annexation of crimea and another would stretch the u.s. response to russian interference by exposing the corruption of russian president vladimir putin. senate considers a judicial nomination for the third circuit court of appeals. has two congressional hearings. the first with wells fargo ceo timothy sloan testifying about the company's business practices at the house financial services committee. in the afternoon a house judiciary subcommittee looks at the proposed merger between t-mobile and sprint with executives from both companies. coming up on today's washington journal, al green of texas talks about his ongoing effort to impeach president trump. yohoda congressman ted sits on the house foreign affairs committee joins us to talk about u.s. north korea recentns after the

summit in vietnam between president trump and kim jong-un. later we will look at president trump's 2020 budget request for the defense department with todd harrison from the center for strategic and international studies. host: good morning. it's tuesday, march 12, 2019. the housemates at 10:00 a.m. and at --nate will reconvene we are hearing the reaction of to speaker pelosi's latest comments opposing efforts to impeach president trump. throughrviewed differing reactions to we want to hear what democrats around the country think. if you're are a democrat in the eastern or central time zone the phone number this morning (202) 748-8000. if you are a democrat in the

mountain or pacific time zones, (202) 748-8001. you can also catch up with us on social media on twitter at c-span wj. very good tuesday morning to you. we are hearing from democrats only. here's the key quote from that interview that nancy pelosi had was the washington post magazine. i'm not for impeachment she said. i have been thinking about this. divisive tois so the country that unless there is something so compelling and overwhelming and five artists and i don't think we could -- should go by that path because it divides the country and he's just not worth it. nancy in that interview with the washington post magazine had plenty more to say in a variety of topics. she said that she does not believe president trump is a the job of running the country.

asked whether he was fit to be president xi countered are we talking ethically, internet actually. she said he was not. unfit, intellectually unfit. curiosity wise unfit. i don't think he's fit to be president of the states. pelosiomments from nancy have infuriated some on the left the billionaire democratic activist who has been pushing an effort to impeach president trump tweeted his response yesterday. tweeted, is doing the right thing worth it or shall america just stop fighting for our principles and do what's politically convenient? part nancy pelosi's leadership team backing her in her comments yesterday about impeachment. here's a few of the comments from some members of her leadership team.

a cnn reporter quoting house intelligence committee chairman adam schiff's thing if the evidence is in such shouldn't to puttingrtisan support the country through a failed impeachment isn't a good idea. he added i think given how polarized the country is right now and how the republican members of congress have prostrated themselves in front thehe president's in absence of very graphic evidence it would be difficult to get the support of the senate. quoting chad program supportummings saying i closely, i support the speaker. just some of the reaction yesterday. after that interview with the washington post magazine came out and we want to hear from just democrats around the country on phone lines split by region. eastern and central time zones (202) 748-8000. mountain and pacific time zones

(202) 748-8001. janet is up first to go ahead. i think nancy pelosi thinks we may not be able to get enough republican votes. i don't think he should be able to run next time because i think he could cause a lot of trouble she's illegal as everything. he might even supposed to be going to jail. he doesn't even know what's going on in his own country. he's worried about the other countries when he doesn't even know there are police selling drugs. if he knew it maybe he would try to stop it.

do you want democrats in congress to go forward with impeachment? disappointed in this statement by nancy pelosi yesterday? >> i think if you got impeached it would be only right. the trouble is i think we need host: gillican votes is waiting in california. go ahead. caller: i'm a lifelong blue democrat which means i'm a conservative democrat and i am completely embarrassed by what has happened with my party. blue dog democrats used to be a very strong part of the party and i still think there are some

there but they are cowards. they won't say anything. they won't stand up. thatere was proof president trump has committed impeachable acts than i am behind that. i voted for donald and again, i'm a lifelong democrat. but there is no proof. there is just talk. there is innuendo and supposition. and for my party to stand up in congress andhe , if you impeachment listen to representative al green from texas. it was a few months back. list the number of things that donald trump has done that are impeachable, he literally spoke about hidden hurting people's feelings. as an impeachable act.

this is an absolute embarrassment to my party. and where it's going with the regressive socialists. -- progressive socialists. and they need to leave the party and start their own party because they are destroying a great party in this country. talk. this is just it is supposition and innuendo without any proof. if there was i would the the first in line to say impeach the man. host: stick around this morning. congressman al green is going to be taking calls from viewers starting in about 25 minutes this morning. he will be here to talk more about this topic. right now we are hearing from democrats around the country. your reaction to speaker nancy pelosi saying she's not for impeachment. burrell in brooklyn, new york. go ahead.

caller: my name is nikki. -- mickey. nancy pelosi has other things to do i'm sure. we have other committees that roomoing to be taking up in terms of moving in certain different directions for her to close in on the president-elect because in my pinion she has done some impeachable things that really need to be looked into. him and his family enriching themselves. on the backs of american citizens. first time looking at c-span this early in the morning. i'm really enjoying it. host: appreciate that. just in time for our 40th anniversary coming up next week here at c-span. thanks for joining in.

mitchell is in new jersey. your of next. go ahead. caller: my feeling is nancy pelosi is completely right on this. the democrats are never going to get the 67 votes needed to remove trump in the senate. i don't think this is a matter of there are no grounds for impeachment. i think you can make a clear case for obstruction of justice and also for campaign finance abuse which is a felony. if you don't get the 67 votes in the senate and you won't because you are nowhere near there and the republicans have shown no interest whatsoever in protecting the country against this president. so i think it's just a complete waste of time and i think trump would just be gloating and

tweeting and we never hear the end of it once he won the trial over the senate. host: you can keep calling in. democrats only injustice first half hour. democrats in the eastern or central time zones (202) 748-8000, democrats in the mountain and pacific time zones (202) 748-8001. this interview with the washington post magazine took place back on march 6. it was published yesterday online. nancy pelosi saying i'm not for impeachment and it really afterwards members of the capitol hill press corps trying to catch up with nancy pelosi to talk more about it. a tweet from bo erickson of cbs catching up with nancy pelosi for just a few seconds before she got an elevator yesterday. >> i just don't believe in it. they wanted me to impeach president bush for the iraq war.

i didn't believe in it then. i don't believe in it now. it divides the country. unless there is some conclusive evidence. thank you. o ericsson tweeting out that clip yesterday. here is some of the reaction. statements by nancy pelosi in that washington post magazine article from facebook and twitter this morning. roger writing in calling her a voice of someone that values the country more than political expediency. saying she has lost her mind. no more team nancy for me. when assessing she loves it. -- when it saying she loves it. brett saying i think she's right. it will hurt trump's ego more if the people remove him from off this. one more from bill king this morning. it's not worth the trouble with republicans.

there is no chance of a conviction no matter the charges. topics democrats only for just the next 15 minutes or so. sandra waiting in paris, kentucky. go ahead. the last gentleman sounded to me where i am, when i listen to the fellow who said he was a blue dog democrat it sounded to me like he was like a republican. i agree with the last caller. what's the point of trying to impeach him if there are no votes. the senate has done no oversight at all and i'm glad the democrats are doing it. i think we have to be very careful on getting too many investigations going. take the ones that are most fruitful. the ones that you can prove. it's not what you know, it's what you can prove. i can't stand donald trump. i'm embarrassed to come from kentucky.

i actually moved here 15 years ago. i was brought up in the d.c. area so i'm not really kentuckian. difficult for these people around here. i think some of the problems like where i am, trump's supporters are not global. uneducated. do not have an appreciation -- that's not fair. i'm going to get killed. some. where i am. they don't have an appreciation for some of the specifics, for the global implications for the ramifications. my concern particularly which you have addressed a little bit is trump held by the short hairs of putin. he really seems to be controlled. i suspect there is a lot of money laundering that went on and putin and russia and oligarchs have given donald trump a lot of money and in exchange for this i think they andly have him by the nuts

i don't think he can do what he needs to do for our country. host: what is your expectation for the mueller report? thisted perhaps anytime at point. what are you expecting to find in it? caller: i think robert mueller is a very brilliant man. one day i think it's going to blast trump, it's going to lay out the yellow brick road right to the white house and show everything he did. the next day you listen to a commentator who goes, they are leaking it. there's nothing more going to come of it. we know most of it. to me i hope it becomes his watergate. i hope the mueller report, i think somehow it will get leaked. clear thatakes it so he is tied to russia, that he

has perjured himself, that he has benefited himself at the mercy of our -- donald trump is all about the money. thinkrry, i really don't she cares about america. i think he cares about himself, his family and the money. host: the front page of usa today focusing on what happens after robert mueller finishes his report. we expect the full report. the story noting what happens next according to justice department for cj after robert mueller finishes his report. the first move belongs to mothers boss. william barr must decide how much of mother's final report will become public. must say special counsel give a special report when he's done explaining why he charged some people and not others. he will determine how much of mother's work congress sees.

course it would be up to congress from there. mary grace is waiting in green coat springs, florida. caller: i agree with nancy pelosi in the fact that we don't want to divide our country. i also have mixed feelings about it because i feel like the trump administration has been getting away with so many things that as a regular citizen we would not be able to get away with. and i do agree that we need to beforee mueller report we make any decisions. so that's where i'm at that and i'm just hoping for the best and i do want president trump to be put in prison with the rest of his family. host: chris is next in plano, texas. good morning. i was troubled yesterday by nancy pelosi is why partisan

condition because i feel that her bipartisan precondition for impeachment basically translates to the president can break whatever law he wants in this current political climate because i don't really have any faith that the republicans are going to view anything as rising to overwhelming levels of evidence of it time and i think -- a crime and i think it's a bad precedent and it's bad for the rule of law. i think ms. pelosi seems to misunderstand impeachment purely as a political mechanism. and not as a judicial mechanism that is handled by congress. it has an inherently political component to it but it is more than just a political exercise. this is how congress oversees the executive branch's execution of the laws that they created. and one last thought on that is that the executive branch is subject to impeachment

wrongfully. it's not just about the president. creating these sorts of preconditions for impeachment wouldn't just apply to the president. it would apply to the vice ,resident, secretary kneels and any other member of the administration. i think this is dangerous and i think we should stick to our guns on this. host: on the concerns you have about a bipartisan issue when it comes to removing a president, when it comes to purely the votes that would be needed to do that it would have to be bipartisan considering how many votes that process requires in the senate. today's washington times running through the impeachment process reminding folks that impeachment which requires only a majority vote in the house with democrats have is sort of an indictment. a president who has been impeached must be tried in the senate which is still under republican control and it takes a two thirds majority vote to remove the president from office.

