the voting age to 16, 202-748-8000. if you oppose it, 202-748-8001 .robert is next from massachusetts. good morning. caller: good morning.

i would like to say one thing about young people. every them better than older person i have seen. young people have to understand older people have lived and they have knowledge. they have a lot of things to .ffer to young people right now, i would take nancy pelosi right now. the only person that can beat donald trump is nancy pelosi and the young people. nancy is old, the young people are young. want to tell-- i you right now. i love young people and i love old folks. i am in the middle. i am in the middle. what they are going to do with me? citizenoming a senior

-- i tell you one thing, i like john kerry, elizabeth warren, all the democrats running for election right now. host: this is john in arizona on the line for those who oppose. go ahead. caller: hello? host: go ahead, john. caller: yeah, as far as i am concerned, kids are basically human larva and their minds do not even mature until they are 25 years old. this is ridiculous and they should not be able to vote. host: you wanted to raise it to 25? 18, wherewould like it is. host: why do you trust 18 versus 25? caller: because they can go to the army then -- they can go in the army and carry a gun. in the army teaches them

maturity. host: what about the eight the army? caller: to college. host: what about those who don't go to college? caller: they go to work. again, they still have enough common sense to vote. host: what about 16-year-olds that work? caller: like i said, they are human larva. host: this -- that is john in arizona. here is more from ayanna pressley, she was tweeting quite a bit leading up to the vote, her amendment was rejected on the issue, but here is what she was tweeting before and after, since the days of abolitionist, suffragists, young people have been pushing the wheels of progress forward, thanking some of the other members who helped her pushing for that amendment. we will show you some of the other tweets from the congresswoman as we go along.

ken in washington, d.c. on the line for those who support lowering the voting age. caller: i don't mind because previous collars, like the one you just had, adamantly opposing it. there are 16-year-olds that have been charged with adult crimes, they lower the agent to tart -- charge them. my son graduated from high school at 16, entered college at 17. for someone to save military service allows you to become foolish. you have to take everyone generally on their merit, their abilities. maybe it is something they actually accomplish or do. graduating from high school might be sufficient enough. if he is putting an age limit or aid requirement, that should remind one as senior citizens get older and lose mental capacities because of

older age and health, should they lose it? he is talking about somebody's mentality or ability to be sure. trump -- onlysist one reason, that reason makes less than any sense at all. host: the caller was talking about those who go in the workforce and gain maturity that way. ayanna pressley tweeting in 2018, nearly 2 million young people were employed, can it into the labor force and their local economy through paying taxes. lori is in whittier, north carolina, on the line for those who oppose. why do you oppose lowering the voting age? caller: i oppose the voting age because the majority of 16-year-olds have not even so civicsgovernment or classes in high school. i think there needs to be some

fundamentals for these minor children to understand -- to actually understand how our government works, what the purpose of the constitution is, what the purpose of the bill of rights are. i would not want a 16-year-old who do not -- does not even have the fundamentals or the maturity what theyy understand are voting on to try to influence how the government should be run. 16 years old, they are considered minor children under legal statutes. host: do you think all the adult who vote in this country have the fundamentals you are talking about? caller: no, honestly, i don't think a lot of them do. i think everybody should get like the free constitution little books they pass out from

and other organizations, various organizations and it would not hurt to go back and take a free constitution class. liberty university even offers free constitution classes. i think even some members of congress need to go back and and theireir memories civic duties on what they are supposed to do as well. host: max in washington, d.c., good morning. i think we should lower the voting age and to 16 because some work and pay taxes and they deserve representation because they contribute to our budget. host: about 40 minutes left in this segment of the washington journal. our question for you, should the

voting age be lowered to 16? if you support that idea, 202-748-8000. if you oppose, 202-748-8001. also later this morning, we will be digging in to the president 's 2020 budget, joined by steven and we kathryn watson will talk about the budget as part of our week ahead. the budget has yet to arrive on capitol hill, but plenty of reporting already. trump's federal budget plan arriving without much fanfare. the blueprint was delayed by the shutdown. it will be over $4 trillion and include an $8.6 billion request for new funding for the wall. sayingdline in usa today

democrats already rejecting that idea even before the budget hit capitol hill. a joint statement from nancy pelosi and chuck schumer. president trump hurt millions of americans and caused widespread chaos when he recklessly shut down the government to get an expensive -- an offense -- congress refused to fund his wall and forced to admit the feet and reopen the government. they said the same thing will repeat itself if he tries again to raid arguing money would be better sent on issues -- better spent on issues such as education. we will talk more about it in our next segment. back to your calls about the voting age being lowered to 16. mike in ohio, what do you think? caller: i basically think what is guys likeg into bernie sanders reach out to

these young kids and promised these free programs and what they are going to do for them and they get pulled into that and that is the sad thing we see today, it is easy to make that to sayn as a 16-year-old this sounds great. they don't realize they don't have the wherewithal to think who is going to pay for these programs? to let them vote, that is a scary thing at that young of an age. host: henry in maryland, good morning. caller: good morning. the callers about having the age lowered. i worked as a teacher and i see kids through the various ages and they are fine to make these decisions. we allow them to drive cars, have jobs, they get taxed. they even get charged as adults

with a serious crime. i think they should have the ability to be able to vote. host: a few more tweets and comments. sarah writing for those saying raise to 21, should we also raise the age of military involvement? country,n die for our but not enjoy a beer and now you have them -- if you are old enough to work, you are old enough to vote. the only advantage is registration would take place in high school and eligibility and citizenship would be certain. it is still too early while they are knowledgeable and opinionated, let them graduate high school and register at dickstein, but get a voting card at 18. glenn in hurricane, utah, on the line for those who oppose. yes, i don't believe in

children voting. i left home at 14 and went to work and i worked for farmers and then i worked on the oil rig starting at 17 and i worked on the oil rig for many years. i realize i started out working way too young and you just don't 14, 15, 16,urity at 17, 18, you are growing up at 18. 16 is too young. talk more about that maturity and what you need when it comes to voting in this country. what kind of maturity do you want to see? caller: you need experience. to be a good rig hand, you have to have so many hours under the

belt spinning rods or polling pipe and you just don't jump behind the brake handle. those are dangerous jobs, you don't have the responsibility -- enough experience behind you to accept the job that could take the risk of other lives. you are putting people like a driller has to have so much experience before he can drill. . lot of jobs are that way i think voting age at steen -- it is best too young. too young for voting. more childrenve at 16 then poverty per capital than anybody else in the country. 16-year-olds, i

have watched them and coached them, they are still children. host: thanks for the call this morning. at some of the legal issues as detailed in the hill article on this renewed debate over lowering the voting age, the constitution does not prohibit states from setting a lower voting age and some cities have adopted legislation to minimum the voting age. many states allow steen-year-olds to preregister to vote. robert in brooklyn, new york. your thoughts this morning. caller: yes, i am in favor of it .ecause i am 77 years of age the idea that people my age and even people in their 50's were formed at a time when the world was very different from what it is today. there was no internet when i was young, no global positioning system, the worst thing you could be was homosexual or

lesbian. abortion was not legal when i was young and racism was much more readily accepted. have their-old political views in conditions they are now. their ideas will be more consummate with the world as it is. they won't be looking back to a be recaptured.ot you cannot turn the clock back. i say the younger age is desirable. thank you very much. host: candace in georgia, you are next. caller: i am in favor of it because i don't really see that big of a difference between a 16-year-old and an 18-year-old. they both can't drink, but i am

sure most people do that anyway. i think young people have a voice large enough than they may be did before because of social media and i think they know a lot more than people give them credit for. i don't think they are children without minds and thoughts of their own. that's can drive a car, a huge responsibility, putting them behind a wheel and giving them responsibility to be responsible and not do things like drink and drive. i think you can give them the responsibility of deciding who they should vote for and what policies should they vote for for their own well-being. i don't really see that big of a deal of yet -- letting young people vote. host: do you mind if i ask if you are a young person yourself?

caller: i will be 23 soon. host: think back not too long ago, do you think you were ready to vote at that point? caller: i think at that point i wasn't in tune to society now. with the internet, i think definitely i am way more into what is going on around me. before, i wasn't on the internet much. i did not see the importance of voting as i did now. host: you mentioned social media and the internet, do you think that has been a good thing for making young people informed citizens? caller: i really do. it has really helped me maybe understand candidates and politics more because it is a huge pool. you have to assess whether the information is credible, but at least you are getting the information to you, you are not

just blinded or it is not just taken away from you where you do not have an idea to assess for yourself. it is more open than it would be before, i think. host: do you consider yourself a millennial or are you the next generation after millenials? caller: i guess i would be considered a millennial. host: what are the top two or three issues for you as a millennial? caller: for me, definitely college. is --er every time there when i get my tuition updates and everything like that because it is so expensive. also, health care. i don't have that because of how expensive it is. the third one -- i think climate change is very important because if we don't have a healthy

environment, the other things won't matter in the end. if you want to set up a healthy life for your children, that is great, but if you cannot breathe, what is the point? host: thanks for the call. it is just after 7:30 on the east coast having this conversation just a few days issue wass on this voted down in the house. 126-305 the house voting against lowering the voting age to 16. it would have been included as people the hr-1, for the , act. congressman jim mcgovern is the congressman of the house rules committee, so this amendment would have had to go through the committee, jim mcgovern saying he was proud to support the amendment to lowering -- lower the voting age to 16. decisions we make today will affect the young people in this country for decades. they deserve a say in this democracy and that is what this

amendment would do. one other tweet from michael burgess, republican from texas, the lone republican who supported this measure last week when it was on the house floor. he tweeted those who pay taxes should have a voice in our democracy. as a teenager, i worked and paid taxes. i voted for an amendment that would give young adults the right to vote. i support policies that encourage work and this can be part of that conversation. jill is next in washington, the line for those who support the idea. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. 16-year-olds voting. currently you can vote at 18. i entered college at the age of 17. 16-year-olds are educated in state government in high school. they are allowed to emancipate themselves from their parents. they are allowed to work. they can operate a vehicle.

