administration's plan to end the affordable care act and the naming of post offices. that is on c-span. , nancy pelosi. the senate returns for work on a proposed rule change regarding judicial and executive nominations. hearings, first at 10:00 a.m.: the full committee hears from the army chief of staff, and heather wilson, and air force chief of staff general david goldfine on the fiscal year 2020 defense budget. 2:00 p.m., the subcommittee examines the prosecution of sexual assault in the military. coming up in 30 minutes from oregon congressman, founder and cochair of the congressional cannabis caucus. he is here to talk about efforts to expand the legalization of marijuana. the new york commerce number tom

reed on the trump administration's recent move to invalidate the affordable care act. benjamin center benjamin gedan on cuts to central american aid. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2019] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] ♪ host: good morning. it is tuesday, april 2, 2019. the house will meet at 10:00 a.m. today for the morning our. we are with you for the next three hours on the "washington journal." we begin with the expected introduction of a proposed constitutional amendment aimed at abolishing the electoral college. it is an idea that again support since president trump became the house by losing the popular vote. number.8000 is the

independents, 202-748-8002. you can catch up with us on social media. on twitter it is @cspanwj. on facebook it is facebook.com/cspan. you can start calling in now. the daily beast the first to report that senator brian schatz will introduce an amendment to abolish the electoral college, allow for the election of presidents by popular vote. kiersten gillibrand and senior members of the senate judiciary committee, dick durbin and financed einstein -- dianne feinstein. a bill that would electoral college -- abolish the electoral college as part of a package of election reforms. those efforts reflect a growing appetite within the democratic party to change the fundamental structure of america's election

system. among those supporting the abolishment of the electoral college, beto o'rourke spoke about it yesterday at the "we the people" conference here in washington, d.c. [video clip] >> let's abolish the electoral college. [applause] the night after the presidential , amy and i were talking to each other. how are we going to explain to ulysses and molly and henry that the person that got 3 million more votes just lost the election? how do we explain that to ourselves? why is this ok? this is one of those bad at day 1 inwe made this country and there are many others we can think of and they are all connected, including the value of some people based on the color of their skin. there is a legacy and a series of consequences that have persisted and remained with us

to this day in this conversation about how we repair the damage and make things right and keep --m committing the same of the electoral college, we get a little bit closer to one vote. states like yours, south carolina, texas, all of a sudden they matter a lot more in the national conversations. taken for they are granted and written off and the same is true for blue states when it comes to november of a presidential election year. if there were no electoral college or if we were to reform the electoral college so each estate reformed electors proportional to the popular vote, you would have every presidential candidate showing up to every state. that by itself would strengthen

our democracy. host: beto o'rourke not the first democratic candidate on the 2020 election trail to bring this up. elizabeth warren talked about it last month. here is some of the pushback after she made her comments. kevin cramer of north dakota tweeting abolishing the electoral college would be devastating to a state like north dakota. this is what the founding fathers wanted to prevent when they wrote the constitution. marco rubio writing the plan to get rid of the electoral college had nothing to do with making sure every vote counts, it is -- diminishing the power of what they call flyover states. the desire to abolish the electoral college is driven by the idea democrats want rural america to go away politically. we want to know what you think

as this amendment is set to be introduced today, this afternoon in the united states senate. republicans can call at 202-748-8001. democrats, 202-748-8000. independents, 202-748-8002. we start on the line for independents. bill is in sebastian, florida. good morning. caller: good morning, john. the electoral college should be abolished. anything marco rubio is for, the american people should be against. there should be an investigation here in florida and in georgia to the elections they stole. another thing is why did we withdraw from the international criminal court? that should be investigated because what is going on in this country is abysmal, john. democracy has been undermined completely in this country where

jurists in foreign countries cannot come in and investigate what is going on in this country with banks and donald trump. host: we will stick to the electoral college discussion this morning. jim in delaware waiting on the line for republicans. caller: this whole democracy thing is a joke. it has two united states senators and may be 5000 people. california has two senators and they have like a zillion people. the electoral college is set up to create moderation. it's not set up -- set up to fight against mob rule. if you did away with the electoral college, the only place people would campaign would be new york, illinois, california, and texas. the rest of the states would not exist. it goes back to the amendment. now it is just another form of