your thoughts on making it to the two thirds majority vote? aller: i think it's multiphase process like a trial. when you vote to impeach we then move into an informing the public us and one of the things we had during bill clinton's 1996 impeachment is was informing of the public of a somer of different things of which are more salacious. not morning talk. the other part would be using the component to get to the public to the point where they would want conviction. times impeachment corrective toas a aberrant behavior. it's not necessarily about it oro conviction, removal throwing donald trump in prison. it's about stopping bad behavior and creating a toxic a process

around bad behavior like associating yourself with foreign adversaries on a financial matter. you mentioned the clinton impeachment process. that is also on the mind of nancy pelosi according to the interview. here's more of what she had to say. she has at times referenced the failed impeachment of president clinton as a formative experience. she said there is no question that was horrible for the country. in terms of where we are as thomas payne said, the times have found us. we have a very serious challenge to the constitution of the dates. another quote from that washington times pays that has garnered so much attention in the past 24 hours. teresa is waiting in red bank, new jersey.

caller: hello. host: your thoughts on speaker pelosi's comments. what,: impeachment is for high crimes and misdemeanors? he has that. we just don't have enough people to vote. when he goes down to mar-a-lago, who pays for that? what kind of security today have down there? i don't understand how he can run down to the place in florida that he goes to and have meetings. do we pay for that every time he takes that they claim down there? there's so much going on in this white house. it's scary. it really is. i worked for the department of defense for 30 years. i know how security clearance goes. there's a need to know. what does jared and his wife have a need to know? something is not right with that. ok. thank you.

host: just about 10 minutes left as we talk to democrats only. your reaction to speaker nancy pelosi saying she is not for impeachment when it comes to present trump. norman is in catonsville, maryland. go ahead. caller: my thing is this right here. look at the house republicans and the house democrats. nobody wants to impeach the guy. we know the senate is not going to vote to impeach president trump. however, i look at the public. the public is the one who put these people in power. countryone side of the rooting for donald trump because of what ever he is doing. that he tells on a day-to-day basis, these people

who voted for him are the ones who don't even establish their to remove these type of people in office. same thing with the congress. the people that the public votes for put them there and allow these people to do whatever they do. so why even put people there that's not going to really have your best interest at heart. who's not going to really look out and help you when you know you've got a president and a senate that is going to definitely -- not allow anything to come up. i can't look at those numbers. i have to look at the people who put him in office. you put him in office, you have to deal with whatever they bill to you. all this impeachment business, that's a sham. that's a is. to me it is bs. bottom line, vote for better people to have a better future.

all this other stuff is nonsense. host: norman mentioned house republicans to some house republicans engaged democrats on this issue of impeachment last night at a house rules committee meeting. here's a bit of the back-and-forth. attentionvery close to his statements on impeachment and unfortunately i have to tell you he has never said he is for impeachment. he has specifically said he is not. hes just for oversight to has never said he was for impeachment. if he had, i would remember it well. >> nevertheless, i think the data that is being collected, the fact that we are here talking about the mueller report that has not even been released yet i think points in the general direction. you may think that russia did

something wrong in the last election. let's be honest, you think president trump did something he wonnd what he did was election that none of you expected him to win. the point is that the reason people are upset with the present is that he won election that you did not think he could win and we have heard that over and over again. he thought he could win? >> that's not why i'm upset with him. upset because of fine people in both sides in charlottesville . i'm upset about what he said about women. i'm upset with his policies concerning children and their opportunities. i'm upset with him for saying he didn't think krugman would have lied about interfering with our

elections. i looked at with him for so many other reasons. not the fact that he won the election. i'm upset with the way he has served as president. host: talking with democrats only, getting your reaction to speaker pelosi saying yesterday that she is not for impeachment through the, go ahead. caller: yes. togree with nancy pelosi there's other committees laying out the evidence with oversight. was proper during watergate until the tapes came americans, decent republicans went and told him he had to go. for decent republicans to stand up and do what's best for the country.

i think they are not doing it for the country. they are worshiping a man. that's ignorant and embarrassing and just doing what's best for him and his family. he cares nothing about the american people. out,the evidence is laid nancy is right. he will have to go. is taking in washington. good morning. >> good morning. nancy pelosi. no impeachment. we don't have the votes in the senate. why waste our time. we have bigger fish to fry. it's been fun from that. host: in alexandria, virginia. good morning.

caller: good morning. i agree with nancy pelosi. i trust her. and i also want all the if trump to realize it gets elected a second term there are statute of limitations on some of his crimes. we all need to stay focused and vote because if he gets a second term he's going to get a way with a whole lot of stuff. i watch this movie called a time to kill with matthew mcconaughey and at the end he told the jury, close your eyes. he walked them through the crimes. imagine if she was white. i'm just saying if he was a black president it wouldn't be this crazy.

i believe in the justice system. i believe mueller is doing a great job. i believe in nancy pelosi. stay focused and vote and we are going to be fine. host: glenn is next in illinois. good morning. few little comments. nancy think got the because what's his name is knocking to put anything in front of the republicans in the senate. and if you had your wife sitting next to trump for $100,000 a year or better, would you put anything on the floor? i don't think i would, and now jared just tried to get a loan from the housing authority for

.is apartment building go ahead and finish your comment. pence made a statement, i saw this just a couple of times the same day the gays.ogramming but that thing is about washed under the rug somewhere. int: that is our last caller the first segment. we have plenty more to discuss, coming up next we will talk to congressman al green, one of the early voices calling for president trump's impeachment. he will be here to answer your phone calls and later we will be joined by a republican congressman of florida on house foreign affairs on the

subcommittee on asia. we will talk about the recent u.s.-north korea summit. all coming up on the washington journal. ♪ [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] during this year's conservative political action conference, also known as cpac we ask attendees what is mean to be american. >> it mean so many things that i , patriotism, starting with the history of our country, this is an experiment that could have gone completely wrong and it didn't. people nowadays are trying to keep it alive. aboutne is talking immigrants are coming to the

country and it makes you proud. the men and women who have died for our country, i cannot say enough about what this country really is. people are proud to be american. is [indiscernible] freedom does not come from our government, it is inherent as your right as a human being. [indiscernible] >> it means going back to our roots, a time when we were able wield our guns no matter where no matter when following our second amendment. voice beingour heard locally, publicly, nationally, anywhere.

it means to me to be an american is that we are fortunate to live with something called the united states constitution. privilege of the first amendment and second amendment specifically to allow into center our differences this important system so we don't have to jump into foxholes, dodge bullets, and stand in front of tanks. >> voices from the road, on c-span. washington journal continues. host: texas democratic congressman al green is back at our desk. he has called for the impeachment of president trump dating back to 2017. as nancy pelosi in the post yesterday. i am not for impeachment she said, i have been thinking about this, it's divisive to the country that unless there is something so compelling and

overwhelming and bipartisan i don't think we should go down that path because it divides the country and he's not worth it. guest: thank you for having me on. i am here today because i love my country. the words in the pledge of allegiance mean something to me and i salute the flag, liberty and justice for all. and i believe this is what impeachment is about. it's really about whether or not we are going to tolerate and continue to allow an unfit president to be in office. let's address the comments about is he worth it. this is something i have heard before. this is not something new, whether the president is worth it. but it's not about him. it's not about democrats. it's about democracy. it's not about republicans, it's about the republic. the question we have to ask ourselves is if the country is worth it. whether what we stand for is

worth it. whether our values are worth it, whether we will allow an unfit president to continue to wreak hasc upon our society become a dutch and a couple of comments on this because it's important. -- and a couple of comments on this because it's important. i want to deal with the myth that impeachment is comparable to a vote to go to war. i go to the va hospital annually. i know what the price of freedom looks like. go to a va hospital if you want to see the price of freedom and ask a veteran who has lost a who has been wounded, whether or not impeachment is comparable to going to war. going towards about freedom, liberty, and justice for all. impeachment is a benefit we have as a result of people who are willing to die for this country. republicansto allow , who are recalcitrant and have

already decided that they will not impeach the president regardless of what he does. they decided this, we did not elect a majority of democrats to the house to allow republicans to determine the state of the country. we are there for a reason and there will be another vote for impeachment. me, youesire to stop only had to change the rules so that i cannot bring a vote on impeachment. otherwise i will. because the constitution and the rules allow any one person to bring a vote on impeachment, and there is no necessity for this to go to a committee if the president has committed impeachable acts we can bring it to the floor. host: what are the impeachable acts he has committed? guest: i talked about instruction of justice initially so i will listen to -- i will list a couple. he appears to be an unindicted know.spirator, we need to

the president fired the person who was investigating his campaign to determine whether there was collusion with russians, really conspiracy. let's use that term for public purposes. those two things are worthy of arguing consideration to impeachment. but more important than these is the whole notion that katrina -- the bigotry emanating from president and his policy, the whole country is talking about africa, people of color, when he separates babies from their mothers. libby and justice for all does not mean just people who live in the united states in america. libby and justice for all. and he separates babies from his mother's and there's a policy. when you take the notion that there was some very nice people among the bigots and the racists

at charlottesville, where a woman lost her life, a peaceful protester lost her life. eden you look at what happen at the tree of life temple, mother emanuel, people losing their lives in places of worship, bigotry is on the rise and it will not subside by allowing republicans to determine the actions of democrats. as a democrat i will be guided by the actions of the people, not by the actions of the republicans. host: the first concerns you brought up about obstruction, we may or may not get more answers about that with the mueller report, why not wait for calls of impeachment until after we see what is in the report? guest: i have already said that i respect what mr. mueller is doing, but i have also said this . the framers of the constitution never intended for the executive to investigate itself.

a part of the now executive, his report goes to the executive, which means goats the president -- which means it goes to the president. the framers never intended for this, they intended for those in the house of representatives to have domain over impeachment. we in the house have to take up our responsibilities. when republicans were in control i said republicans should do their job. democrats are now in control, we have gained this large majority in the house and we still say republicans will determine the fate of our country. this is not about them. it is about the republic and we had to take a stand. host: when you were tweeting your response to nancy pelosi's statement you used the hastagh #impeachmentisnotdead. are you concerned she is killing impeachment talk in your caucus?

guest: i will not address that, there are opinion makers and opinion shapers who maintain the status quo. for them, they get three is a talking point, not an action item. it's an action item for me. there's a moral imperative that trumps political expediency, for many this is just a talking point. this is something they used to get the base out. it is something they use at election time and those who suffer from bigotry on not to depend on people who are going to use it as a talking point. it is time for people to decide, are we going to take on bigotry or allow this to fester and grow ? you do not eliminate bigotry by dealing with it in a politically expedient way, you have to deal with it head-on. we were elected, we have a large majority in the house for a reason, and it's not to allow republicans to continue to

control the floor of the house of representatives. and there will be another vote. there will be another vote on it. i will bring it to the floor of the house again. on the only person who has done it and i'm the only person -- i am the only person who has done and i'm the only person here now. whenr. king reminded us the ark of the moral universe is be, youthough it may can bend it towards justice. that's what we are attempting to do. i have something for you. this is a letter that the people who were opposed to the freedom marches, to people seeking justice, these are the letters they wrote. these are the prominent people who wrote this letter. members of the clergy, respectable people, opinion makers and opinion shapers, all who were of the opinion that this was not the right time.