i don't see any reason why they would not have enough knowledge if common sense to -- even the first vote is not necessarily an educated vote, they are at least getting the experience of understanding the importance or understanding may be to do more research and reading to educate themselves more on who they are voting for. currently, i have seen senior citizens below through roundabouts and stop signs when the power is out and i don't know if it is necessarily them not knowing what to do when things like that occur, but i don't think it is a matter of .ge our younger people have a lot of access to research and they are already geared up to researching information they want to find out more about. host: what are young people

don't have is the time and the experience and some of the other callers concerned about whether they had the full mental development. what do you say to those concerns about lowering the voting age? caller: i did not have it when i registered to vote at age 18, but i still registered to vote and voted and learned. host: thanks for the call this morning. theis next in maryland, line for those who oppose lowering the voting age. oppose 16, but i think 17 is a good age. i am in educator in the state and these kids are having discussions about their lives, their future, and they are talking about politics, talking about the economy, the environment and i really believe they have the capacity to make decisions that are relevant for their future. host: why draw the line there?

what happens between 16 and 17? caller: 16 is around sophomore in high school. they are a lot more idealistic about what is life -- what life is about and they are not -- they haven't really taken history and physics -- civics and thought through. allowed -- around 11th and 12 grade, they have been in high start for a while, they to form their own opinions about life and they start to have more responsibilities. a lot of students, they work. they pay taxes and start to realize what being an independent is like. they are also

thinking about their future in terms of college, career, and other things. some students have children at 17, 18 years old. i think 17, in my opinion, is the age i think they are capable of making decisions that affect their lives and society. host: in terms of 18-year-olds in maryland, are they registering to vote? are they taking advantage of the ability to vote? we always hear on this program about the very low turnout rates among youngest voters. caller: that is very difficult for teenagers. in our district, we have registration sessions at the school. a lot of our students, when they apply to college at our fares, we have representatives from the state to register those young folks to vote. but there difficult,

are a lot of organizations out there pushing the registration schoolsthrough the high and college fairs. host: what do you think it will take to raise the numbers and ,et more younger people to vote 18, 19, 20-year-olds to turnout? caller: someone that can listen to them and get their attention read it starts with the family. to have those discussions. at that age, they are very independent and you have to find a way through mentor ship or job placement, people that will capture their attention and have those discussions. a lot of it is some students think it does not affect them

and they are not really ready -- .hey think no one is listening and that whatever they do in terms of voting may not affect much.s i think what a lot of it's a is the bickering and the back-and-forth in congress. they are not really focusing on the use and their future. and their future. host: should we lower the voting age to 16 in this country? if you support that idea, 202-748-8000. if you oppose the idea, 202-748-8001. having this discussion today on budget day on capitol hill. we are expected to see the arrival of the president's 2020 budget. one of the headlines from the washington post this morning, the wall funding request signaling the 2020 election

fight to come. larry kudlow was on fox news sunday and was asked about the new budget and the upcoming fight over the border wall and here is what he had to say. [video clip] >> i suppose there will be. the whole issue of the wall and border security is of paramount importance. we have a crisis down there. i think the president has made that case effectively. it is a crisis of economics, crime and drugs, a crisis of humanity. we need to be much tougher and have more constructed immigration policy, which we will be developing. so, yes, he is going to stay with the wall and border security. i think it is essential. calls thisg your morning, we will talk more about the budget coming up in 20 minutes in our weekly look at the week ahead in washington.

stick around for that discussion. until then, we will continue to have this discussion about lowering the voting age to 16. john in michigan, on the line for those who support the idea. caller: i started watching c-span when it started and that really changed my outlook on participating in the process. i think starting people out young is a positive thing. i think the reason i called in was the kids in this situation are not being represented. the people who are talking about this right now are older people. i did hear the one younger girl call, but i don't think the majority of people that do the call in or even listening right now are young people. host: how old are you, john? caller: 55.

host: you said you started getting involved and started watching c-span -- how old were you when you started? caller: i was probably 14 or 15, somewhere in there. host: right around the start of c-span, we are coming up on our 40th anniversary. caller: correct. i was very excited when we got to see the first images of the house. host: do you think at 14 or 15, you had the majority or the ability to step into the voting booth? caller: definitely and i had been actively participating in politics way before that from when i was 9 and 10, local politics, the voting for mayor and city council, stuff like that in ann arbor. host: you said you heard the one caller who was a young person talking about this idea and one of the things she talked about was the ability to know more

about what is going on in the country due to social media and the internet, that kids have a better awareness of what is going on. what do you think about that? caller: high don't think that makes them more aware. i think that makes them more opinionated because that is the direction that kind of media goes. i think if we could get people to be more involved with media such as c-span, which is more open minded and factual based, that would be a positive thing. you have these call-in shows may be a time when kids could participate, that would be a positive step forward. host: what do you think about local papers on local news as opposed to news on the internet and aggregated news and that sort of thing? the quality of the news? caller: i think that is really going downhill because of the corporation concept, everything being consolidated and people

think they are watching local news, but it is really being produced and run by large corporations, like sinclair and stuff like that. host: do you get a local newspaper? caller: i do not. host: have you ever gotten a local newspaper? caller: i used to get the ann arbor news for years, yes. host: why did you stop getting it? caller: i found it much easier to sit down and read when i had time and so, it was difficult to have a big hunk of paper dragging around when you wanted to sit down and read. host: how much time do you spend on the internet looking up news? caller: probably three hours or four hours a day. host: thanks for the call. the reason i ask about local newspapers, here is a story from today's washington times. local journalism is fading away

town by town, noting some 1400 cities and towns across the united states have lost a newspaper in the past 15 years according to an associated press analysis of data compiled by the university of north carolina. ry, but the va result is many americans no longer have someone watching the city council for them. in many places, local journalism is dying in plain sight. it focuses on the daily guide in central missouri and that newspaper. you can look at it today in the washington times. mia in st. clair shores, michigan. what do you think about lowering the voting age? caller: good morning. i absolutely do not think they are ready to vote. anybody that is around teenage kids nowadays definitely would

agree with me if they were being honest. they cannot even empty the dishwasher. it is ridiculous. most teachers are liberal and democrat. these kids would be voting in that direction. if most of them were republican, i would guarantee there would not even be a question. i think it is ridiculous we even have to say no kid at 16 cannot vote. what is wrong with letting them be teenagers and have fun and do well in school and look forward to college? what is wrong with that? they don't put their phone down. they are getting all their news through facebook, everything they are getting is through facebook. they have no skin in the game, so to speak. it is ridiculous. host: think back to when you were dickstein and whether you think you would have been ready to take on the responsibility of voting. caller: absolutely not.

i have never missed a voting since i was 16 -- 18. at 16, i wanted to be fun. we are pushing kids in a direction that is dangerous. we even have names for them, the millennial generation and whatnot. has anybody taken a good look at them? the average exchange or old right now, you cannot get them to do anything without putting down their phone. host: think back to win you were 16 and what -- not missing a vote since 18. what changed? was there a moment or experience that made you feel like you were ready? caller: yes, exactly, having skin in the game, working, being out on your own. going to school, going to college, all of those things, definitely. you want to have a voice as far as our government goes. at 16, let them be kids.

they are just getting their driver's license. host: a poll on this topic on our facebook page, facebook.com/cspan. some 7.5 thousand of you have voted already -- 75,000 of you have voted already. dickstein percent saying you should lower the voting age. fred on the line for those who opposes the idea. go ahead. caller: good morning, c-span. i was thinking about raising the voting age to 20 because things are so difficult now and things are going in different directions. we need to hold off, everybody take a deep breath and realize we are screwing politics up and we need to slow down. 20 is fine. thank you, have a nice day. host: are you comfortable with 16-year-old driving a car? we lost fred.

in florida, go ahead. caller: john, can you hear me? host: yes, sir. go ahead. caller: i am an expert on this explain why.ill i hope you ask me questions so we can have a dialogue. i believe i am the first person on c-span ever to mention this. in theened june 1, 1996 stanford children marched, the rally in washington, d.c.. i was just starting as a teacher and i had gone back to school and i was from gainesville, florida and i called and said i don't know if anybody has mentioned this, but i think we should lower the voting age to 16. subsequently, it has become a life mission of mine. 16 vote. trademark i am a teacher and in 1998 when deb bush was running for election in florida, i ran a

mock election and organized a mock election and the reason i did it was i was driving to work one day to teach and i heard on the radio only 7% of the people turned out to vote or it i was frustrated because i had gone back to school to be a teacher and i was really trying to promote democracy and education. i went to school and decided i was going to organize from september 2 october, a mock election and we ran the mock election and i would like to invite myself to come on your program and talk about what happened in the experience and i have a news program i was videotaped on, i had the news media come out and film it, so i have videotape as well. i can talk about the results and there is a really interesting story about what happened. the mock election was almost called off the morning by the principal. host: stick around on the line after you and i finish and i will have our producer get your contact information.

did you happen to just come across this program today and this topic or do you watch c-span every day? caller: high monitor you every day and i know you ran this program about three or four months ago, you ran the same question and i reviewed it after you ran the program and watched the first half and tallied myself how many called supporting and didn't and it was about 50-50 ratio on it. your ratio this morning, 84-steen is curious. is curious. why is it your life mission? caller: because i love this country and i think it is what has to happen. test older people to see if they have lost their faculties, people can vote into their 80's and so forth. you can't say we don't know if

they have alzheimer's and they get stuck into an ideology. i have created a thing called president truth, and model for the presidency. i website is called truthparty.com, which is an embryonic stage of a third party for this country. when i ran this mock election, the news media use to be fair and balanced, where i came out and the dutch and the people filled the program. the news media keeps doing the same stories because they are trying to make money instead of promote democracy. host: come back to the 16 to vote question. voting rights are already very low in this country. why do we expect they might get better if we lower the voting age to 16? caller: we need a two-part program. this is another part. i have created five steps with this president truth.

one of the steps i believe -- one of them is 16 vote. the other is it two-part process, democracy sense. we need a national public service learning program where students from 16 to 18 learn about their government and also provide service and it is something i have written about and designed and we don't need to spend money on it, we can have these young people actually doing public service programs and self-support themselves and they need to be a watchdog on congress. just like england, they have like a shadow government. we need to do the same thing. that way congress can have a contact with the people. i noticed last night on c-span, john delaney suggested one of his five or six big things was to start a service learning program, a service program for

young people and in the late john mccain had this in mind. i have got extensive research on this and extensive writing on it . unfortunately, i don't have connections in the media and thank god i got through this morning. host: stick around on the line. we only have about five minutes left. maybe it is something we can chat more about for a future program. thanks for the call and thanks for watching from florida. vivian is next from alabama. good morning. caller: good morning. they ought to be careful as to what they hope for. if you are mature enough to vote at 16, you should be mature enough to suffer the consequences if you commit a crime and that would mean as a -- if a dickstein-year-old killed somebody, they can be set up as an adult and possibly have the death sentence.