the house and they will start complaining about that because of the overrepresentation of smaller states. you are electors, not voting for the president. it has to do with the power of states and these residents -- democrats keep trying to dilute the power of the state. we are going to have a democracy which leads to socialism and communism and we start all over again host:. our line for democrats, robert is in logan, utah. good morning. toler: i would just like abolish that. i feel like i have never voted and i feel like half the people in the united states, that is why our voting is so low. thank you for letting me call in. host: senator brian schatz is expected to introduce this constitutional amendment today,

confirming it in his retweets and some of the stories on his twitter page. his latest retweet is donald 2012 from november 6th, after the election of barack obama. he said the electoral college is a disaster for democracy. the president has changed his tune. last month saying campaigning for the popular vote is much easier than campaigning for the electoral college. it's like training for the 100 yard dash versus a marathon. with the popular vote, you go to the largest states, the cities would end up running the country . smaller states would end up losing all power and we cannot let that happen. the electoral college is far better for the united states of america. that was the president in a series of tweets after elizabeth warren was talking about this.

we want to hear from you. robert in ohio, independent. you are next. caller: hello. i think banishing the electoral college is a big joke. it is just rigging the election. all the flyover states like montana, wyoming, south dakota, north dakota, my home state would not matter. the urban areas, the cities would all choose every election. host: do you think a constitutional amendment will happen? with the high bar set for the constitutional amendment in this country? caller: to abolish it? host: yeah, do you think there is enough support out there? caller: i don't think so. it is just a radical plan. it is crazy. that completely changes the

constitution, which is what we should be abiding by. host: laid out in article two, section 1 of the constitution, the electoral college. the 12th amendment talking about how presidents are elected in this country and now we are looking at a potential constitutional amendment being proposed today by one united states senator. we want to hear from you. would you support getting rid of the electoral college? teresa is in portland, maine, republican. go ahead. caller: no, i do not support abolishing the electoral college vote. i think it would be very unconstitutional and most parts of the country would not be represented. only the highly populated democratic states. i don't think that is fair to a large majority of the country.

i am totally against abolishing the electoral vote. host: in memphis, tennessee, a democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you? host: doing well. caller: i am in favor of getting rid of the college. that college has been put together really silly because it kind of narrows down the fairness of it. if everybody is going to be voting and the only ones voting are the ones like for various states, and any amount of people could go there and buy votes and whatever. what is the purpose of the people voting if the electoral determine? going to that is why donald trump stole .he election

he is just doing that and i andk it is worse for him now he and the cowards on the republican side are going to continue to kick him down the road instead of a can. get rid of that electoral bylege and let's have a vote the -- won by the person who actually wanted it, not by the person who stole it. host: a little history on the electoral college versus the popular vote. the presidents won presidency without the popular vote. don quincy adams had fewer votes ncy adams hadqui fewer votes.

back to your calls, we want to get your thoughts asking if you think the electoral college should be abolished. jane in alabama, and independent. good morning. caller: hello? host: go ahead, jane. caller: okay, if we do away with that, i want to have one set of voting laws for all of the united states. there are some states that vote for weeks. have one rule for everybody to vote. host: what do you think the rule should be? caller: i don't think we should ialaway with the electora

college. if they do, we need to change the voting laws, make it universal, make it one set of rules for each state. host: if you were to be designing that package of how it should happen across the country, what do you think it should be? do you think there should be early voting allowed? caller: absentee voting, early week. -- maybe just a the same-day registration, no. if you want to vote, you are going to think about it and register in time to vote. change.ng needs to host: what about mailing voting? in voting?mail caller: i question that myself, but that is what i am saying.

each state seems to do their own thing with how they let their citizens vote. host: that doesn't seem fair. one of the arguments for that is the states can design a system that works best for them whether it is a more rural state allowing more mail in voting or a smaller state with registration happening that day. you don't think that is a good argument for states to design their own election systems? caller: no. a few want to vote, you are going to take the time to fill out an application, register to .ote before the day of voting if you are that serious, you don't need some community organizer to come say let me agister you and here is voting ballot. do you need any help filling that out?