they went on to say in their withr that we agree certain local niekro leadership leadership, to negotiate into our area. out ofnted to negotiate something the status quo wanted to maintain. a talking points. we have to get beyond talking point and have bigotry as an action item. the one way it could be for the united states of america is to have a vote. we will all go on record. everyone will do what you may. i don't believe that we should and i think people ought to vote their convictions. history will be the judge. host: if you want to join in on the conversation for democrats (202) 748-8000, for republicans (202) 748-8001, for independents (202) 748-8002.

up first, from new york, a democrat. caller: good morning. i come to you from the hometown of harriet tubman. i want to bring up a couple of trump which would lead to resignation. the truth shall set you free. the best option after the truth comes out for trump is not impeachment, it's resigning in disgrace. cheaters never win and winners never cheat. i think the electoral college cheated us out of an election this time. from thebterfuge russians -- and the subterfuge from the russians as a corrupting influence. but the electoral college is a corruption of one man, one vote. true democracy is one man, one vote. , will leave you with this

jesus was a socialist. host: -- guest: knowing the truth and the truth setting you free, is from the christian bible. and one man, one vote, comes from a case that went before the supreme court. but listen my brother, this is not about the election that was lost. this is about the country that may be lost. this is about whether or not we are going to do the right thing at the right time. this is the righteous thing we are doing. dr. king reminded us that the time is always right to do that which is right. what's amazing to me is that many of the status quo personalities will admit that he is unfit to be president. will admit that he has done things that are the equivalent of impeachable offenses but will then turn and say we do not want .o upset our status quo when the framers of the

did this, knowing that there would be a time of turmoil when this happened. they knew it would be partisan. read the federalist papers, the words of madison, read what they about whateralist 65 the times would be like. these, they were prophetic with their writings and we ought to understand that this is the time that they wrote about and trump is the president today spoke about. the republicanon line, from michigan. you are on with congressman greene. this is reason for being in office. i talking about the congressman? caller: yes, what is his reason for being in office, what has he

done for the united states? guest: thank you for your call. i do appreciate the challenge, but my dear friend, my dear brother, this is not about me. this is about the constitution. this is about whether or not we are going to stand on the righteous ground that the framers of the constitution provided for a time such as this and the president such as trump, that the majority, the overwhelming majority of democrats agree that he is unfit and ought to be impeached. republicans by an overwhelming majority say he should not be impeached, but it's not about them. it is about that country -- about the country. don't you see what's happening to the country? don't you see how the strife among the people of the country, don't you see the ugly head of bigotry has decided that not

only can it reared its ugly head but it can do so proudly. this is a time for people to take a stand. this is a time for us to leave it be -- to be the summer soldiers or the sunshine patriots, this is the time for us to take a stand. on the republican line. good morning. the level of bs coming out of you, might work for your constituents but i don't know what you're saying. you are saying bigotry but that's a huge charge. and to impeach someone based upon political leveraging, somebody has a study in 15 or 30 years and you have to explain to someone why you impeach them and there's no impeachable offense. it's basically politics. that's wipe low c said what she said. you are setting a precedent -- that is what pelosi was saying.

report are looking at a bought together by opposition resource, and a special prosecutor was in voided -- brought in to investigate what, and these documents are being requested by the house committees to the executive branch, this could be opposition research because now they could say there was collusion. if the democrats are worried about foreign interference in our election, the first thing they should do was not allow noncitizens to dictate our leaders. which is pretty much what you do when you allowed noncitizens to vote. of collusionction or allowing of a foreign government to a fear with our election process that allows noncitizens to vote. welcome the judgment of history.

history is going to show that there was some among us who stood up against the tree in the in the- the bigotry presidency. for those who contend that bigotry is not worth it, tell that to people who go to the polls, believing that we are going to eliminate bigotry. tell that to the people who support and are given party because they believe that a party stands against bigotry. this,so this, remember andrew johnson was impeached for speaking ill of congress. andrew johnson, 18 58, president of the united states, impeached for speaking ill of congress. so bigotry and policy is something that hurts many people in this country, and because many of us live in places where we don't encounter those who suffer, that does not mean we should not be concerned about their suffering. it doesn't mean we should ignore what is happened to them. they vote for us and they put us

in office. and then we make bigotry a talking point. this is a sad set of circumstances when we conclude that it's not worth it to impeach a bigoted president who is causing harm to society, especially minorities. with religiousse preferences that might be an typical to his view. a muslim band, for whatever reason -- ban, and the supreme court taking that up. before that it was shot down several times. it was carefully crafted and used search -- specific language to make it work. this is a time for us to take a stand. if only a few do it. i would be ok with that. history will judge and if i stand alone i will stand. and for those who question the democratic party and leadership, i don't speak for them. i don't speak for democratic

leadership. i speak for everyone who agrees with me and that's 70 to 80% of the democrats. host: here's a headline from the houston chronicle, al green joins with billionaire in beta to impeach trump. can you talk about that work and your efforts -- in bid to impeach trump. can you talk about that work in your efforts? i think well of mr. steyer, he has put his money where his thoughts are. where his mouth is to use the expression. and i think his work has been meaningful, and beneficial. i am not going to pressure members into doing a given thing. i will not go into their districts and would not encourage going into their districts. but i think the movement to bring impeachment to the forefront of the conversation is one that merits respect.

and i think that history will be kind to him, because he stands in opposition to the status quo of opinion makers and shapers. and thank you to c-span, for your 40th year of work that is also a platform for the loyal opposition to be heard. this is where the loyal opposition can be heard, on c-span. 40 years of allowing the loyal opposition to be heard because there are status quo opinion makers and shapers who do not allow this conversation to take lace. -- to take place. i'm going to continue to talk, i will go to the floor of house of representatives and i will talk to people where i find them. we do final analysis, if not impeach, i will feel like i have done my duty to my country. that's what this is about. i started by saying i love my country. i meant it then and i mean it

now. i stand where i stood when i first said we were taking up the article of impeachment, as we will again. everyone goes on record. independent -- an independent from new jersey. caller: there was someone who called up and said this is a democracy, a democratic republic, that means it is not mob rule. i feel like there are double standards. mr. trump, for all of his denounced the nazis that marched and he was talking about people who still wanted statues that. he was not talking in favor of nazis. and he was making a new york joke about what someone thinks and i wish he would tone that down. but i try to be fair. i think subversion is very start with, let's

those who commit people to come over the border and favor illegal aliens over our people. with those who think that there is nativist and white privilege. we could talk about mr. obama's records that are sealed about his education. let's examine everyone. guest: i think everyone should be examined and i'm not opposed to it. the tone and tenor of this starts at the top. the top of our country is the president of the united states. the presidency is where it began . if you have bigotry in policy emanating from the president that has to be dealt with. those people at the border who are seeking asylum arc importing themselves properly with the law. comporting themselves properly with the law. if the president does not like

that law he has the house, senate, and probably the majority on the supreme court. he could have changed the law. he did not. he chose to separate families. we have 12 million people who came through ellis island, 12 million at the statue of liberty, give me your poor, your huddled masses, yearning to breathe free. 12 million and no one was separated. there was no family separation at ellis island. there was not a flotilla out there in the harbor to prevent people from coming into ellis island. i am not saying to you that everyone who says i want asylum should get it. i am saying it is the law. we conveniently want to support the law when it supports our ideology, but when it is antithetical we want to disregard the law. the law says it can be done, change law. if you don't like impeachment change the constitution. article two section four is as good today as it was when the

constitution was put into place. democrat line, from new york. go ahead. caller: aside from mr. trumping the most unethical and immoral president we have ever had -- trump being the most unethical and immoral present we've ever had. he paid hush money to insulate information from the american voter, he has the emoluments violations that he has violated. and i wonder how nancy pelosi is going to feel when he pardons stone, flynn, and the rest of his cronies. thank you, but it's not about the speaker. it's about our democracy. it's not about republicans but our republic. i'm going to continue our efforts, i have a press conference at 9:00 on capitol hill. the press is welcome to come in

and we will see if the press will cover it and to what extent it will be covered, but i will have a press conference where i answer questions. i ought to be challenged. people ought to confront me. they ought to give me their nest thoughts and it ought to have the opportunity to respond. if people don't come it's because they don't want to challenge me but i want to be challenged. country, crisis in our it goes beyond political expediency. they would say let's get back to bigotry as usual. mr. trump has taken a part of bigotry as usual, it's camouflage and covert as opposed to overt. he has made bigotry overt and we want to get back to bigotry as usual. i want to eliminate bigotry i don't want to manage it. i don't want to use for political opportunity. notnt to eliminate bigotry, manage bigotry. i want to make sure we are

dealing with the moral imperative to impeach an unfit president for the karma is causing to our society. guest: -- host: you forced a vote on hunt -- on whether to move forward with impeachment. and you did it again in january 2018 and it was defeated by wide margins. when do you think you will be able to force another vote? test is one that does not carry with it a specific date. there will be another vote. i cannot or i will not announce it, but there is a test i have. and i would add this, if the to one, myen 434 position would be the same. i'm standing on the righteous ground of what the framers of the constitution intended and what the pledge of allegiance demands, liberty and justice for all. i believe in my country.

i salute the flag. i say the pledge of allegiance. i believe in america and if america is the america it should be for every american we have to pursue this course. guest: -- host: less than two minutes left, on the republican line from illinois. caller: i have two short comments, please don't cut me off. to the guy from maryland. , racist and bigotry would never leave because of people like you. democrats must learn to accept an election. they must learn how to be good losers, and he has done nothing yet to prove impeachment.

go fight --s everyone said he will fire mr. moeller but he did not do it and you are not even waiting for the report and all of these investigations going on. guest: thank you. not about democrats or republicans. it's about our democracy and our republic. it's about whether or not we will do what we know is the that thing to do, given the people who say we should not impeach will admit that he is unfit and has committed impeachable acts. i think c-span for the opportunity. loyala place where the opposition can be heard and that ought to mean something to people in this country, whether you agree with me or not, you ought to agree that the loyal opposition not to be heard. and in turn i will be proven to be right. we should impeach, because there is no requirement of a crime to impeach. harm to society is the standard we must head here to -- adhere

to. thank you again c-span, 40 years of providing a platform to the loyal opposition. host: thank you for your time. up next we will be joined by a republican congressman of florida, a member of the house for an affairs committee, we will talk about the u.s.-north korea summit and later on the defense budget was over $750 billion this time around, we will talk about it with todd harrison and what is in the president's proposal. ♪

>> watch american history tv live on saturday, starting at 9:00 eastern from historic forts theater in washington d c. the 22nd annual lincoln impose together -- brings bringing tick -- brings together lincoln scholars to highlight his life, career, and legacy. include nina silber on how he was remembered in new deal america, david blithe, on his relationship with frederick douglass, and another speaker on lingering -- on lincoln as president-elect. watch on c-span this weekend.