16-year-old -- i would like to raise the voting age to 21 myself. the only problem i have myself is a child can go at 18 and served in the service. there is a discrepancy. baked enough. not thereerage 16 year old, are some mature ones, but the years old and i would hate to see them suffering the consequences of adult punishment if they get in trouble. host: when you say they are not baked enough, are you talking about life experiences? are you talking about completing high school? what goes into that? caller: to life experiences? host: what makes someone fully baked? going to telly is

you you watch a lot of shows about maturity levels, especially a young man actually matures, he is around 25 years old. , you are not mature enough to make these decisions on your own. that is why you still have parents taking care of you and if you are charged with a crime, you cannot be prosecuted as an adult. host: john in new york city, time for one or two more calls. go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. i support lowering the federal voting age to 16. youth in the united states are wiser than the enemy -- the elderly. there are some wise congressmen and congresswomen in this house and their perspective is excellent. like ilhan omar.

i support her because of her opinions to israel and it shows the young generation in the united states do not support the old-fashioned thoughts. thank you. host: that is john in new york. this is emmy and--in georgia. caller: i would like to thank the caller from georgia, that is a great idea, what he is doing. i initially did not support it, but i am kind of on the fence now. hello? host: what makes you on the fence? what changed your mind a little bit? caller: when i was listening to the caller from florida, when they are 18 -- i have an 18-year-old, and they go off to college, everybody thinks getting out to vote for that demographic is great, but it really isn't. it is because they are on their own now and they decide on their

own time schedules. in college, they are not necessarily not voting. 16-year-olds, they are still in high school. i think the fact they are still in high school, the school would have a little bit more -- not necessarily control as to which way they vote, but to be able to instill the importance of voting at that time and get them used to it so when they do become adults, they have already got that instilled that it is their .uty to go out and vote the fact that some of them are immature and more worried about their devices and being on their phone really does worry me. at the same time, i am looking at it in a more broad fashion and realize the schools help them out with that. forink it might be positive

the country, especially now since there is a lot of violence that happens in schools. i think kids should be able to put their opinions in because they are the ones who are targets of wands walking in with guns and if their lives are at stake, let them have a say in our democracy. host: thanks for the call and talking about your. process. barbara in michigan, the line for those who oppose the idea. go ahead. caller: hi. caller: how many 16-year-olds own a house and understand municipal taxes or pay water bills or pay for their medical bills? they can't even have an insurance policy. adults are responsible for that and how many 16-year-olds can own a car? even in michigan, there is a

for how many people a 16-year-old can have in a car, and they have to be off the road by mid-night. -- midnight. people want politics in high school? we see what is going on in colleges and the disarray that is happening. you want that in high school? if we let 16-year-olds vote and have guns, we need to worry about guns and school. people in michigan, some of them are so lazy that they can't even register to vote 30 days ahead

of time. host: that is our last caller in for this segment. stick around, plenty more to come. up next we are joined by bloomberg senate reporter steven dennis and cbs white house reporter kathryn watson to discuss the week ahead in washington and american enterprise institute's aparna mathur discusses new paid family leave laws. we will be right back. ♪ >> the only thing we have to fear is fear itself. >> ask not what your country can

do for you. ask what you can do for your country. >> and the people who knocked these buildings down -- c-span's newest book, the presidents, noted historians rank the nation's best and worst chief executives. true stories gathered by interviews with noted presidential historians. explore the life events that shaped our leaders, the challenges they faced and the legacy they have left behind. published by public affairs, c-span's the presidents will be on shelves april 23 but you can preorder your copy today at c-span.org/thepresidents. during this year's conservative political action

attendees, we asked what does it mean to be american? >> there are so many things i could say. start with patriotism, the history of our country, how patriots fought to make this country. this was an experiment that could have gone completely wrong and it didn't. people are trying to keep it alive and i think you care about immigrants and talk about how they really thought to come to this country. the servicemen and women who have died for our country, we just can't say enough about what this country really is and even with all the diversity, people are proud to be americans. >> it means one very simple concept. freedom. it does not come from our government or other people, it comes from a right as a human being.

they are ours and we will go with them and side with them and that is what america is. >> being america means going back to our roots, a time when -- following the second amendment. serving -- ensuring our voice will be heard. especially for conservatives across all campuses. that is what it means to be an american. >> what it means to me is that we are fortunate to live with something called the united states constitution. we have the privilege of the first amendment and the second amendment which allows us to thele our differences in

court system so we don't have to jump into foxholes and dodge bullets and stand in front of tanks. >> voices from the road on c-span. "> "washington journal continues. host: each monday when congress is in session, we like to take a look at the week ahead in washington and to do that, we are joined by steven dennis, bloomberg senate reporter. kathryn watson is the white house reporter with cbsnews.com. some images from capitol hill. the budget has been delivered to capitol hill and there is a shot of the budget on the desk. take us through what we should know about this budget. kathryn: first off, this budget is going to be requesting $8.6 billion for border security, specifically for a border wall.

that is something that is not going to go over very well with house democrats who just have this fight over a national emergency, another thing we are going to be dealing with this week. $3.6 billionere, request in addition to that, to repay those military thetruction funds from national emergency that the president kind of set into motion, another thing that is going to have contention. the budget does call for a lot nondefenseout 5% in discretionary funds. in addition, we have defense spending increases. another thing that is going to kind of rile democrats saying you are cutting here while boosting defense spending. host: steven dennis, how much of what is in that large document

that was on the desk is likely to make it into the final document whenever the budget season end? -- budget sees an end? steven: it is the next big government shutdown -- government showdown that could end in a shutdown. it is unlikely that any of these domestic spending cuts are going to make it across the finish line. look at the last two years. the president has had two years of budgets were he proposed sweeping cuts to domestic programs and almost none of them happened. in fact the opposite happened. last year he had to deal with democrats to increase spending on nondefense. now he is saying he wants to go , butand cut spending again when republicans were in charge, he agreed to additional spending and now you have democrats in charge who want more spending. it is going to be hard to get any of the spending cuts done.

what the democrats have demanded in the past is that if you want more for defense, they will demand more for domestic as well. that is sort of the big fight. you also have a big fight over the wall funding. one of the things that democrats could be looking for and what could be real in addition to the is to look at some of the sugarplums in the budget. they'll be looking to see if there are particular projects -- there hased been a lot of talk of bipartisanship on infrastructure. also prescription drugs and a lot of hearings from both chambers to do something about the high cost of prescription drugs. they will be looking to see if there is more detail once those

budget books come out, that can really get some of these bipartisan agenda items across the finish line. host: we will find out more those details. kathryn watson, how open is the white house to some sort of deal? we have seen budget deals in the past, going into the 2020 election cycle, is the wife -- is the white house more or less likely to make a deal? kathryn: it is not going to be an easy battle. the administration says they're going to push for these 5% aggregate cuts. what that means is not necessarily every department. some may have more or less. that is something they are keen on because one thing that this budget does not do is it does not balance the budget. it would not for another 15 years which is for a long time.

see,will be interesting to but this is their ideal version of what could happen and it is not what is going to end up in reality. we will see how much they are willing to fight and negotiate for. it has been impressive to see, the last couple of months, the reality for republicans on capitol hill and the white house, realizing they no longer have control over everything. they no longer have final say. in theere some things past that were difficult when both chambers were controlled by republicans but that is compounded now. dennis, the reaction before these budget books made it to capitol hill. we saw reaction from leading democrats. steven: nancy pelosi and chuck schumer put out a statement rejecting this idea of an extra $8.6 billion for the wall. they say the president continues to push and demand that and will

end up with another shutdown that he will have to cave on in the end. they are putting down markers very early. that fight is going to go on between now and september 30. one of the things that we are not really seeing a whole lot, whether it be from republicans or democrats is a push for real deficit reduction. there is a lot on paper that not a whole lot of real meat that on capitol hill. host: explain what that means. steven: if you're only targeting defense discretionary programs, all of those programs put together are about half $1 trillion a year. muchan only cut them so with the deficit already heading toward a trillion dollars a year. those programs are all very popular on capitol hill.

they include things like transportation and education. you will not be able to cut them much more and get that through congress and some of the big programs like there like medicare and social security, the ones that are adding to the deficit, the president has not been willing to go at those big giant programs that are politically popular. unless the president were to do something very different in how he negotiates with congress. he has gone to the wall on the wall. he has not gone to the wall on the deficit or spending cuts. -- could spark a different conversation but he does not seem to be going that way. as you mentioned, we've got the election coming next year. do you want to have a big market fight over debt and the

shutdown? the odds are low on that. host: more reaction from democrats on capitol hill. senator kamala harris tweeting yesterday when the storage at a coming out about the money in this budget for the border wall, let's get this straight. she tweeted billions of dollars on a border wall, american taxpayers should not for the bill for the president jakey vanity project. from the head of the subcommittee in the appropriations committee that this budget would have to go through. she says as the department of homeland security appropriations chair, i am fighting to ensure our funding targets areas that will truly protect our country and not waste taxpayer dollars on trump's friend effective trump'sall -- ineffective border wall. .ost: democrats, (202)-748-8000

republicans, (202)-748-8001. .ndependents, (202)-748-8002 we are tracking the vote disapproving the president's emergency address. steven: they president has already lost a number of votes, enough to pass this resolution. there has been talk behind closed doors on whether republicans would try to amend it and make it more to their likely -- liking but that seems unlikely. yorty have senators like susan havens -- you already senators like susan collins who want to vote on this resolution. you have rand paul who wants to

vote on this resolution and express his view that this is not the constitutional way we should have power of the purse going to the president. this will be a very interesting vote. to some degree it is a free vote because the house has already voted and they don't have a veto override majority. what mitch mcconnell said he will expect is that this will , go to thenate president's desk and not be overwritten in the house. how much political strength does the president have with these senate republicans? he is taking a risk if you go up against the president but on the other hand you have a lot of senate republicans who consider this emergency declaration to be constitutionally questionable or unconstitutional. it is going to be a gut check. host: are we still on track for