that is not right. host: that is jane in alabama. here is some polling from the whetherarch center on the constitution should be amended so the candidate who receives the popular votes win. idea inorting that 2018. last year, 41% opposing. it was as high as 62% in 2012 with 5% calling for take -- keeping the same system so the candidate who wins the electoral college wins. democrats and those who lean democrat, 75% say the constitution should be amended so the candidate who receives the most nationwide votes wins. republicans supporting that. a republican in new jersey, go ahead. caller: i think we should keep

the electoral college. i don't know if people realize the implications of abolishing it. your other callers talked about the flyover states. these states would not have either -- any voice. i vote in every election and i know my vote does not always count because i am a republican and collectively, the state is democratic. that doesn't but -- stop me from voting. i understand why it is set up that way and i think it is the most fair way the country is set up. i think we should keep the electoral college. it keeps every state to have a voice and these democrats who talk about these minorities. these small states would be minorities and not counted at all. keeping electoral college keeps them in having a voice. -- toledo.s in ohio

a democrat. go ahead. caller: i remember we used to votes.nate -- we used to have 6. after the census, we will be down to 5. it doesn't make any difference. hillary, the only reason she lost, she was a stupid campaigner. she should have had bernie sanders on her ticket as a vp. she would have won those states she lost polls in. i don't think the electoral college really means that much anymore anyway. that is my comment. host: in maryland, and independent. good morning. caller: good morning. i think maybe you could keep

both systems in place and after the vote is tallied, just flip a coin. coinstically speaking, the would be 50-50 and it would force the candidate to have more of a consensus policy and cause them to hedge their bets. if you flip a coin, 50% of the time it will be heads. host: the coin flip will decide whether you go with the electoral college or popular vote if they are different? caller: right. exactly. in virginia, they pick their candidate by drawing a slip of paper. i think that would split it right down the middle and force a consensus more of builder as opposed to picking one particular -- minimizing your group. maryland. is aaron in

a high bar for a constitutional amendment would need to be supported by 2 -- two thirds in the house and senate and need to be ratified by 3/5 of the state. there are some efforts to get around that high bar by keeping the electoral college system, but forcing the popular vote to be the deciding factor in upcoming elections. one way to do that is the national popular vote interstate contact -- compact. it states would award electoral votes to the overall popular vote winner. 14 states have joined this compact so far. if you total them up, that is 189 electoral votes of the states. it would take effect when enacted by states adding up to 270 electoral votes. last month on the washington journal, the founder of the national popular vote project explained why he thought this effort is important. [video clip] >> the constitution gives the

states of the exclusive power to decide how to award electoral votes. each state shall appoint in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct. the system we have today, this system of winner take all laws in 48 of 50 states is not in the constitution. it was not debated at the constitutional convention. it is not in the federalist papers. it was only used by three states in the first election and was quickly repealed. the tried and true way to change the method of electing president is the way that is in the constitution, action by the state legislatures using the power they have under article 2, section 1 of the constitution. host: we are talking about one of those constitutional amendments expected to be introduced today to abolish the electoral college.

we want to hear what you think. phone lines for democrats, asublicans, and independents usual. diana is waiting in kentucky. caller: the bottom line is it is citizens of the states voting for national office. i think people have confused it as a national election. actually, it is state citizens voting for a national office. therefore, that is why we have the electoral college. is if it were all about the numbers, china would rule the world. host: do you think, before you go, that the electoral college system allows all states to have an equal say? rid concern that if you get

of the electoral college, you are ignoring smaller states, the so-called flyover states. caller: you would be. you would be ignoring those states because of the numbers. each state should be represented. if it is all about the numbers, smaller states would never be represented. host: do you think the electoral college has gotten candidates to come to kentucky? caller: i have no idea. host: why do you feel like you are more represented this way? caller: because we have a smaller population. wouldrnia and new york rule the u.s. because that is called here any of the majority. remember the old westerns like "high noon?" host: yes, ma'am. caller: who got it wrong and who got it right? only the sheriff's got it right, the mob got it wrong.