♪ >> the only thing we have to fear is fear itself. what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country. >> [indiscernible] [applause] c-span's newest book, the presidents, noted historians chiefhe best and worst executives, providing insight into the lives of the presidents. stories were gathered by interviews with noted presidential historians. explore the life events that shaped our leaders, the challenges they faced, and the legacies they have left behind. published by public affairs, the presidents will be on shelves april 23. but you can preorder your copy in the hardcover or e-book today , or-span.org/the presidents

wherever books are sold. washington journal continues. yoho joinsessman ted us for the first time. he is serving as the top republican on the house foreign ,ffairs subcommittee on asia pacific, and nonproliferation. all three of those are at the heart of the recent summit with king john -- kim jong-un. what was your reaction to that? >> i think it was great that they held in hanoi. that was a good illustration for kim jong-un to see what would happen if he embraced a market economy and i think president trump did right by walking away. kim jong-un was not ready to histiate, to fulfill commitment to denuclearization. he was banking on sanctions being released -- relieved like

they were under the previous administrations. president trump says we are not going to do that, when you're ready to come to the table you are here -- we are here. host: we are hearing the potential of a north korean rocket launch into space, where we going from here? guest: we just have to be cognizant. if it's a peaceful launch of a satellite that's ok, i think. but if these are missiles being tested, that's a different story. we are going back to where we were. keep in mind that we have not had a nuclear test in over 15 months, this is because of the strong stance of the united states has taken and for kim jong-un to launch rockets that have icbm capabilities would be a step backward. host: what is congress doing when it comes to this relationship? is there a possibility of more sanctions or something to bring him back to the negotiating table? great question,

north korea has been getting oil coalrussia, and china, and from them as well. this is something we will look at seriously. we are looking at the big banks of china that we know are funneling the money and additionally the things that north korea is doing with iran on weapons. we will put sanctions on those. sanctions are an effective tool if they are used on the right entity. the problem is north korea funnels it so much money through shell corporations that it is a cat and mouse game. the state department plays a key role in the efforts here when it comes to negotiation. what are your thoughts on the presidents budget -- the president's budget. the state department and the international program took the biggest hits when it came to funding changes, 23.3% from the previous budget. guest: and last year they wanted amounts.gnificant

congress controls that and we will go through that and the ones that make sense on reducing we will stand behind. and the other ones we need to shore up. we passed the bill called the build act, which reforms how the country gives out foreign aid and it would be a misstep to decrease it too much. we want to make sure we have effective foreign aid going on for countries that we can help grow economies, trade, and become stronger allies. host: what is an example of one that makes sense that needs reducing? guest: when you look at the redundancy, so many agencies have similar programs like in usaid, there are programs that overlap. what we will do with the build have the united states taking equity stakes in what we do overseas and it should operate at virtually zero

dollars. host: you are with us until the bottom of the hour. if you want to join in on the conversation, for democrats (202) 748-8000, for republicans (202) 748-8001, for independents (202) 748-8002. your utter committee is the agriculture, and the agriculture seeing a 14.8% cut in the president's proposed budget. your thoughts? guest: when you look at $22 trillion in debt, the deficit we have, there are programs that need to be reformed. the nutritional programs, we know firsthand that the snap $1 billion at least worth of fraud. and there is a hearing that it may be more. let us shore up the programs for the people that it was intended for. we can look at farm programs, other programs.

i have people that have called me and said people are getting a check from the usda and they are not farming. orshould not entice anybody incentivize those kinds of programs. lookedhings need to be at and reduced so that money is there for programs that we really need. you mentioned the debt is counting.llion and $2 trillion higher than when president trump took office. did you think we would be farther along? guest: when i came into congress that was one of our goals to reduce debt. i have done a terrible job. congress has done a terrible job. we are not looking at what's driving the debt, it's the mandatory spending, social security, medicare, medicaid, these programs need to be gone into. securitying a social

disability insurance reform that will not take any money away but it will shore up the program and save a tremendous amount of money. but it's not the savings, it's the long jevity of the program that we are putting in -- longevity of the program that we are putting in for the people who need it. we need to change mandatory spending. if we do not do that we are running into a train wreck and you will see what happened in puerto rico and these other countries here. and we don't want that to happen. host: gene is in michigan, a democrat. news,: i was watching the on the korean talks. one of the reporters asked kim a tough question, and he was stumbling over trying to answer it. in the korean leader was

laughing at trump. a few hours after that trump left the talks, i think he was upset that korea was laughing at him because he was having trouble answering a tough question and i just wanted to know what your opinion is? tough we get asked questions all the time and i stumble over some. i don't think that was the main reason. the main reason and we spoke to secretary pompeo and john bolton about what happened. and also the special envoy. we found out what really went on in there, i don't think it was president trump being laughed at. the fulfillment of the north korean -- kim jong-un came into negotiate inking that americans would relieve sanctions and we said no, not until you do these

verifiable things. that is why president trump left. host: michael, in minneapolis, a republican. way, withoutere a , does he understand kim jong-un as far as what he really wants to do with his country? that would help to feel him out. does he really wants to be a center point? because he has a great location to do business with other countries, to become more like what other countries do, barter, trade, open his doors to make changes and increases economy. do we understand that he really wants to do these things? that's kind of where i was going, i feel like they need to know more about him, or something. minnesotaas born in and i'm glad i'm in florida now. and that's a great question. very intelligent,

well-educated, but he miscalculated on this. we've had the opportunity to meet with people from south korea who have been at the previous negotiations from our country. he has been at everyone. he said back in the old days it was mainly a military -- he was mainly a military presence, which means that economic people were not there. and today it is an economic presence. they believe kim jong-un wants to fully denuclearize and embrace a market economy. that is why it was great to have the second summit in homeboy -- .n hud noise -- in hanoi kim jong-un could see for himself what a market economy could do not just for him and his people. going the economy and becoming an accepted member of the world economics. host: stephen, in south

carolina, a democrat. caller: how long was the summit? was it 48 hours? guest: correct. caller: it seems to me that you fly halfway around the world, and it was not a very well thought out thing from the american side. you say that they wanted more but it looks like we were not playing much either. arabia,barrett, saudi jared kushner, that's another nuclear situation that is very -- to the the con country, that needs to be paid attention to by you, your colleagues and my colleagues. i like to know your opinion on the saudi arabia situation. guest: you bring up a valid point. this is something we need to make sure as countries get into the nuclear age and that it is used -- that it is used for peaceful purposes. as president eisenhower said, if

you have a peaceful nuclear overt., it's open, if it's covert you are doing bad things with it. we want to make sure that we are doing good things. but as far as the summit you cannot go to second base without going to first. if you don't have a relationship you can't negotiate anything. kim jong-un was shocked that president trump was willing to get up and walk out because he was willing -- he was really anticipating america would give him sanction relief and he miscalculated the president in the united states. host: jeff is a former national security council or and had a piece in nbc news and this is how he put it. there are many reasons for a foreign policy failure. president trump a shoe to the traditional bottom-up approach to diplomacy, allowing diplomats

to negotiate issues before a summit. he reportedly brushed off warnings from advisers who claim the north koreans were unwilling to give up their nuclear stockpile and even suggested the summit he postponed -- be postponed but -- postponed. jeff is wrong. look at the past three negotiations. all of them were negotiated by career to plants from the bottom up and it has led to failure. this is the first time in history that i know where people have come in. what you have to understand with kim jong-un is that he is the one that makes the decision. it is not his subordinates. he is the one everything has to be cleared through. , hecan go to the negotiator is the one who finally says this

is what it is. he does not listen to the advisors like we think. president trump was brilliant as far as going head-to-head with kim jong-un. host: 15 minutes left this morning. the foreign affairs committee a member of the agricultural committee, taking your calls on phone lines for democrats (202) 748-8000, for republicans (202) 748-8001, for independents (202) 748-8002. robert is waiting in indiana, republican. caller: good morning, thank you for letting me call-in. i can't understand the democrats. they've said that trump has not done anything for the people and he has been doing everything he can to get everyone working. this al greene is nothing but a bigot or a racist. that's all they are. they just want to cause trouble for the president who is doing his job.

i get so sick of these characters calling in and they don't know nothing. host: congressman your thoughts on al greene? guest: my sentiments are with you. we are working to help them out. but we have to come together as americans. this whole thing about impeaching president trump because of this and that, we can go back to the last administration or the one before that are the one before that. what we have to focus on is what is ailing this country. debt, theillion in mismanagement of federal programs that we could do better for the american people, instead of fighting over the things we are seeing, endless investigations. let us start celebrating the economy, the jobs report. these things make america strong. john kennedy brought us together back in the 60's over the moon program. we came together as americans and we accomplished a great feat

that had never been done before because we as americans, not republicans or democrats, came together to accomplish that. that is what this nation needs right now. host: gabriel, in massachusetts, and independent. give mei hope you enough time to speak. i know the true history of this country. this is a country that was built bank that has been in every war and funded by both sides. so you do business on the down low with communist countries so you can have the american people -- host: what is your question? caller: went to the people get these truth from the multimedia corporations funded by billionaires. guest: when the people of this country go to the voting booth and put in people that are going to respond to them.

we get the divided government we have right now, our founding fathers said the only way our republic lasts is if we have well-educated -- a well educated populace. and people that will exercise their voting rights, in addition to having a moral society. until you have that this republic will be under constant threat and we need to make sure the people we put into office are the ones we want and if not, vote them out. host: i wanted to ask you about the cyber deterrence and response act. guest: that the belief in place. we found out the united states of america did not have a policy on what a cyberattack was or an act of war through cyber threats and we did not have a response to that. so we came up with this, if someone, a nationstate, a lone if they operating, damage the infrastructure, banking, air travel, any of the

infrastructure, what we did was we laid the groundwork. this is what we deem as a cyberattack and this is the response. it starts off with sanctions but it escalates. host: how is it possible that we did not have a definition or plan to respond to cyber attacks? guest: you tell me. i came up as a freshman and i asked that question, do we have a policy on what is cyberattack is? and they said no. the experts told me no. that if we areng in endless investigations and running down all of these rabbit holes we are not focusing on what's important and what is needed and necessary for the united states. to stay strong and independent. host: who should we be worried about on that front, cyber attacks? guest: the biggest threat as china, iran, and russia. there are some bad players in the ukraine, and the lone wolf's

and independent people. but i would say china, north korea, russia, and iran. host: when is it ok to go on the offense when it comes to cyber attacks? guest: on the offense? , likeal security threats when iran was building up their centrifuge capacity. a virus came out and disrupted that and that's a smart thing to do. but you always have to worry , it gives you do credence for someone else to do is sit -- to do the same thing to you. you're always working to make the country secure and we should not go beyond that. host: had we figure out what is an appropriate level of response in cyber warfare? bible, the old

testament is a good one, and i for nine. the goal is we don't want to interfere with another country but we don't want them to interfere with us so we need to have an appropriate response. markets wet down our should do the same to them and sanction the people behind it. , in pennsylvania, a democrat. caller: good morning. republicanng how the party and yourself, can sit there with a straight face and know this country is going down the drain because we have such an adverse president who is inexperienced and doesn't know anything about politics. what he really is is their -- theto the former vice former president, barack obama. everything barack obama is, this man is not. is the total opposite.