a thursday vote on this? steven: with the senate, it could happen anytime. this is likely to be the get out of town vote. next week is a recess for st. patrick's day. it is likely to be at the end of the week. host: kathryn watson, is there a number the white house is looking to avoid hitting when it comes to the number of republicans joining this resolution? kathryn: they would look for it and not pass but we are already past that point. really, it is to minimize the damage. in the white house have been lobbying members on to persuade if not them, to at least gauge where they are at. what the president does not want is to have as many as 10

republicans which is what rand paul said. it probably will not be that many. rand paul said it might be as many as 10 republicans that vote against this. we will likely see one or two more who have been questioning this and that is what the white house does not want. they want to minimize the damage . grudges wheno hold it comes to these things and lindsey graham has been on record saying we will hold you to account, other republican senators. we will not forget this if you vote against the president. host: we will see mike pence -- will we see mike pence back on capitol hill ahead of this vote? kathryn: it is very likely. he has been the person the administration has sent. again, it is how visible do they want this to be? behind closeda

doors not in public view kind of lobbying we are seeing. host: plenty more to talk about in washington but we will it you chat with some callers. first, in new york on our republican line. thing hasis whole confused me because i watched one american news network every morning and they published a calculator with estimates from the department of homeland security. last year, $136 billion was spent to facilitate them. this year we have spent $50 billion to facilitate them. i am a little nervous here. this money ishere coming from when they are saying the president is taking a percentage out of each person's budget, out of each agency's work on hisder to border wall when we have spent all of this money and we are

still spending this money on illegals and they still keep coming in and one more thing, a couple weeks ago, a democrat in caused 1.2id that it billion that -- cost $1.2 billion a week for the government to be shut down which is more money than what the president actually wanted. it does not make sense. i'm going to hang up. host: let me see if we can help you with this. take us through some of the cuts in the budget and the costs and estimates on spending. trying to put this in perspective. steven: i don't know which figures she is citing as far as $136 billion. if you do have immigration that is not checked and somebody ends up in your school districts and you have to provide schooling or health care, there are costs. there are also costs at the border, the cost of border

patrol, having a strong border. i think that is separate from what the president is doing. what the president is doing is he trying to get congress to fund his wall. refused toplicitly fund more than $1.375 billion in additional wall construction money and he wanted more and he decided he was going to use his pen and unilaterally allocate $8 billion. several billion of which was tied to this emergency declaration. this has moved into a constitutional question and is probably going to end up in the supreme court and there are republicans who support the wall and voted for the wall, who are concerned that or don't believe that the president should have this authority, this ability to take the congress's power, it's

chief power as the power of the purse and use this national emergencies act to fund his everyday priorities. republicans and democrats tell me, what if we have a president and they declare a national emergency on climate change and they decide to transfer $100 billion or $200 billion? at what point does it become unconstitutional? at what point does it become too big of a grant of power? in the 90's, the supreme court looked at the line-item veto in the supreme court said you cannot just hand over your powers that way in the presidency. we are likely to see a court case on this but you have people like omar alexander going to the floor, urging the president to stand down, that there are other ways to get wall money.

it seems very unlikely the president is going to listen at this point, but as this court case goes on, we get a court decision before september 30, that might make things easier. --t: our guest this morning guests this morning, steven dennis with bloomberg. if you want to check out his stories. kathryn watson, we welcome for the first time. the white house reporter for cbsnews.com. our next caller is lisa. caller: i am with the lady who just called in and i was just wondering how this budget or what ever is going from $5 billion to $8 billion and where is all of this money coming from and do we really trust this president to be shifting money around wherever he wants to put it?

the republicans are they areup because afraid to lose their job or whatever. kathryn: thank you for the call. what we are seeing in terms of the border wall funding is a $.6 billion is what the president is requesting. billionanother $8 through executive action last month. he decided to go ahead with it so this comes out to $16 billion but of course this current budget proposal has to pass through congress. this is the preferred way get any would like to sort of funding past is through the legislative process, something that is approved through both chambers. the funding that the president got through executive action is something that is not only going to be tied up in the courts, but we are seeing the senate finally

voting against it this week . -- against it this week. to go8 billion will have through congress but it will be interesting because we have not seen exactly where all the money is going to ultimately come from, that the president is getting from the pentagon through various funds. that is going to be a little bit for debate. it is going to be interesting. we will see a similar fight we saw in the last month for the border wall. democrats are not going to be ok with $8.6 billion for the wall. host: this is all part of a more than $4 trillion annual budget. the president releasing his budget to capitol hill. you saw some of the images earlier of the budget arriving and now members will dive in to the various aspects of that budget. charles is next in illinois, a republican. caller: good morning.

with your guests being from bloomberg or cbs, c-span is only reporting this morning the liberal point of view of the half of the citizens out here watching your program are liberal and the other half far as theirive as viewpoints and we on the conservative side are not being served today. all we are hearing is beating up on the president's budget. host: i promise if you listen, you will get a lot of information on the budget from two very good reporters who cover capitol hill and the white house. steven dennis, how long have you been covering capitol hill? steven: since 2005. in roll call,e cq covering the house, the senate. when you cover these budgets,

you get used to the dead on arrival aspect to them. it does not matter whether it is republican, democrat, barack obama or george bush or president trump. they come out with these blueprints and most of what is in them does not become law. there were a long list of changes to entitlement programs proposed every year that are not going to become law. it is just sort of the reality of congress and washington. it is hard to get things done whether you are president trump, or president obama. he had plenty of fights with house republicans and he lost a lot of them. now we are in a different era of divided government and so it is going to be interesting to see. we have had sort of a failure to launch as far as having some kind of bipartisan budget deal

to kick off the new era. andad 35 days of shutdown no successful resolution. lawmakers,a lot of particularly republican lawmakers who wanted to cut a bigger deal that would deal with spending caps so we would not have this six-month fight over how much we are going to spend on defense and domestic. that we could just deal with that early on and then once you reach the overall structure, the next six months are all about priorities and deals and instead we are facing six months of acrimony with a very difficult backdrop for the president. he has a lot of investigations, the house is sending a lot of subpoenas. you have them all the report coming out -- you have the mueller report coming out. host: kathryn watson, talk about your experience. kathryn: i have been covering

the white house for about six months. before i was with cbs, i was at the daily caller. it is going to be very interesting. the president is not going to get everything he wants but democrats are also not going to get everything they want. that is what this budget process is about. it is about compromise. we tend to focus on where that tension is going to be, and for better or worse right now, that is the president's priority and whether or not those are going to get past. host: the white house, the changes in jobs at the white house. as to bill shiley leave mutations director. can we talk about who is in the next to replace him? kathryn: we will see if somebody will replace him. the president has gone through a number of indications directors. the shortest lifespan was

anthony scaramucci. president is really his own best communicator. anyone who steps into that role has a virtually impossible job. the president wants someone who shaves his media coverage in a way that he likes better which is hard if not impossible for one person to do. we will see if there -- if anyone is replaced. at the time that shine left, there were no active discussions as to who would replace him. host: in terms of the administration's communicators coming to capitol hill, we will see a couple of them. wilbur ross is coming to talk about this issue of the senses and a citizenship test. steven: this is a very important question, whether the senses

will ask people, are you a citizen or not and this is a big fight. republicans tend to like that question. the concern among democrats is that this will cause a lot of people not to answer the census. if you are in an area that has a lot of people who are not citizens, whether they be illegal immigrants or illegal immigrants and they are scared off by that question, that could affect everything from congressional apportionment to how much money you get. this is a big fight and it is already in court. this is potentially going to the supreme court but this is a chance for wilbur ross to explain his side of things. i think the republican argument we haveould know where people who are citizens and where we have people who are not and then we can tailor policy

that way. it is something that is very much a big fight. we know the census is going to be critically important especially in 2022 because after the senses, states redraw districts and there is nothing that members of congress are more interested in is knowing whether they're going to have a job and in 2022, that could affect which states have an extra member of congress or not. the could affect how big or small your district is. expect a lot of interests. host: as usual, a very busy week ahead. we can chat about any of the topics we have discussed. you can give us a call. democrats, (202)-748-8000. republicans, (202)-748-8001. independents, (202)-748-8002. jeremy is here in washington,

d.c., a democrat. caller: good morning. thank you for this opportunity. i really appreciate it. in the past week there was this paul manafort jail sentence and it worries me a lot. it was too light of a sentence. he committed bank fraud, tax fraud, actively stealing from our military and veterans, our security and stealing from our citizens. tax fraud is not a victimless crime. he has committed witness tampering, considering this guy conspired against the u.s. government and he got 47 months in prison while antonio brown for posting a facebook live video. years at rikers island

for allegedly stealing a backpack. kathryn watson, watching the fallout and reaction of the white house to the manafort sentencing. kathryn: this was a much lighter sentence than what was generally expected. people thought it would be a lot more than that, but i would highlight that this is not his only sentencing. he will be sentenced again on wednesday. that is for some conspiracy charges. we will see what comes about of that. he faces up to 10 years, the most he can receive for those charges. he is going to face a much tougher judge when it comes to wednesday. judge jackson who has been the judge in roger stone's case. you are member ever than it has -- everything that has happened with this case and he has been impetuous and she did not take well to that. manafort is going to have a much

harsher judge this time. it is going to be more than just those four years he is behind bars. host: steven dennis, quickly the reaction on capitol hill. steven: there is concern among democrats that the president could ultimately pardon paul manafort. president has not completely ruled pardons out. there is a concern among democrats that the president has been thinking about pardons, maybe dangling pardons and that would be a reason for paul manafort to have lied to mueller's prosecutors. that is one of the charges, one of the crimes that mueller has accused him of. that is why his plea agreement fell apart. concern oneal capitol hill, especially the house judiciary committee which is looking at obstruction of justice and potential obstruction of justice.