-- he is the total opposite. in my opinion he is satan. guest: we are on opposite sides because i felt that way about president obama. i felt like what he was doing was detrimental to the country. that is the discourse we are allowed to have. the thing we need to focus on is republicans -- as republicans and democrats is what is best for america. look at the economy, the jobs, the employment across all demographics and you will see the strongest economy. you can deny that but the facts are the facts. our foreign policy had run askew under the previous administration. get debt with china through the trade deficit. 600 billion dollars, intellectual property, that did not happen under barack obama, it is a neglect and negligence of the last four administrations. president trump is saying enough is enough.

you should applaud that instead of attacking him, that is what is best for america. host: you quoted the old testament, what do you think about calling someone in the political realm satan? , words have consequences. i think we need to all temper down. you look at our media startalities, and when we using those words it invokes actions by someone else. i think when we call people satan and other things like that. there are better words we can use. good morning, in maryland, on the republican line. caller: councilman i have a question for you. i worked for the federal i'mrnment for 40 years, and -- and i retired in 2018.

almost the entire time i was harassed, threatened, and blackmailed by the so-called deep state. it's not deep state congressman, that's a joke. that is the enemy's language. they are just criminals. my family was involved in law enforcement going back to the 1930's, the fact is, congressman, you have the nerve to talk to me today? are you too busy? guest: i'm here now, listening to you. caller: sure, but i have details. and i walkedih, in on 40 chinese medical students hacking into the human genome project. you do know what that is? genes,re not 35,000 there are over 150,000 genes. because i did get through to president bush, i called the comment line and he listens to me. host: we are running out of

time, what is your question? caller: my question is who is holding the patents for the missing genomes? guest: is that somethingyou know question -- host: is that something you know? guest: they are running a massive dna project, u.s. companies own a lot of them but china has a staff and intellectual property, and they have taken over a lot of those patents. for taking myyou call, why is it ok for the u.s. to have nuclear weapons but not north korea, and why is it ok for israel to have nuclear weapons? guest: do you have that for a fact? because i don't have that israel having nuclear weapons as a fact. we develop them in the 40's and we used them one time in world war ii. they have not been used in a conflict since then, let us help

they were not -- they are not. they were developed as a deterrent. when north korea starts threatening to blow up america and our allies, that's a responsible behavior. when you have a regime that was cut off from the rest of the world by choice and they get nuclear weapons and they threaten you, i think that is something that not just us, south korea, japan, china, and the rest of the free world, should realize that they have nuclear weapons in their hands and it would not be a good thing. connie, a democrat, from new jersey. good morning. i would like to ask if he knows his geography. know hanoi is not close to north korea. guest: i appreciate it -- i do know my geography.

kim jong-un came by train to vietnam and drove the rest of the way. i have been to hanoi, and south korea. from the last call is chris, in falls church, virginia, on the independent line. caller: my question goes back to the $22 trillion debt and what has not been done about it through multiple congresses. that there is a failure to deal with the debt on both sides. really becomes the number one national security issue over the next decade or so. to me there is a barrier where the more popular from a pulling standpoint whether it is a border wall issue or a green new deal takes the spotlight in

2020, the you think it is reasonable to introduce a bill for term limits for congress soaking get a new people in there who are willing to deal with the pressing issues, rather than those who want to skirt tough problems and the solutions are not palatable to either base? term limits, if you go back to the federalist papers -- to limit somebody who is doing a good job would be a mistake. you as a voter has the ability to term limit anybody. the people in the republican a term of sixved years. the people leave with the institutional knowledge and the lobbyists and bureaucracy run the state. i think that would be a mistake.

addressing our debt or not to address our debt is a crisis for this nation. those are the things that we should focus on in congress. if you want to know what is going to happen with our debt and the crisis, look at what is happening on the southwest border. we had an influx of 76,000 people last month. if this is left unchecked, there are going to be millions of people coming into this country unchecked because they know congress is inept at securing the borders. take the analogy and apply it to our debt. the day of reckoning is coming. having workshops on how to solve the mandatory spending in this country and to get it under control so it is there for the future generations. yoho, congressman ted thank you for your time. guest: thank you for having me

on. keep talking about the busy day in washington and our next segment of washington journal and we want to know what is on your mind. the phone line for democrats and republicans, and independents on your screen. we'll be right back. sunday on q&a. >> tragically, i had no expectation that we would be sitting here in 2019 talking ,bout this war in afghanistan the way it has been escalated, the way it has escalated every year. the countless lives that have been wasted and the continual suffering. >> iraq war veteran and former state department official on his article, "time for peace in

afghanistan and the end to the lies." when i worked on iraq and afghan war issues in the pentagon and state department and between those times, there was no difference in the administrations, their desire was to win for domestic political reasons. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span's q&a. >> c-span where history unfolds daily. 1970 nine, c-span was created as a public service. today, we continue to bring you unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court, and public policy events in washington dc and around the country.

c-span is brought to you by your cable or satellite provider. "washington journal" continues. host: another busy day in washington. we want to know what public policy issue is on your mind. here are a few of the stories that we are tracking this morning. noty pelosi saying, i am for impeachment. also today, hearings on president trump's 2020 budget. that was sent up yesterday and more than a $4 trillion -- $4.7 trillion to be exact. also today, the expected reintroduction of the dream act for those children brought to the country illegally. ceo's will plenty of

be on capitol hill for hearings including wells fargo ceo timothy sloan. he will testify before the house federal services committee. you can watch live coverage starting at 10:00 a.m. on c-span3 and on the free c-span radio app. executives from t-mobile and sprint will testify on their proposed merger and how it could impact the wireless industry. the judiciary committee starts at 2:00 p.m. and you can listen to it on the free cspan radio app. we want to know what is on your mind. .emocrats, (202) 748-8000 republicans call in at, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. you can catch up with us on social media @cspanwj and on

facebook.com/cspan. -- from from was wol creek, oregon. what is on your mind? guest: i -- caller: i think they should get their bibles out and read daniel chapter four and 5. it would be very informative for them. host: what were they find there? the one who god is put schemes and authority. hanezzarout king nebuc and his grandson when they were kings. host: thank you for informing us. rob in new york.

an independent. caller: good morning. paneled to talk about the mock and the paradise papers. all of these tax savings -- havens, it is going totally on talked about in the major media, so i wanted to know what your callers thought about that. host: what are your thoughts about that? caller: i think that is most of the problem with our country. people whoxing the work for a living, and there are some and people who are not working that are just collecting benefits. this cannot go on. the only way to do it is to get havens andthese tax turn them upside down. host: what story are you tracking today in washington? caller: i would like to suggest that you do a show on the second

amendment sanctuary cities, and if that is possible. i do not know for that is a could you issues, tell me if you could do some been like that? host: can you talk through that know?ose that do not caller: the are some in illinois and maryland and i think many of them are in new mexico where the county governments have decided secondenforce it anti amendment bills that the states have issued. countiesff's of these are refusing to do the implementation. i think i have a correct. host: thank you for bringing up the topic. ruth, what is on your mind today in washington? liked to would have

talk to mr. green. democrats keep telling us about trump separating babies from the parents at the border. -- do not tell you that host: they do not tell you what? caller: they do not tell you that president obama did the same thing. ban on muslim countries where the same countries that president obama had a ban on at one time. what is going to bring america to its knees? green was on to discuss his ongoing call for impeachment for president trumpeted that was brought out for it and interviewed that the washington

post had with nancy pelosi. the poker has garnered the most attention, "i am not for impeachment." she says, "i have been thinking about this. impeachment is so divisive to this country that unless there is something so compelling and overwhelmingly bipartisan, i do not think we should go down that path because it divides the country, and he is just not worth it to go -- worth it." we are tracking again the president's budget that was sent up to capitol hill. proposal, hr as well looking at some of the proposed changes to -- a chart as well looking at some of the proposed changes. usaid funding down

the 4%. 16% and so on down the line. those agencies that would see increases, the defense department, homeland security, and veteran affairs. we will talk more about the president's budget a little later today. we are hearing from you about which of those stories is on your mind. joanne in minnesota. caller: good morning. i have two comments. one, about the border wall. everybody talks about the money and why we should or should not have the wall. work on thehat border are employees of our federal government. only asking for the tools to do the job. in congress, they say they are

concerned because we cannot keep employees. for as employees are asking the tools to do the job. protect their lives and this country, and as employees, we should give them the wall. my second comment has to do with the senator from minnesota. she has the right to say what she wants, but i think she is a disgrace. she made the comment this morning. i have two grandchildren who live in the cities and go to school with children from her district. ago, she was set at a table in an art class with three , and theysomalia started wrecking her stuff, picking on her, and finally she said, why are you doing this to me? and one of the boys answered,

three reasons. first, you are white. second, you are american. third, i can get away with it. she said, what do you mean? mind you, this is from a 15-year-old boy. he said, i am a muslim. everybody is afraid, if they say anything against me, they will be called a racist. werefore, we can do anything want and we are not going to be punished. think of that. we can do anything we want and we are not going to be punished because people will think they are racist if they say anything. host: in minnesota this morning, talking to you about the stories we are tracking today in washington. one other story i wanted to mention was the announcement by u.s.tate department of the

with drawl of the last of its embassy personnel from venezuela. the announcement from the secretary of state over twitter saying the united states is withdrawing all remaining personnel from the u.s. embassy this week. this decision reflects the deterioration in venezuela, and it goes on to say, the conclusion of the presence of u.s. diplomatic staff at the embassy has become a constraint on u.s. policy. we will look for more details on that as it comes out later today or tomorrow. now to another story that we talked about at the top of this -- the reintroduction of the dream act, expected today from democrats. to talk more about it, we are joined on the phone from rollcall house lead reporter. remind uspherson,