one of the things that richard nixon was going to be impeached on was dangling pardons. this is serious business. from an ways away actual impeachment fight but there are rumblings, subpoenas being readied. there is testimony on the hill. you can imagine a scenario where several months down the line, if the president has not given up on pardons or continues to talk or not rule them out, it could be concerning to a lot of democrats. host: louisville, ohio is next. rick on the independent line. are you with us? stick by your phone. dennis is in arizona, line for democrats. caller: thank you for this opportunity. my concern is that national security is much more important

concerning the grid improvement and -- rather than the wall. 100 million people could be put out of electricity with very little effort on a foreign power. we could have people starving without electricity in los angeles, new york and chicago, with very little effort by an versus a wall that is less important for infrastructure maintenance of $8 billion. host: kathryn watson. i know we have not opened the books on the budget, but do we know if there is more money for great security? kathryn: that is something in the details hopefully we will find out today but that is something that is important. we have not heard much talk

about that on capitol hill or in the white house. we will see what there is. host: steven dennis, you were jotting down notes. steven: i have seen hearings in recent years about this issue and it is important for folks to have a lot more renewable energy and while the big fights is to get that renewable energy from windy and sunny places to places where people live. this is an interesting area. the whole electricity area is interesting and could lead to some bipartisan dealmaking. the last time nancy pelosi was speaker, she got an -- not an energy package deal with president bush. not everything in washington is partisan. last week you had the chairman of the energy committee in the

senate holding a climate change hearing. you have people talking. host: she wrote an op-ed in the washington post with joe manchin. steven: exactly. are we going to see a green new deal? no, but we will see some actions that are concrete regarding nuclear power, transmission lines, the grid, that both parties can agree on. it is definitely possible but it is going to be hard to do and as the president has said himself, it is very hard to do all of these dealmaking's if you are investigating everything. trade-off.t of a if we're going to be having these investigations and shutdowns, it is hard to come together and say let's have a 21st-century transportation system. rewrite ofa big prescription drugs. host: do you think this first

step act was the last big bipartisan bill that is likely to pass before the 2020 election? steven: there were definitely several items that are moving along that both parties, a lot of senators are having quiet meetings right now on things like prescription drugs, things like transportation, but whether we end up seeing something big, this is more like a small to medium sized ball. there are incentives for lawmakers in both parties to get some things done. the permit -- the president is starting -- is trying to garnish his record going into the election. -- cory gardner in calabash they will want to get some things done as well, so i do think there is opportunity. nancy has shown that she can cut deals if you come to her with something in return.

she showed that with george bush and got the last minimum wage increase attached to the iraq war budget she did not like. one of the things they are going to do this week is the dream act. this is something that pelosi passed out ofand the house in 2010 and he got filibuster in the senate. the president has been open to parts of that and he wants his wall money in return and he wants some changes. it will be interesting to see what happens on all of these issues. host: less than 20 minutes left in our week ahead. we will take as many of your calls as we can. kathryn watson you have dave in ohio, republican. caller: i would like to refer to something mr. dennis said earlier, referencing illegals counting for representation in the house and the electoral

college and i don't think a lot of people know or understand that, when you consider that the latest m.i.t. reports on illegals tells us that between 20 million and 25 million illegals are out there and if they are counting towards representation in the house of representatives and the electoral college, that is political power and the issue is, those are noncitizens impacting the power of the politics in our nation and i don't think a lot of people understand that. of 20ou get to numbers million, you are talking about more citizens then the state of ohio. more representatives are going to endeavor presenting illegals in our house of representatives in a state like ohio and many other states.

kathryn: we don't have an exact estimate, an exact figure of how many people are residing in the country who came here illegally. one argument that could be made is that it is something the census could figure out but it would not be anywhere near accurate. some of those numbers from butemia may be a little bit to get to the point of representation, that is the concern that some republicans funding,t perhaps various things could go towards some populations of illegal immigrants. this is the debate and obviously immigration being from -- probably the most hot button issue we have had over the last couple of years and we will see going into 2020. the president does not seem to be backing down on continuing to make this one of his most

important issues. host: the migration policy institute trying to track these numbers and the latest estimates, 11.3 million, the unauthorized immigrant population. ohio where the viewer was calling in from, the unauthorized population is --imate to be around 107,000 estimated to be around 107,000. it is a sizable number. the matter how you slice it. i think you are going to hear from wilbur ross when he comes to congress that we want to know where citizens and immigrants are and that there are reasons to do that that are valid. i think that the founders, when they talked about a sentence, they did not say of the rise immigrants or unauthorized immigrants, you could have a

constitutional amendment that says we will only count people who are citizens or not. that would be harder to do. having a constitutional amendment is not easy or get the supreme court to say it means something else. host: in oklahoma, paul is a republican. caller: good morning. i am just wondering, first off, i just looked it up and a yale estimates there are 22.8 million illegals in america and also did anybody ever have a problem about the executive order that oprah -- that president obama did that took $716 billion from medicare defund obamacare? i'll take my answers off the air. host: steven dennis, did you

want to start? steven: that was not an executive order, it was part of the affordable care act. i cover that extensively -- covered that extensively. the bargain was that medicare doctorss, hospitals and and drug companies are going to get 30 million new customers and so congress that if we're going to give you 30 million new customers, we are going to be paying customers instead of uncompensated care. groups were on board with the affordable care act because overall, they were going to get this additional money and the net for a lot of hospitals and doctors was, they would have more money because of all the taxes that were added as well. that was not been executive order. there are a lot of republicans who are opposed to the president's executive actions on immigration.

he shielded about one million younger immigrants from deportation. a lot of republicans felt that that was unconstitutional and tried to defund that as well. that was a big fight about five years ago that almost led to a government shutdown. -- we havepublicans been dealing with this sort of flip-flop situation where the democrats backed that executive action but they are not happy with this executive action. that executive action was less about spending money and the democrats saw that as using the president's inherent authority to have a discretion on prosecution. host: less than 15 minutes left in our segment. later this week the house is going to be considering a the sense expressing of congress on whether robert

mueller's report should be made public. onmay the news on just -- meet the press when he was asked about and talked about if trump eventually testifies under oath on this issue. [video clip] >> i think it is a mistake and i don't think bob mueller should rely on written answers. when you get written answers from a witness, it is really the lawyers answers as much as it is the client's and here, you need to be able to ask questions in real time. bobink the constraint that mueller is operating under is he had an acting attorney general who was appointed because he would be hostile to a subpoena on the president and now he has a permanent attorney general chosen for his same hostility to the investigation. i think the special counsel feels some time pressure to conclude his work and knowing that the white house would drag out a fight over the subpoena would be an issue as well. ultimately it is a mistake

because the best way to get the truth would be to put president under oath because as he has made plain in the past, he feels it is probably fine to lie to the public. host: kathryn watson, have we seen any reaction out of the white house? kathryn: this is not something the president is going to be amenable to. the has been this whole battle over whether he would talk to robert mueller. he is not without some sort of fight in which the democrats ok withry well lose being made to testify. as far as the mueller report goes, how this process is going to go is that when mueller's report is complete, the only requirement that he has under the special counsel statute is that he submit that to the attorney general.

william barr has a lot of discretion as to what he does with that report. as people are calling for it to be made public, it is his decision whether he submits the full thing to congress, whether he just submits a portion of the report, a summary. it is going to be interesting to see what we get and if congress does not get that full report, they are obviously going to try to subpoena that. it is going to be an intense fight. got: steven dennis, you've bill in pennsylvania, a democrat. caller: thank you for taking my call. this guy but i , one ofo ask your guest the republican congressmen outed all the testimony from bruce orr

a couple days ago but i have not seen it anywhere. , he hadg to what i saw , who worksis wife for fusion gps, even after ste ele was fired by the fbi, that he got a thumb drive from his wife and turned that over to the mccabe and that conspiracy kind of bothers me. if it is true, it bothers me. the second story i heard twice the last couple of days was that schumer and pelosi are teaming up and using congressional investigators to start trying to dig up dirt on aoc and congresswoman omar and that they are really looking at any way

put the handcuffs on these two because they are really getting to be a problem, especially omar's ties to the muslim brotherhood and the stories have been out there and it seems like more and more, buzz feed and the root and the blade will get the stories and then you never hear the main press talking about it. host: what have you heard? story, in that second have not heard of any effort by schumer or pelosi to investigate either of those members of orrress and as far as the story, there has been a lot of reporting on bruce and his wife who worked for fusion gps, a lot of republicans feel like there was a conspiracy of the fbi, so they wanted it investigated, so you have continuing letters,

even to barr after he was orfirmed to continue to do investigate or have somebody investigate the fbi. this is something that has been sort of an issue for the last couple of years, where the president and his allies consider this to be a quote, feel that and they the fbi has overstepped its authority to try and take down the president. ist is something that barr in a position now to either say one way or the other. he has a lot of credibility in the senate right now, and we will see what he does with this potential to investigate the fbi and how he does it or what he does. there are a lot of republicans who wanted a second special counsel to look at all of this. he has not been appointed one and there may not be a need for

him to. he is coming in from the outside. that hegraham has said expects an sort of hopes that and inll look into this his view, clean up shop. host: grand rapids, michigan is next. alice, independent. caller: i would like to know how they can even justify no money for the wall when they have had a secret slush fund for the indiscretions of congressmen. should the taxpayers have to pay for a congressman who cannot keep their horse in the barn. host: this issue of congressional payments for illegal disputes -- for legal disputes was part of that hr-1.

can you talk through what they wanted to do with that? steven: they have changed the rules and so they have agreed that in the future, a congressman should take -- should pay their own way. overwas bipartisan outrage how members of congress were able to avoid public scrutiny and have taxpayers foot the bill for whether you call it a settlement or a severance. a lot of euphemisms being thrown out there by some former members of congress after some of these things came to light. really something that is sort of, it shows how some reporting by a lot of our andeagues raised this issue congress is reacting and changing how it does business. i don't think you are going to see a whole bunch of secret

settlements in the future. a couple years after the me too movement started, this is one of the things that has started to change over in that building behind you. , it is notcongress the congress from decades ago misogynistic.ly i've used to work at rollcall pinups ofould have female staffers in it. 30 not used to be nearly as many women members of congress. -- there did not used to be nearly as many women members of congress. -- so they can get settlements or have a fair shake, but that is all going to be implemented.

host: just a couple minutes left. republican. caller: good morning. as far as the mueller report, it might never come out except about two weeks before the election. i would not trust robert mueller six inches. is whole democrat mantra just keep telling lies. if you tell a lie long enough it becomes the truth. that is their whole strategy. and stephen, i am from the city of chicago. 2.7 million people in the city. i would guarantee there is 450,000 illegals in that city and there are probably another 80,000 in the suburbs. they have been using this number, 11 million for five years. 5000 illegalswhen into the country every month. the can't be 11 million.

this is from a boy from the city. host: the number is 487,000 unauthorized immigrants in the state of illinois. they are one of the ones tracking these numbers. 11.3 million is the overall number in the united states. the caller started on the timing of the mueller report. kathryn: the timing is something that we are just going to have to see. everyone is kind of waiting in the next weeks for this to happen but it is true that we may never see the mueller report or certainly the full extent of it. said he aims for transparency but is not required to do so. democrats are quietly pushing for as much to be made possible but it does not look great if there is no transparency and we don't see some version at least of this report.

we will see something. it is just how much. host: steven dennis, what have we not talked about that is happening on your beat that we should be looking forward to? steven: one of the things in the senate potentially this week or when they come back from the recess is whether mitch mcconnell is going to successfully use the nuclear option to dramatically limit debate on nominations. this is district court nominees and lower-level appointees, things like under secretaries of state and even lower-level officials. all those people can take up to 30 hours of time on the senate floor. couple going to see a circuit court nominees including -- a little bit of controversy over her remarks on rape when she was a columnist and also on the right, some people were worried about her on abortion.

she will have 30 hours on the floor. circuit't change for court nominees but mitch mcconnell is insisting on changing it for district court nominees. these are lifetime appointments and they will have two hours on the senate floor if mcconnell gets his way. he needs 51 senate votes. there are 53 senate republicans, so we will see what happens with that. it will be interesting to see if aople like susan collins and alexander are ok with using the nuclear option. it is not look like democrats are going to agree because they feel like mcconnell has abused the process. he has gotten rid of these things were you have circuit court judges coming to the floor without democratic support in their home states. that is something to watch for. if you are somebody that thinks the filibuster should be gone, the more times you go nuclear, the easier it could be for they could say20

you guys went nuclear three times or four times and maybe it is time for medicare for all. host: in the last 30 seconds, what is happening on your beat, kathryn watson? capitol hill democrats like elijah cummings and -- demanding a slew of documents from the white house and from people affiliated with the president. this is teeing up one of the most intense battles we have seen in the past couple of years. it is going to be fascinating to see how the white house response. the white house counsel has said we are not going to hand over all of this information related to security clearances for jared kushner, he ivanka trump and such. it is going to be really interesting to see how this plays out. there are going to be subpoenas. host: you can see kathryn watson's report at cbs news.com. steve dennis is at

bloomberg.com. thank you both for your time. guest: good to be here. host: up next, it is our -- your money segment. we will be talking about paid family leave proposals. we will be drawing by someone from the american enterprise institute. we will be right back. ♪ >> tonight, on the commune caters, former fcc chair tom wheeler talks about his new book . "from gutenberg to google." >> it is never the primary network that is transformative. it is the secondary effects of that.

it is how, for instance, the printing press not only enables luther but allowed the renaissance to come out of northern italy. it is how the first high-speed network, the railroad, created industrial -- the industrial revolution. and how the first electronic telegraph, allowed for the creation of national news media and a national financial system. >> watch the commune caters tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span2. >> the only thing we have to fear is fear itself. cansk not what your country do for you. ask what you can do for your country. >> and the people who knocked

these buildings down will rue this day. >> c-span's newest book, the president's, noted historians ranked america's best and worst chief executives, provides insight into the 44 american presidents. true stories gathered by interviews, with noted presidential historians. explore the life events that shared our leaders, challenges they faced and the legacies they have left behind. published by public affairs, c-span's the presidents will be on shelves on april 23. you can preorder your copy as a hardcover or e-book today at c-span.org/the presidents or wherever books are sold. washington journal continues. in thisch week segment of the washington journal, we take a look at your money. this week, we are talking about family leave laws in the united

states. we are joined by a part of mathur.- aparna the four we get to paid family leave, remind viewers what is available when it comes to unpaid leave laws in the country. guest: since 1993, we have had the family and medical leave act .hat gathers these people yourself, the government tells you and the employer has to guarantee you 12 weeks of unprotected pay. host: was there a discussion at the time to make it paid leave? guest: there was definitely a lot of pressure to make it paid. there is this concern that if you just open it up to unpaid leave, who is going to have access? timenk the concern at that was how our business is going to

react to a policy that suddenly mandates that every business has to offer 12 weeks of paid leave to their employee? it is a more generous definition of who can qualify and all of the needs that you can have. . think there was this concern mothers are more likely to take up at leave, will they face more discrimination in the workplace? at that time, we left it unpaid. -- they left it unpaid. host: what time did it gain momentum? guest: over the past couple of decades, the states have been experimenting with paid leave policies. statesnia came up with a patently program in 2003-2004. since then, new jersey and rely don't -- rhode island have implement it policies.

policies in washington state and massachusetts. it is moving to the federal. host: i want to focus on new jersey. they passed an expansion of their paid family leave policy into law and it was signed last month. here is what that expansion would do for those who work in new jersey. it would expand paid time off from six weeks to 12 weeks. towould increase the pay $806 a week. 860 dollars a week. in new jersey, it can be used byer a birth and is funded annual payroll productions and will go into effect -- does not go into effect until july of 2020. focus on the payment side, when we talk about paid family leave, what are the different options and plans to paper expansions like that? guest: the way these programs

are working is that there is an employer.e and we had an insurance policy that allows people to take time off for medical leave. on parentalg benefits and those tend to be funded to employee payroll contributions. this is an earned benefit and employers are facing a cost of letting the employee take that leap. if the employee pays into the tax systems like we do for other insurance programs, this is something that they can build up to. they say for it and to some extent, they get the benefits from it. that is how it is working out at the state level. host: if you want to join this conversation, phone lines are split up by region. if your in the east, it is (202) 748-8000. if you're in the mountain or pacific time zones, it is (202) 748-8001.

aparnaof mathur -- mathur is our guest. you came up with their own proposal that you think is a copper mise plan. can you walk through what that proposal would be -- compromised plan, what would that proposal be? guest: we would focus on not just the benefits of paid leave policy but what is the cost of having a patently policy? why are we not moving forward on it? we came up with a compromise plan. it was gender-neutral. there was a benefit of $600 per week. the reason we have focused in on that was that we wanted the benefits to be relatively well documented toward the lowest wage workers.

the ones who, across the country, have literally no access to paid leave. they are the ones who are unlikely to get the unpaid minimum leave because it is unpaid -- take the unpaid minimum leave because it is unpaid. our focus was on how do we expand access to the lowest wage workers and one way to do that was to make the benefits generous for the lowest wage workers. that is why we decided on that. host: that is your proposal part several other proposals that will go through during the segment. which one in your mind has the most momentum? guest: it is hard to say which one has the most bipartisan momentum. on the democrats, there is the family act. it provides 12 weeks of paid job protected leave. side, we havecan a new proposal that says people

should be allowed to have social security benefits and that is how they should pay for their paid leave. on what side you're talking to. there is a coming together. is the agency or the fund that -- how doo paid leave we improve access to the lowest wage workers? i think there is always the possibility of compromise. we tried to highlight that each side has its own plan but there is the potential to come together if you're willing to give up some details of each plan decide on a compromise. host: it (202) 748-8000 if you're in the

eastern time zone. if it is (202) 748-8001 you're in the pacific time zone. marco rubio was the driving force on the proposal that would allow people to use their future social security for paid leave. how much of that is being picked up by the white house and by other republicans in congress? guest: we see support for that proposal. i believe he ivanka trump has been in touch the senator. think what the white house is being careful about is not backing one specific proposal. i think that is smart because what they recognize is that what we need is a compromise. even for republicans, it is great to see this competition of ideas unpaid leave. you will have to say, maybe this particular design does not work. and i am willing to come forward and decide on something that is more universally acceptable. senator rubio's proposal is one of them.

withor young is coming up a proposal which i am hoping to see bills come out in the next couple of months. it is interesting to me that republicans are inking about these policies and thinking about new creed of ways to do this. -- to have this recognition new creative ways to do this. and to have this recognition. that is the most exciting aspect of what is going on. host: somebody on twitter rights in that it is being abused by some. does anyone think that it is mandatory? the abuse will drop. guest: we hear cases of employers saying people are misusing it because you are guaranteed job protection and we hear cases where people are saying they are calling up on a friday and saying i have backache and i cannot come into work.

piecean happen with any of legislation. i think the question is what do we put around paid leave legislation that mix it harder to do that? there is definitely this concern that more people will take it up for longer. that just means that you actually have a medical need. which, in many cases, it is easy to verify. it is a little harder to verify if you're doing family care leave. even there, i would like to point out that people are naturally using up the pieces of the fmla, which are harder to verify. the family care piece is the least used. it has the lowest rate. it is a mystery. you have access to paid or unpaid leave to take care of family members. the most used pieces are parental leave and medical

leave. there is concern about abuse but i would not want to blow it up and say this is the reason we should not move forward. way tos a structure -- structure the policy that would get us around that. host: if you have a question, it is (202) 748-8000 in the eastern times i. -- time zone. ares (202) 748-8001 if you in the mountain time zone. alyssa's question is about the cost and whether the government should be doing this in the first place. use common sense. can you talk about that concern that is out there, whether this is the proper role for the government to get into? guest: there is concern about what the costs are going to be and our people across the country expected to pay for this and should government get into it? i think that what we have realized since the fmla was

, employers are going to step in and make paid leave policies and everybody will have access prayed we should not worry about it. that has not happened. if you look across the country, about 15-16% of people have access to family care leave. a slightly larger number have access to medical leave policies. havepeople are trying to sick days. the reason i think you need government intervention is that there really are people out there who do not have the ability to save up and need help. if you can do that through an insurance program, that is the least costly for workers. a cost developed calculator for paid leave so that we can assess the costs for employee pay checks -- paychecks. cheap.l leave is very it costs less than $100 a year

for employees. if you made a generous program, the cost triples. we have to be careful of the cost registrations. we have to recognize that there are people out there that need help. if you can do that in the most cost-effective way possible, which is a social insurance program that the government scan can manage, which we do for all other types of insurance policies, like medicare and medicaid and so on. then, i think that that is one thing that we need to get the economy moving. here, there are good economic reasons to invest in these policies. who have access to these policies can take time off. we see good health for families and children's. -- children. i would look at the benefits side and say we need that trade-off. host: we would like to hear your stories and your comments about paid family leave policies.