what the dream act is. guest: good morning. is a bill that would provide permanent, legal protection for the dreamers -- the undocumented immigrants that were brought to the united states as children by their parents. so-called dreamers are here legally with work dacats and it is under the program. the president tried to end to that program, but federal courts have blocked him from ending daca. so far, there are dreamers legally being protected by the courts. democrats want to provide and have wanted to provide for is thes, thinking, this

only country they have ever want tod they provide certainty that they will not be deported. to bill provides a path citizenship for the dreamers. there are certain requirements that you would have to meet to eventually qualify for citizenship related to education for being a part of the workforce or showing you are a contributing member of society. is goingay's dream act to include new protections for those who have temporary protected status in this country. why the new inclusion on that? guest: right. the slight change is this will , so peopleto protect from certain countries who had come toir country to

the united states because of inious crises happening their home countries and then once they are here, they are granted status so they would not have to return. .rump also tried to end tps the courts blocked him. extendid they would 2020, butuary democrats want to do more and protect that. -- thes another status exact acronym i am blanking on, but that is for people from and provides them with protection from having to go back to that country. that expired at the end of this month. spearheading this new introduction today and when is it happening? there is a press

conference to officially announce it at 10:00 a.m., but is the lead sponsor of the bill as well as other beocratic leaders, they will joined by advocates and they are doing a big roll out today. the congressional hispanic caucus, congressional black caucus, and asian-pacific caucus are holding a big presser at noon to announce their support as well. to have theed majority of democrats cosponsoring. the big question is whether there will be any republican cosponsors. the previous congress, there were six republicans who in 2016, but all six of those it lost their election

bid or retired. pass the house, and me expectation that this gets picked up in the senate? guest: there is zero expectation that it will get picked up in the senate. this goes too far for most republicans in providing this path to citizenship. a lot of republicans, particularly on the conservative to amnesty.e that over border wall funding that republicansquested, have been willing to slow protections for dreamers, but they are rare of getting to the point of going on a path to citizenship. it includes nothing that republicans really want. mcpherson covers

it for rollcall, house leadership reporter there. always appreciate your time. to your calls as we talk about today in washington. again, the reintroduction of the dream act is just one of the stories we are tracking. tracking reaction for nancy pelosi's comments of not being for impeachment. and several major company ceo's on capitol hill today. what are you watching? steve in glen falls, new york. democrat. caller: hi. i am appalled to what he did to those children, locking them up in -- having them not touch the kids are have any emotion towards them. that is uncalled for. .e is a mean man he is indicative.

i think if he worked on being -- is vindictive. if he worked on being a little kinder, he would go longer. host: what did you think of nancy pelosi's comments yesterday? about impeachment? caller: i think she is probably right. if there is something overwhelming, then they should. and if it is not, then they should leave him alone. but he should become nicer. host: this is robin in tennessee, republican. caller: don't you think it would if you are going to have someone like representative owl greenpresentative al saying that president trump is a racist, then you should have

somebody on there that says why they are leaving the democratic party -- and you think that would be fair to the viewers? thanks for the suggestion. karen is in washington, and independent. caller: good morning, thank you for taking my call. i identify as an independent, because we do not have to say that we are democrat or republican, so that is what i want to say that i am and independent. i am calling in this morning because i am taking the c-span challenge. i am not watching "fake news" anymore, i am watching c-span and i am learning what is really going on. i also watch a youtube channel the patrithe people, ot soapbox. where ithe only place am getting real news today. on that channel, i learned that

what the president is doing is 100% correct. he is looking out for we the people. he is taking the budget and going to try to balance it in about 20 years. i applaud him for that. host: what is the most interesting thing -- committee hearing or floor proceeding you have watched as you have seen c-span? watchedlast night, i the coverage of what they were going to do with the mueller report. i was shocked to see that it was nothing but the same thing that you see every day. back andtisan comments forth and it was not really getting to the fact that the that if wanted -- congress wanted, they could change the law and make a report public to themselves and the american people. but they will not do their job and all they will do is night at each other. host: janet, bayside, new york.

caller: i have a couple of comments and then a question. i believe that speaker pelosi is a liar. she will do anything to get power. i believe that the country is in state, well, people say, a revolution. president obama said a fundamental transformation of america. what does that mean? i know what that means. back to power, it is all about to votes. they will use the electorate, and they will say whatever they want, they will to get back into power, and people buy it. i think it is heartbreaking that they pit one group against each

other. this business about israel. jewish people are only 2% of the population now. out the person who said those vicious, vicious things, like the lady you cut the muslim you about children thinking it was ok, they could get away with hurting her grandchildren because they are muslim -- i have nothing against children. i have a problem with what we are teaching children. what we are teaching these -- this nation, we are teaching them it is ok to hurt catholic. we are teaching them it is ok to hurt jews. we are brainwashing people to white people do not love black people.

i am 71. i do not know anybody who does not have black friends and love them, and black members of the family. like i do. it is all brainwashing. i liketion to you is, very much the hearings. i think it is theater, but it is revealing. i have for some time and have been very saddened that there is a bias. there is a bias in this particular format where you had all of the democrats talking about impeachment. you did not ask the republicans for impeachment. right now, this is a free country. i do not think it is going to be free very long. are going to be enslaved by the people in power.

it's just heartbreaking that the media is going along with it and people do not have the time to look into it. like i said, i respected and voted for president obama. then i didn't because i was disappointed. host: got your opoint. -- got your point. your question, we were talking to democrats only from nancy pelosi's comments on impeachment. lead to do republican only segments as well when there -- but we do do republican only segment as well. we do that often, we try to mix up the lines on this program, so keep watching "washington journal" and i promise you will

see a republicans only segment down the road. john is next in jupiter, florida. john, are you with us? in clarksville, georgia. a republican. caller: good morning. host: good morning. want to talk about the bernie sanders idea of a free college education. use of language today is so ridiculous. there is no such thing as free anything. who is going to pay for those colleges because of people who do not have children, people of already paid to have their children go to school? there is no such thing as free education. that is a lie, and it is typical of democratic rhetoric promising things that just is not true. it is a lie, lie, lie. thank you.

host: bobby in illinois, a democrat. caller: good morning. hi, i just wanted to call for want tot time, i for giving people ways to give their opinion. are you there? host: yes sir. caller: my question as far as , and whyr wall trump administration is so obsessed on the border wall. keep people only out, but they also key people in. i think as far as the border wall, we are wasting too much taxes taking too much from the american people with this border wall.

are immigrants of this country. the only true americans are the native americans. as whatuestion as far is going to bring us down in this country is hatred. -- a is a law of hatred lot of hatred in this country and we lost the sight of what we are really supposed to be doing. uplifting each other. and we let the devil come between us. and making it all about money. how can we is this, actually fix this broke society without having this hatred, because that is going to be our biggest downfall in america? hate divides and hate destroys. thank you for giving the american people a voice.

i would be -- will be a viewer from now on. i think this is what the media should do, touch bases with the american people and get their opinions. democrat, republican, or independent. we need to come together or we will destroy ourselves. host: thank you. you started by talking about the president's border wall proposals. the border wall is once again a part of the president's plans going for it his fiscal 2020 budget. and to talk more about the president's budget, we are this reporter, five takeaways from trump's budget. take us through the first five takeaways, the border wall. guest: absolutely.

in this budget proposal, president trump says he wants $8.6 billion for his border wall which is an xo olay -- which is an escalation. last year, he only asked for $1.6 billion. that might have been some sort of an internal error, because in the end, he was upset. he said, no, i want $5.7 billion. so he kept upping the ante. it was the longest shot down in history. ofmp as they cleared a state emergency to try to get over $8 billion for that wall to reallocate that money. now he has come back and said, looking forward, i am not going to stick with the same numbers. againoing to up the ante

and ask for $8.6 million, a figure that he's -- $8.6 billion, a figure that he says will be enough to cover the border wall. says one of our callers that she appreciated a long-term projection by the trump administration that the budget will be balanced down the road. what are your takeaways? yeah, so what is interesting is usually in republican administrations and budgetp's own two proposals, they try to find a path to balance in 20 years. this budget does not do that. they said they can only do this in 15 years, and even our allies on more robust economy, more people working, more

revenues, which means the budget deficit will be smaller. they are the only ones that think that the 3% growth sustained over time is possible. you look at the federal reserve bank or the congressional budget office and they are projecting that growth will be around 2% every year on average for the course of a decade. that is a really big difference. it is a big difference when you are talking about the growth of the economy. up, is something they set we are going to have 3% growth on the campaign trail. president trump said he was going to have maybe 4% or 5% to growth, but that does not seem realistic based on other projections from the professionals. s are of budget watcher saying, that is a trick you are putting in there to say this

will balance quickly and make all of the numbers lineup. we saw a law of projected cuts that the president wants to see. what are a few of them that stuck out to you? guest: i think some of the big ones that you see are a 30% cut tof cpa, the percent to30% cut of cpa, 20% cut transportation, and are really, really massive cuts to agencies that a lot of people rely on. they say, can you cut money for education, people are a little less excited about it. this is not new in terms of trump's budgets. they have come out in the past with a similar things and when they come to congress, they are dead on arrival.

we are notys, prepared to cut huge amounts from the departments that we think are important. processast, the starts with calling all of the cabinet secretaries forward to justify the budget. when they have been doing that, there have been really uncomfortable moments where cabinet secretaries are being forced to defend cuts to programs. they end up saying, we are agreeing that these are good programs, but we think our resources are better directed towards giant increases in defense spending or reducing the deficit. host: talk about some of the hearings coming up and which ones you are most interested in watching? guest: today and tomorrow, we

will have the acting omb director common before the budget committee to defend this, and it is going to be pretty explosive. we will see him in front of the house budget committee this morning which is now controlled by democrats. this dynamic is new to this administration was divided government. another interesting one will be steve mnuchin coming in on thursday talking to the finance committee, and he will get a grilling on these questions of economic growth as well as extending tax cuts. host: niv ellis, the budget reporter for thehill.com. appreciate your time. guest: thanks so much. host: a few minutes left in this phone segment. we want to hear about the stories you are most interested in. minnesota, independent. caller: yeah, mine was the

dreamers act. i do not know what the big stew about it is, but they are showing that they are going to be productive citizens. most of them have been here for 10 -- 10 years. how hard would it be to figure out to is going to fit in and who's not? it all the is why is sudden coming to light again after a year or so? host: with the dreamers act? caller: yes. they did a shut down for it on the dreamers, that is what the democrats were doing, and laid dead for it, and the election season is coming up again, and then it is a big issue again. why did they do that? host: a couple of reasons as laid out in lindsay mcpherson's reporting in roll call -- this

is a new congress so all of the bills introduced in the last the end.died at they would have to be reintroduced in the 116th congress if it is going to be reconsidered. this is a slightly different version of the dreamers act for new protections for those who are in the country under temporary protection status. ,f you want to read the story is by lindsay mcpherson. michael, paterson, new jersey. a republican. caller: how you doing? host: doing well. caller: when i heard the guy say about the kids being locked up, i think -- hello? host: i am listening. caller: i think they did that with obama, too, but you know what?