we will start with virginia in waldorf, maryland. good morning. caller: good morning. i have a simple question. if there -- they are considering putting down central programs such as medicare and medicaid, how in the world is our government going to support a family medical leave act? not only that, how will they apply to the federal employees who are already getting paid? it is the retail side of the economy that is hurting. how are we going to do that? guest: there is this concern about we have these social insurance programs that are running out of funds. and we will not be able to pay people what we owe them. i do think that that is a genuine concern. havewith the reports we seen that focus on social insurance, the idea is that at some point, we have to figure out how do we fund these investment programs and how do we make sure that they are guaranteeing the benefits that we are projecting as a result of

policies. of supportingnk those policies is by doing it through her taxes. if you want to find another program, you should do it through taxes. that is one way around it. there is also the conversation about how do we handle medicare and social security and the trust funds running out. that is a question that is being much discussed and is definitely there. i think adding on a small based parental leave program is not going to bring the program any further than it already is. attentionot a lot of in the d.c. area, where there , a groupal employees of house democrats proposing a federal employee paid leave policy, just impacting federal employees. ranting 12 weeks of paid leave that could be used after the

birth or care of a newborn. it allows paid time to place a tiled up for adoption -- child up for adoption. is this likely to go anywhere? this one focused specifically on federal employees? guest: i think the democrats are trying to start small and say that we do not have the family act which would make paid leave available to every person across the country. but we can start with federal employees. and start to build up that base of support. again, it depends a lot on what republicans and democrats are able to reach. i think that there is a potential for this to go somewhere. states will not be able to do this for all employees across the state. but are able to do it for the state employment -- government employees.

i think it is part of this broader conversation about how much are we willing to compromise? and how much do we do this for federal employees, is this opening the gateway for everybody across the country? as long as they are willing to copper mice on the larger piece, this will definitely work out. host: phone lines again, (202) 748-8000 in the eastern or central time zones. (202) 748-8001 in the mountain or pacific time zones. nelson in hollywood, florida, your next. caller: more government , unfunded mandates, and additional burden on the private sector, which employees -- employees the vast majority of people in this country. i can see this being abused, and set of -- instead of someone taking paid leave to have a baby, they may take paid leave to have an abortion.

i can see all kinds of problems coming up in the courts and cases of this great abuse that will take place if and when this nonsense should ever become law. thank you. guest: i think the concern is should the government legislate these policies? there are companies that are offering paid leave policies. some of them are very generous. they are offering paid leave. that is not -- there does not seem that there is this concern that employees will abuse this policy. employers are concerned about come -- providing competitive benefits. when it comes to the lower wage workers, these policies are the least likely to be available to them. whether you're talking about the

fmla or paid leave policies at the state or employer level. thane who make less $20,000 a year have little access. fewer than 5% of people have access to these policies. governmentyou need to step in. i also understand that we don't want the government to crowd out private sector policies. which is why when we had discussions within the working group, we did not want to have an openly generous federal policy that would be costly at the same time, it would tell employers that you do not need to be doing this because the government is going to be offering these policies on its own. we wanted a basic, uniform policy across the country that every employee, irrespective of rich or state would have access to. at the same time, it would allow employers to provide more generous policies. that we of crowd out

are seeing at the state and employer levels. host: barber is next in baltimore, maryland. good morning. [indiscernible] to me, it is always let's find a way to plug away. --er areas why isn't it that social security is not always included in this type of scheme? guest: that is a good concern. why do we always stop and do social security to try to fund these programs. there are genuine concerns about are we hitting the lowest wage

workers on their retirement security? are they the ones that are going to suffer the most? agency, the recent social security makes the most sense is that it collects the exact right information you need to compute things like paid leave benefits. you need information about people's work history. there payment history. payment history per how long they have been with an employment -- employer. to some extent, the social security, disability insurance program collects that kind of information. natural agency to housing it. there are concerned about why not pick up a new program that would help fund paid leave for families, instead of dipping into social security ponds that are expected to run out. host: bobby with a question from

20. how does required leave, paid or not work in states where employers can fire employees for any or no reason? guest: that is the good thing with having a program that comes through the states. it is not attached to an employer. -- whether it is the you, they cannot fire during the leave. the actual payments are coming to you from the state. irrespective of whether that employer decides to pay you or decides to fire you, to something, you have felt -- built up that eligibility over the course of your work history. whether you qualify for the paid leave or extra payments, you will be still able to get them and get the paid leave. you do not fire the employee during the period of the leave but later, we don't see that in the data.

we are studying the california program and how it is working out. our business is getting hurt because of these policies? there does not -- a lot of employers are fine with the policies, expanding off of them and building off of them and they do not think there is a huge administrative cost or a cost to the business. these are all good things to think about. they have not actually played out in practice. host: linda in arizona is next. good morning. caller: good morning. i used to own my own business, a small business. to thei listen ifversation, i look at it as i were still in business. if i had to give someone eight weeks off, i think it would have

killed my business. on trainingnd money for certain jobs. who does those jobs when someone is off on leave? it kind of boggles my mind. i would like to know if anyone has approached it from that angle? training an employee who does their job when they are gone, it is huge. guest: that is a great question and a concern we hear all of the time for small businesses. somebody needs to take eight weeks off, how do you handle the replacement? how do you handle somebody who comes in and does that job? which is why the fmla doesn't apply to businesses with 50 -- fewer than 50 employees. we were very hesitant to expand to the smallest businesses. we did say that we should open it up to small businesses so

they have the option to opt into it. but, naturally, those businesses have to follow along with the policies. what is interesting is that a lot of small businesses say that we will let our employee take leave if they have a baby. you will not enforce -- we will not enforce that -- force the employee to stay at work. the cost is on the employee. they get the benefits through the state or federal government, instead of the small business employer having to pay the employee while on leave. i think that is something that a lot of small businesses seem to be on board with. that is the idea when we talked to these businesses. we have to structure it so that the cost of minimum and small businesses, it is not a mandate on them. host: cynthia is next from illinois. good morning. caller: good morning.

thank you for taking my call. i am a retired person. i had anng the 1980's, work on some of the initiatives -- parental leave initiatives at that time. it was anticipated that they would eventually be paid leave. and they would apply for a whole variety of family related concerns. i shared the view that it is an intrusion of private industry. it is an intrusion on the privacy of the home. bond between the employer and the employee that goes beyond the concerns of the workplace itself. if there could be

some kind of monetary value applied to a leave. because, let's say for example, a father would rather not take the leave but have some kind of -- for passing it up. that might be of value to the family to begin with. these policies are not designed to force you to take the lead. this is a choice that people have heard you are offered the paid leave. the hope is that both the father and mother will be able to take it up and this eases the transition during that period that you're at least getting some pay when you have to take that time off. at the same time, it is not a mandate that you have to take that time off.

i think it offers more choices to families who are considering that. folks have no access to paid leave and the mother or father has to take the time off because a medical needs but has no access to pay during that period. that can be a hugely problematic issue for the economic security of families. this is a proposal that offers more choice rather than less. host: david has been waiting in wisconsin. good morning. caller: good morning. i don't agree with family leave period. family leave would be like the government paying you back with your own taxes. thank you. of paid leave policies as something that is helpful for the most vulnerable worker. for the most low-wage worker who are struggling -- workers who are struggling with these

issues. they have medical leave and have to take time off to look for their families and children. we arest gives them -- not talking about even 100% wages. we are talking about 70% wager paceman test placement. wager placement. it keeps you engaged with the workforce. it as a view problematic policy that would hurt other businesses or families. it is something that would help the most vulnerable workers. mathur.at is aparna you can see her work at aei.org. next and for our last 25 minutes, questions about how set you are in your opinions of president trump? . whether you support him or

oppose them, do you think there is anything that could change your mind about president trump? you can start calling in now. we will be right back. >> the only thing we have to fear is fear itself. country not what your can do for you, ask what you can do for your country. these people who knocked buildings down will rue this day. >> c-span's newest book, the presidents, noted historians rank america's best and worst cheap executives, provides insight into the lives of the 44 american presidents. true stories gathered by interviews with noted presidential historians. explore the life events that shaped our leaders. challenges they face and the legacies they have left behind. published by public affairs,

c-span's the presidents will be on shelves on april 23. you can preorder your copy -- copy as a hardcover today at c-span.org/the presidents or wherever books are sold. tonight on the commune caters, former fcc -- communicators, former fcc chair talks about his book from gutenberg to google. the primaryer network that is transformative. it is the secondary effects of that. it is how, for instance, the printing press not only enabled luther but allowed the renaissance to come out of northern italy. it is how the first high-speed network, the railroad, created industrial -- the industrial revolution.

first electronic network, the telegraph, allowed for the creation of a national news media and a national financial system. >> watch the communicators tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span two. >> washington journal continues. question for the final 25 minutes of the washington journal comes from the monmouth university tracking poll about president trump. question number 24 ask this. in general, do you think there is information that could, about president trump that would significantly change public opinion of him or do you think people are set in their opinions , regardless of what new information may come out? the numbers according to the poll, 29 percent say there is information that could come out that could change public opinion. 57% of those who responded are

saying people are set in their opinions, regardless. we want to ask that question to you, our viewers this morning. what would get you to change your mind about president trump, whether you support him or oppose him. do you think your opinions are set at this point? (202) 748-8000 if you're a democrat. (202) 748-8001 if you are a republican. is (202)nts, it 748-8002. if you're a more visual learner, here are the results by party. among democrats, more than 30% say there is information that could come out that could change public opinion of him. over 60% say that people's opinions are set, regardless. among republicans, it is less than 20% who say that information could come out that would change their opinion about president trump. near 80% say that people's opinions are set about president trump. we want to hear from you.

what do you think about that question? when did your opinion become set if you are set in your opinion about president trump? where he is up first, a republican in texas, go up -- larry is up first, a republican in texas. caller: trump has done everything he is said he is going to do. he is trying, at least. if the democrats and republicans in the house would get with him, they would get it done. i have settled completely. asked ass question is the molar report is in the works of being released. is there anything in the m ueller report that could change her opinion about president trump? caller: i think it will be prejudiced against him anywhere -- anyway. host: that is larry in texas. cassandra, in greenville north airliner, what do you think?