the blame should be on the people who came over the border and the people who brought them over the border. .hey should be in the blame these people are being sheltered, fed, clothed, medicine -- we have people sleeping in the u.s. that are se -- citizens that are in tents and gutters, and trains. they are illegal. they do not have a right to a thing. i think the democrats want to be more for the illegals and the immigrants, because they are anti-american to me. they want to let them in. they want open borders. that is anti-american. host: joe in new york, long island. caller: yes, hello.

there are some people throughout the country that are ranging -- are arranging marriages between illegal immigrants and homeless people. theythey are married, this appear. -- disappear. host: where are you reading that story? caller: i am not reading about it, i know it for a fact. a guy that was promised $5,000. once they got married, the girls split. host: a couple of minutes left if you want to start calling in and telling us what stories you are tracking today in washington. this is from the wall street journal today, the announcement that the democratic party has picked milwaukee to hold its 2020 national convention. the democratic national

committee chairman tom perez said that milwaukee would host the convention from july 13 to july 16 of 2020. that cities selected over houston and miami. republicans will hold their convention in charlotte, north 24thina on august through the seven. the former defense secretary and presidentary under obama, his op-ed on women belonging in the military. he writes, people often ask whether the decision to put women on the frontline of combat with a difficult one. it was not, we made the decision , there were women who are already serving in combat. the selective service registration requirements of should apply it to women as well as men. would be a grave and

not to mention, on constitutional mistake. militaryis that our readiness has improved by giving every on the -every individual the opportunity to serve. virginia. republican. caller: yes, my question relates to disability. my question has to do with millions of are children who qualify under current to disability. disability, when it was -- undercurrent disability. -- under current disability. this ability, when it is started, it provided a salary for adults who were disabled. extended toime, it small children with adhd, add, and depression.

arender what the numbers and whether we are going to look at that when we talk about doing something with social security, because that is also under social security. have thosenot numbers at my fingertips, but we will certainly we talking about social security on this program. melvin is waiting in florida. independent. law for 40racticed years and the first amendment specifically prohibits my government for taxing me to support any religion. am forced to pay taxes that go to israel, the largest recipient of american foreign aid for decades. that aid is in the billions of dollars. i am not jewish. the jewishlieve what

people believe, that they are the chosen people of god, and i see no reason why i or any other american should be forced to pay taxes that go to a defined, religious state. israel that has been subject to numerous united andons resolutions violations of the united nations charter. ael the only country you a problem with foreign aid -- you have problem with foreign aid to? r any statebho that violates -- i would not one penny of my money to go to the vatican, for example. our last caller in this segment of "washington journal." the white house asking yesterday for its 2020 budget of the apartment of the fence, we will

break it down and take a closer look at the numbers with todd harris of csis. we were be right back. ♪ >> during this year's conservative political action conference, we asked attendees what it means to be american. >> there are so many, so many things that i could say and i think starting with patriotism, starting with the history of our country. that couldexperiment have gone completely wrong and it did not. and people nowadays are trying to keep her alive. when we hear about immigrants that really talk about how they have really thou to come to tos country -- really fought come to this country, it makes you really proud of. the servicemen and women who

though for this country -- who fought for this country. america to me means one very simple concept. freedom. freedom is not something that comes from our government, or other people. when our freedoms are not being others, we will die with them. that is what american means. it means increasingly going back to our roots, a time when guns, able to wield our no matter when, no matter where. one other thing that makes us serving our voice publicly, nationally, anywhere. especially for conservatives, that is what it means to be american. >> what it means to me to be an

american is that we are fortunate to live with something called the united states constitution. with that, we have the privilege of the first amendment and second amendment specifically and that allows us to settle our court systemhen in so we do not have to jump into foxholes, dodge bullets, and stand in front of tanks. >> voices from the road on c-span. ♪ >> "washington journal" continues. host: todd harrison is back at our desk, and he analyzes the defense budget. todd harrison, the president's budget yesterday and includes a substantial increase for last year's levels. take us through the top line numbers. total national .efense budget, $716 billion

and what the president is proposing is to raise that the $750 billion-- to dollars in total. what the trump administration is proposing in this budget is to basically circumvent those budget caps using a well-established loophole in the law. the budget cap for 2020 $576 billion. what they are proposing is that they only put $576 billion in the base national budget, and all the rest of that, they are actually putting into overseas contingency operations funding which is supposed to be for the wars, and emergency supplemental funding. two fundingshose

do not count towards the budget cap. it is a loophole in the law and they are exploiting the loophole to a whole new degree. host: how often has it been done before? guest: it has been done to a smaller extent all the way back in the george w. bush administration, but we did not have budget caps at that time. in the obama administration, they tried to cut down on this use, but once the budget control act went into effect in 2013, he started to see more and more money moved out of the base , to the tune of $30 million a year. when the trump administration came in, mick mulvaney, he adamantly opposed this use of the war funding. fiscal strong conservative. he had proposed in last year's

budget, they actually proposed and to take 50 billion out threw it back into the base budget. there is really only about $20 billion a year in war funding. budget request, they are fully reversing course and going in the opposite direction. they are putting $155 billion in the war funding part of the billion in almost $9 emergency funding to fund the border wall. all of that is being under national defense. for awhy is there money border wall in the united states in the defense budget? guest: that is a good question. [laughter] guest: that is where they chose to put it. it is not where that is put in the past. it is not a part of the fence,

it is actually homeland security's part of the nondefense part of the budget. with the declaration of the national emergency that this is some sort of military emergency, that as the authority they are using. -- that is the authority they are using. now, they are doubling down on the theory and putting $8.6 billion in emergency funding. defenselking about the budget until the house comes in. join in, democrats, (202) 748-8000, republicans, (202) (202)01, independents 748-8001. --(202) 748-8002. thomas harrison joining us, a familiar face to viewers. [video clip]

requests $750 billion for national defense. this is for research and toelopment and procurement secure the most awe-inspiring military the world has ever known. frontline defenders are overwhelmed at the southern border. budget provides a sizable funding of 8.6 billion dollars for four completion of the wall and other security resources. host: he started there by talking about the research nt.elopment and procureme what are the big ticket items? guest: what he is talking about other things that are normally in the baseline budget. , we of the big ticket items are continuing to buy more 35's, the latest generation fighter jet.

they are also proposing restarting production of the united states model f-15 fighter jet. that is an older model jet that has been modernized. would the f-35 pose 15 -- the f-15 f- ? guest: not exactly. we were just buying the f -35, but now they are proposing to buy f-15's to replace the old ones. they are buying the 12 ships of different classes this year, they are also buying two prototype, unmanned, underwater vehicles. submarines the navy is going to be buying guides

prototypes. also, new ground equipment. so there are a lot of different emeant --rocur so continuing the new program a new icbm, bomber, and sub. talk aboutu want to the defense budget, tom harrison is a good person to talk about it. in connecticut, good morning. caller: hi, how is it going? guest: good. caller: i wanted to talk about the secretary patrick shanahan gave him a o'hanlon nod, and i wanted to see your thoughts on him. budget, it lost in red flag this year at the air

force base. 's, so it a lot of f-15 am not a fan. the f-35 is the top dog. this year, i am pulling away from the middle east and i am focused on the pacific. i want to know what the navy budget is. i know they are buying two carriers now. what are the priorities for the u.s. navy budget? i think that is the biggest issue on the planet today. host: a lot of topics there. guest: yes. michael shanahan, he was the deputy of secretary of defense and since secretary mattis has stepped down, now secretary shanahan has stepped up to that role in an acting capacity.

one of the questions is will the president to nominate any person for that job. so far, the president has not named a nomination and there are aroundot of rumors going for it for the time being, it looks like shanahan is going to continue in that position. it is not clear how long he will stay in an acting capacity. that is one of the big questions right now. we'll shanahan get the nomination and if he does, will he make it through the confirmation in the senate? and if not him, who else would it be? in terms of the navy's budget overall, i do not have the topline figure offhand because they have not come out with all the details yet. the navy is going to see an increase in funding. is goinge things that to prove to be more controversial in the navy's budget this year is while they

are buying the two new aircraft carriers over time, to try to reduce some of the cost, they are proposing they would not do of onefe refueling existing carrier. you have toar mark, refuel the nuclear reactor on it. what they are proposing is to just not do that and go ahead and retire it early. that would reduce the super carriers in our fleet from a 11 to 10. that is one of the biggest things in the navy's budget. they are also proposing deferring the procurement of two -- ships. deck sh and they will reinvest those resources. like they areks

rebalancing towards undersea platforms in the navy. host: why does the president's budget come out on the monday but we do not know the line by line of individual branches funding until sometime later this week or next? guest: this is an unusual budget rollout year. normally, the budget would come out on a monday and you will get all of the details that day or later that day in that evening. thrown offthings got because a partial government shutdown. all of this was supposed to come out the first monday in february. it has meant allayed and i am not exactly sure the reason they are doing a staggered rollout. delayed, and i am not exactly sure the reason they are doing a staggered rollout. the detailed documents, the j books -- they are not supposed to come out caller: good morning.

we givingn is why are more money to nasa and no more to know what to study the oceans and our hurricane increases. cleaning up those disasters is extremely expensive. all be honest, i haven't looked at the nasa or noah budgets. they are looking at a new program to actually go out and do more exploration of the moon and build a lunar gateway module. this would be an international space station of sorts that would be in permanent orbit

around the moon greater it would enable more missions to the lunar surface and beyond the moon out to mars and other areas of interest in the solar system. that's a new program they are kicking off. we should expect to see an increase in funding for that. separate agency. i'm not familiar with what is going on in their budget request. with this is our topic todd harrison. we are a non-profit, nonpartisan think tank. we focus on a lot of different areas, my area is the u.s. defense budget and space security and air power issues. host: good morning. caller: good morning. i wanted to talk about the border wall.

arizona for 71 years. think there should be defense spending. we should be defending it. there is a national crisis. of all the argument against it. the democrats wanted it, now they don't want it. it is badly needed. if you lived in arizona, you would understand why. that is defense. is the case being made by the administration, there should be a national defense issue. traditionally, border control has been a function of the department of homeland security. host: president trump has stepped up those deployments to

the border. who pays for those? guest: that's an interesting issue. what happens when you have troops at the border? it is always homeland security that is in charge. the military is not allowed to do law enforcement. national guarde do law enforcement under state authority. you can't have federal troops doing law enforcement. that would be military troops with military funding, they would be assisting homeland security. talking about the troops and personnel, this includes a request for a raise for military personnel. request, it's going to be 3.1%. that's the largest raise in about 10 years.

raise in law.line the administration is supposed to request a raise that is equal to the employment cost index. it was 3.1%. this is the basic raise the military would normally be receiving. it's not higher or lower than usual. caller: good morning. a couple of questions. one other countries have aircraft carriers? the other question, i believe we defenseding more on than most of the rest of the world. we can't afford health care, we can't afford college, we can afford to continually increase the defense budget. your comments please. has one or two

aircraft carriers printed china just acquired a couple. they are trying to learn how to build one on their own. an aircraftn has carrier. not many other countries have them. more, what weave consider our super carriers. we have 11. that is more than everyone else in the world combined. we have these amphibious ships that can carry aircraft. that's what they effectively are. the marine corps stages them. we have about 10 of those as well. we have far more than any other country in the world. our defensetime, strategy calls for our forces to be deployed around the world and

play an away game. that is the reason the navy uses to have this size of force relative to other countries. the united states spends more in absolute dollars. more, more than the next seven or eight countries combined. if you look at it in terms of percentage of gross the mustek product, we are not spending the most. other countries spend more, russia, saudi arabia, israel spend more than us is a percent of their economy. in absolute dollars, the u.s. spends the most. host: good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i have a comment and two questions. player -- payer

is getting fleeced. it's incredible. from my point of view, this is the opposite direction our nation should be going. here we are, this is true. we are more money on our military than anyone on the planet. we have been at war almost continuously since world war ii. we have not changed the war -- world. we have not benefited from all the wars. we are doing this over and over. somebody mustek it's a good idea. our leaders tell us it is in our

national interest yet we see no benefit. we are being lied to by our leaders. we are stupid. we keep electing them. to memberspush back of the military get on capitol hill? are they going to hear that? guest: i think they are going to hear some of that frustration, especially the sheer amount of defense spending this budget. now, it appropriates every ofr and this request is 57% the discretionary budget. that's larger than we've seen in quite a while. there will be some resistance on the hill. you always hear resistance from people with calls to waste and inefficiency in the defense budget. that has been a perennial issue.

there are some positive signs in this budget request. particular did an interesting thing when they were building their defense budget. they held hearings and meetings. they nicknamed them the night court. they would call different parts of the army, different agencies and bases, they would justify something in the budget. scrutinizing why you are using money on this. can't we combine this? can't we eliminate this? is they've gotg 180 cuts proposed in this budget. it's a lot of small things. it's aimed at getting waste and inefficiency. they are trying to use that savings they generated to

reinvest in new capabilities, put it toward something more effective. house militaryhe chairman and the senate. how are their priorities aligned and how are they different? guest: senator in half is a defense talk. he is a large reason the budget came in at $750 billion. president trump held a cabinet defenseand he said the budget would be $700 billion. that shot a lot of people. they had been told they were going to get $733 billion. a few weeks later, senator

inhofe and his counterpart in texas who is the committee,r of the they went over and talk to president trump. the president said i'm going to request 750. he's going to like this budget request. he might not like all the details. chairman smith who just took over the gavel in the house is a new democrat chairman. expressed more skepticism. he doesn't think we need this much money for defense. he is going to apply a lot more scrutiny to this budget request. some of the things he is indicated he's going to be looking at are these nuclear monitor -- modernization programs. i think we're going to see a lot

more scrutiny on the house committee this year and more support from the senate. host: it's about 15 minutes before the house comes in. , if you want to talk about the trump administration's budget request for the department of defense, jeremy wants to talk about submarines on twitter. we don't know the details of how many subs they will request this year. the navy is starting to rebalance more toward undersea forces. looking at things like the virginia class attack submarines in production, we could see buying more of them. nuclearere is the columbia class sub that is still in development.

likely, we will not see any change in that. we see reports of the navy is going to buy these two new prototype unmanned subs. that's an interesting area for into,vy to be getting large undersea vessels that are unmanned and could be a revolutionary capability. delaware, alan is a democrat. good morning. when i was a kid going into a toy store and i saw all the things i wanted, we can't afford that. question is on social security. we been forced to pay into that our entire lives. it's not a choice. , i had ately for me

bad back injury. i've been forced into disability. guest: in terms of your point about being a kid in the candy store, there are a lot of things for the military to choose from. at the end of the day, you have constraints of the defense budget. you always have some sort of constraint. within those, you have to make choices. you can't buy more of everything. you can't get everything you want. that's about choices, it's about strategy. what are your priorities? what things are less important. ultimately, you want those choices to be driven by strategy, to figure out what you buy and what you don't buy. ast's an interesting thing we get into the details in this

budget request. do they align with the defense strategy. the national defense strategy came out one year ago. needs to be focusing on great power competitions, to be able to compete effectively with russia and china and to a lesser extent north korea and iran. it does deemphasize counterinsurgency type operations. this is what we've seen for the past 18 years. for thebe looking things they choose to buy, the things they choose not to buy. does that align with the priorities we see in the defense strategy? host: is construction included? guest: military construction is

part of the $750 billion. the contribution from korea and japan, i forget the exact numbers, they roughly pay for about half the cost of our forces in korea. in many ways, it can be less expensive to keep our forces forward the floyd in some of these countries where those nations are offsetting the costs for us. that's not necessarily a good reason you would want to have troops there. you want that to be part of your strategy and your posture to make that a conscious decision. bill is in new york city, a republican. good morning thank you for taking my call. , herding to the white house

is trying to increase this amount of money. we have poor people that are suffering. sending our troops thousands of , that's more important in our own people's financial situations better. [indiscernible] your comments? i'm not sure about the second part of your question. we have a group that covers issues including venezuela. i am not part of that.

i could not answer that question. whatnk you are touching on is going to be a centerpiece of the budget debate in congress. guns versusassic butter debate. this is proposing something that is pretty clear. they want to increase defense spending above 5%. they want to cut nondefense spending by 5%. that is something that i think is going to meet a fair amount of resistance on capitol hill. you will have a lot of people in congress that have more mixed views about where they think the priorities should be. this is a centerpiece of the debate this year. when officials defend the budget requests, which are you most interested in watching? guest: watching the secretary of

defense come to the hill and defend the budget, it's going to be interesting to see if they are able to get mick mulvaney to come. he is still directed only -- technically the budget director. he is also the chief of staff. there are conflicting roles there. they may end up sending the acting budget director who is filling in right now. we will have to see who they send. is a joint chiefs show up for these meetings? guest: >> they will be called to testify along with the secretaries of the military services. there will be lower-level officials who will come over and testify. host: that's all expected? guest: i think we will see the services come in later this

week. they will be up on the hill. there are a lot of hearings going on. when they start marking up the bill, when they start making the congressional changes, that has been pushed back. to seeprobably not going that start to happen until june this year. host: we are taking your questions about the defense budget. go ahead. caller: hello? i was wondering about the issue of climate change. this is military think a national threat? could it take independent action to do with the issue? guest: climate change has been a big issue for the military, the navy in particular.

the navy had a lot of different climate change activities going on. some of them are for very practical reasons. aroundve a lot of bases the world. of seawater intrusion into those bases, they are taking some actions to help protect those bases. the navy under the obama administration had an initiative to get the navy ships and airplanes certified to use biofuels. it the great green fleet. they can operate a fleet of ships and planes using biofuels. at the time, it was not cost effective. they did certify that. major conflict,

if your supply, if it's good to have other types of fuel to use in the future. that is part of the reason they did a lot of that effort. there been some efforts like this. host: what is happened in the past few years? guest: not much. some of the efforts to shore up bases that are at risk of rising sea levels, that is continuing as far as i know. as far as the great green fleet, that's largely done at this point. host: up to massachusetts, earnest is a democrat. good morning. caller: thank you for c-span. is we spend a lot of money on the military, we have to keep our military strong and up-to-date. what about money to be spent on

the grid? we can spend all kinds of money on military, but we have to make our systems in the united states safe. i read a book quite a few years ago. he brought up the point that the grid is very susceptible to hacking. we saw that with our elections. power, the grid, without the military in the united states would be ineffective. awould just like to make point. when we spend money on the military or nasa or other things like that, it's called the budget. money on social security and medicare, we call

it socialism. proposing, they are --y want to do one point $1.7 trillion cut in medicare and so security, which i think is very unfair. host: the grid section question? guest: that is a good question. i think that is something that is still up for debate in our country about exactly where to the responsibilities of homeland security begin and and the come where do our defense responsibilities begin and end. where is the overlap? conflict with another country, they could try to attack by attacking the power grid or our telecommunications systems. they are vulnerable to other sorts of attack.

they are not necessarily directed by a nationstate. it's an interesting confluence. it's not something that we have settled as a country, who was responsible for what. i think that falls on the side of law enforcement and the fbi. aboutill be worried protecting our national infrastructure. the dod is outward facing. they are focused on that's -- threats from abroad. host: how did space force make out? guest: that's part of what's included. a couple of weeks ago, they submitted a proposal, a new proposal for space. it's going to be more like a space corps under the department of the air force. it would be a sister service of the air force.

request, they include some new money to help pay for the standup, that new military service in terms of management and overhead staff. that's less than $.1 billion within the air force budget. that is included in this. florida, go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. called state of war, it focused on the afghanistan and iraq wars. when we go to war in these places, we have turf wars being fought in washington dc between the dod, the cia, the state department. do we have too many intelligence gathering agencies that are not

working together and causing more problems? this national debt we have is the greatest threat to our country. i want to hear your comments. thet: that is one of fiercest areas of fighting within the military, among different agencies and departments. you are talking about creating a new different agency. i think the caller touches on something that is important. postf the reforms from 9/11 was to reorganize the good -- the agencies under the department of national intelligence. that is still a work in progress. we are making sure we have better unity and coordination across different areas.

you still have that divide between what your intel agencies do and what the department of defense does. there are title 50 authorities and title x authorities. there are a lot of areas where there are still working how can we coordinate our activities better across different organizational boundaries question that is a work in progress. will fit in danny. thanks for waiting. caller: first of all, i want to thek mr. harrison staggering amount of expertise into this discourse. if i had my weight, he would be back at least once a week. we're not going to accomplish

much by relitigating the philosophy of the system. i am 72. i am ex army. can you tell us about was going on with the efforts to upgrade the militaries basic standard rifle and handgun? host: let's take that question. guest: that's a good question. it's been an ongoing saga within the army, trying to get a new standard issue weapon for the soldiers. wet is one of the things will be working for with the details of the budget request,. we should see those details on monday when they delivered the detailed budget justifications. i will be sure to look up what happening. host: he is the defense budget analysis director.