-- north carolina, what do you think? caller: i am off today because i work two jobs. one of those is for the federal government. i am in african-american. i honestly do not think that there is anything that will change my mind about this president, nor for anyone in my circle. he is the most deeply offensive and obscene president that i have seen in my lifetime. personally offensive as an african-american. i don't feel like he represents employee,rker, as an as an african-american. some of the things this man has said, even if i was not a democrat or african-american, i would still be offended. host: at what point did your opinion about president trump become set? was there one incident that did it for you? just -- there is

absolutely nothing that can change my mind about this element, thank you. host: this is sandy in huntersville, north carolina. independent, go ahead. caller: there is nothing that could change my mind because he is doing everything he said he was going to do. transparentst president that we have ever had. and he has more done than any number president -- any other president prayed for us that voted for him, the democrats have just lost it. they are going to sharia law stuff. democrat., i was a i voted for president obama the first time. i did not the second time because he did not do what he said and he gave all of that money away, also. host: i will ask you the same question. when did your opinion a president trump become set? -- of president trump become

cell -- sex? caller: he is trying to get the wall built. care about ust anymore. america has to stand up and that is what we are doing. we are standing up. host: can you think back to his candidacy and his presidency so far, do you know the point for n you were going to support him? democrats have the wrong person in there, hillary prayed we all know that she is crooked. we know all of this is going on. there is evidence out and it is coming out. -- the republican party needs to back president trump too. there is too many evils, come on. too many evils in the democrat party. they have turned into evil

people to me. host: that is sandy in north carolina. this is mary in louisiana, republican, go ahead. there is nothing that donald trump has said or done that will change my mind about voting for him. i like him because he stands up for himself. and he fights. that is why the democrats don't like him. [indiscernible] he will kick right back. the democrats are used to republicans rolling over. donald trump fights back. that's what i like about him. yes, i voted for him the first time and i will vote for him again. host: what are your thoughts on the mueller investigation. and if there is something that

points to collusion with russia, do you think that would change your mind? caller: no. that is the stuff they come up in case hillary did not win. hillary is the one who did that crooked stuff. donald trump did not do that stuff. they have investigated him all this time. if there was anything, it would have been came out. host: that is mary in louisiana. about 15 minutes left in our program this morning. this same topic about when people's opinions about president trump were set was taken up by neil of the prince administrative, it is in maryland. his column from back in december addressed this issue. he talked about the robert mueller investigation.

he said if you're a trump supporter, those issues are fabricated nonsense. if you're opposed to trump and believe he should be transferred on the white house to the big house, he is guilty until proven guilty. isre basis is that proven irrelevant. there is no proof -- four trump supporters, the only question worth asking is what it would take to convince you that some or all of the allegations against him are true. four trump opponents, the only question is what would it take to convince you that some of the allegations are false. there are few people who would answer nothing because to do something would appear foolishly close minded. if you want to read more from his column, it is the prince george's citizen.com. jacqueline is next in new jersey, a democrat. is your opinion of president trump set?

we have no freedom of speech and no freedom of press. who voted for him is sick with hate. has become divided. that is jaclyn in new jersey. tennessee, go ahead. caller: i voted for president trump the first time around and, you know, one of the main reasons was because of the superdelegates and the way the democrats did bernie sanders. as i listen to these people call in, i think we need to keep one thing in mind. if he -- if the facts prove certain things, then when you say you are still going to support him, you're really

voting against the constitution. you either put the constitution above the president or the present above the constitution. that is the way i see it. i cannot do it. i can't put anybody, i don't care if your democrat, republican, or independent, above what our constitution says. host: what do you make of the caller before who said that she does not believe president trump would get a fair shake from the robert mueller investigation, she think that is a witchhunt? caller: [laughter] well, robert mueller was an opponent supported by the republicans in the senate. they were in control for two years, why didn't they do anything to hillary? if thesaid all of that, democrats do not do things right in their primary, i may vote for

president trump again. host: what do they need to do right? caller: what they need to do is make sure they have a fair primary. hillary knew some of the questions. i am pretty sure everybody realizes that bernie sanders did not get a fair shake. it looks to me like he is coming on pretty strong now. host: that is ted in tennessee this morning. speaking of the mueller investigation, this is the editorial cartoon in the washington times today. a box being opened that is the mullah report, $18 million of your tax dollars at work. and that box is empty in that cartoon. scott in georgia, a republican, go ahead. caller: good morning to you. thank you for taking my phone call. are you there? host: yes. what are your thoughts about president trump? haver: my family and i, we

been republicans our whole life. i talked to my sister and my mom, we went and voted. , every day there is something coming out about donald trump. the grabbing of the thing on the bus. i am embarrassed to say i am a republican and what has changed my mind, everybody around trump is going to prison. we are all going to jail. where there is smoke, there is a fire. say that iassed to am a republican. you know what, i'm a democrat now. there's nothing that's going to change my mind about that. i'm going to be voting democrat. positionthere a policy that president trump could support or an effort that he could get behind that would bring you back into the republican fold? caller: i'll tell you, no.

no. i mean, no. haspe robert mueller something or anything. all of this time, we have been looking for this report and waiting for it. i think robert mueller, he is a they getn, i think if the information that they colluded with russia, which i am sure putin has something on trump. there is no doubt about that. he has been a slave to this leader and this guy. i just don't -- i don't think there is anything that would change my mind. i pray that i am wrong. i really do. the way our country is going, it is not good. i just pray, night and day, that

so that we canns get rid of this guy. it's time. host: that is scott in georgia. this is terry, go ahead. caller: i had a short thing to say. my family is democrat. we did vote for donald trump. we went out on a limb, hoping that -- we were hoping that he was going to do some infrastructure, big infrastructure programs in the united states. the infrastructure of the country is in such bad shape that we were hoping that he would do a whole lot more. he has just been a total letdown for us. more so then we ever would dream. thought that he would take this opportunity to shed some of the stop of his past and really try to help the people and help

the country. i think he is the worst president ever that i can remember. host: if president trump got behind a major new infrastructure push and made that the total focus of his next two years, could he get you back on board in 2020? caller: no. because if he did such a thing, it would be of something where somebody from fox tv would be in charge of the program and the people that were implementing the equipment and stuff would be his friends or somebody's buddies. once thishink that robert mueller investigation starts unfolding, you will find out that this guy is a public and that everything has been propped up. he is good, he is good at it. especially in the financial part.

i think donald trump is going to be looking at some sad information once everything is unraveled. host: that is terry in maryland rate 10 minutes left in our program, our question is could you change your mind about question -- present trump? do you think there is any room where you could change your mind and if so, where could it be and when did your opinions form about president trump? (202) 748-8000 four democrats. for republicans, (202) 748-8001. robert ashley, an independent, go ahead. nobody has sent their tax returns. 9000 lives, the man does everything for him and his family.

we have had eight farmers in this area that went under because of his -- he is so good at making deals. he sits on nafta and all he did was change a couple of words around and put his name on it. he is an idiot. he went bankrupt four times. host: when did your opinion solidify? caller: 35 years ago. he has been a freaking monster all his life and he is never going to change. he has made a mockery of our united states. host: that is robert in illinois. this is natosha, a republican, go ahead. caller: good morning. have breakfast in the morning and watch it -- the show. although i am a republican, i am going to change to being a democrat.

michigan, we put five women in office. we wiped out two very important republicans. i cannot believe that these people that sit and think that --ald trump walks on water first of all, they have to learn to read. they should stop watching the fox channel. we watch it here, occasionally to see what happens. here,ething big happens we turn to the fox channel and they are talking about how a little girl lost her bicycle in south carolina. i am 78 years old. i voted every election that i could. used to sit and watch the election. never in my life have i ever liar.uch a

sometimes people are a little reluctant to say the truth. this man gets up in the morning i don't know if it is morning, 11:00 when he comes down from his executive offices. i remember him saying i'm going to work so hard, i'm going to work so hard. please, show me when you are working hard. not scrambling between mar-a-lago in the winter. and the golf courts in new jersey in the suburbs. when he stays in the white house. was iner day, he said he the white house for months, waiting for the democrats to do something. he was in the white house for 30 something days until his plan that he thought was so clever backfired and he decided that

i'm not going to succeed. this is an absolute travesty. gloria is in clifton, new jersey. independent, good morning. think c-span is doing a disservice to the sun -- country, asking such a question. you're just dividing. why don't you talk about the budget? we should have a balanced budget. the budget is a big thing. a good part about week talking about the budget prayed why do you think this is a divisive question? --. why do you think this is a divisive question? caller: because people are set in their ways. host: why do you think they are set in their ways about president trump? caller: the things that have been said by this president, he

will say one thing and then he changes his mind. i think if he did not want to get this country together, he would put more thought into what he is doing. it is just the actions that the president is taking. host: do you think your opinion could change about him? caller: excuse me? host: do you think your opinion about president trump -- is there something he could do to change your opinion of him? caller: i think the fact that he and changes his mind about what he says, how he says it, it is a joke. i did not mean it that way, this is some presidential material. if he changes his ways, maybe people would think more of him.

maybe there would be more of a consensus between the democrats and the republicans. is too money hungry. the congress is too money hungry. the budget is out of line. half of the people in this trying --e still congress is out of line. the president is out of line. the country is out of line. that is what we have these problems. host: you bring up the budget process, do you think that will be a divisive process in the coming months? won't be butobably there is too much pandering. to helpy is looking themselves. whether it is democrats or republicans, everybody wants to get elected. everybody wants to look good. get back to the basic

, what isich is money the big problem? it is overspending. nobody is following their own budget limitations. have all ofple these programs. there is nobody poor in this country anymore. those people that are are people that will not come forward because they have too much pride. host: that is gloria. time for just a couple more calls for our program in's. diane, thank you for waiting in burlington, texas. go ahead. caller: my opinion of president trump changed when i noticed how putin.led the things that he said. put his faith he in our service members that are serving in those countries and our fighting wars.

president trump is too negligent in the way that he handles those situations. and because of that, i fear for the-- he is supposed to be commander in chief of. he is not taking care of the business that we need him to take care of to run this country. he is more of a distraction. he is not a helper. and the way he does business is crooked. his family is crooked. is not adent trump levelheaded man. he has all of the expertise around him. general carey and those guys, people who have served in those provisions. but trump will not listen to them. he comes up with his own ideas. i think he has a hidden agenda in the building of that wall.

i guarantee you that trump will benefit from that money that is used to build that wall. host: this is doris in texas, a republican, go ahead. caller: this is doris. i think c-span does a bad job of different areas and everything. i support president trump. i support the wall. i support everything he does. the democrats are starting to overthrow our country. and that -- wait till the robert mueller report comes out. treason, what the democrats are doing. host: could your opinion of the president ever change? caller: of the budget? host: could your opinion of the es