ast: paul in wisconsin, democrat. good morning. caller: i think the electoral college should be abolished. that lady that was just on, her theory does not hold water. everybody that votes, the votes get tallied up and you go by the popular vote. her statements don't count if everybody voted in her state. 48.5%. won by trump got a little over 46%. is that fair? that she got 3 million more votes and still lost the presidency? people say their states will not be represented. it's not true. if you vote, your vote goes to the popular tally, so your state is represented. i definitely think the electoral college should be abolished. host: keeping a tally on our facebook page.

that is facebook.com/cspan. we asked this question over the weekend. voting andeople replying, 31% saying yes, it should be abolished. 69% say no. robert in pennsylvania, you are next. theer: i am totally against popular vote, it should be the electoral college. the reason why is because the city states. for instance, new york, l.a., and so on will control the vote. thereby, the states like iowa, montana, wyoming, new mexico will be negated. thervowhatsoever. therefore, the electoral college gives a balance to the vote. -- totwo annette in annette.

caller: i agree with the last caller and republican callers. in reality, the electoral college levels the playing field. every candidate must win the popular vote in each state. then they get the electoral votes if they can start racking up, period. teis way, every states' vo counts. it's always losers that start to wind. it wasn't fair, she had the popular. california and new york are the main ones that gave her that so-called popular. we have 50 states, visit them all and convince them you are the best one for the job and they will give you the electoral votes and you will win. host: do you think that is happening under the current system? the swingint is only

states get the candidates coming to them to ask questions. caller: i agree. hillary was a perfect example. she skipped states because she thought they are democrat, do not have to visit you, take you for granted and trump stepped in and told them they were being taken for granted and they listened. she would have won hands down if she would have earned it. popular vote in each state is what gives you electoral votes, which add up to the 270. these presidents represent every state and this is the only way for every state to have a voice in who they want. so simple.s it is a popular vote, statewide. not majority popular vote. host: thanks for the call from alabama.

joe is next from the bronx. caller: this is joe from the bronx, new york, a democrat. democratsning to my talk about getting rid of the electoral college. the answer is no. the answer is no because one of the things we have to take into strong consideration, that there tryo way unless republicans to steal the election like they did the last time with russia they can get to 270 electoral votes, they cannot get that. notll my democratic people abolishingnk about the electoral college because it is so in favor of democrats. democrats should understand that. this election was stolen. the last thing i want to say

before i leave today, those people -- the republicans that talk about the constitution, the constitution, this constitution should be abolished altogether because when this country was founded with some of these white men that came from europe with a few pounds in their pocket, they were nothing but conmen. trump is a con man himself. the only thing is he is a more polished, -- con man. tell the people about the constitution they are talking about. thank you. have a good week. in colorado, pete independent. last caller in this segment. go ahead. solve: here is how you this problem, it is really simple and i have not been watching the entire program, so i don't know if anyone has

mentioned this. every state conducts a popular vote election. the winner who wins the popular gets awardedstate one electoral college vote for every state. votes, 26 all the wins the presidency. this way you solve the flyover problem, you force candidates -- basically candidates can work out the math anyway they want. they can go to rhode island, they can go to alaska, they can go to the smallest states. they can try whatever strategy they can muster to come up with 26. host: what about the concern people would bring up that under your system the entire population of california would votethe same power of the as the entire population of

wyoming? caller: absolutely and god bless america, that is why we are the united states of america. california with their 50 million people gets one electoral vote. rhode island, whatever, name a small state, they get one. you do away with this idea of masses of population and basically you honor every state as an individual entity, only one electoral vote host:. votedoes that devalue the of somebody who lives in a large state with a large population? caller: you would have to rethink the entire united states then. that was the whole point, that every state, no matter how small and insignificant has equal representation. the electoral college, the way it is configured by giving texas

and new york and california these inordinate amounts even though it may seem fair, ultimately, it is not fair because it is still causing politicians to go campaign hard in those states. the other thing i will say -- what we will need to address is we need to come up with a lottery system or we need to rotate. iowa, new a being hampshire, south carolina, you essentially draw a powerball style reach in the hat one out ,f 50 or you draw it one time arrange it in one through 50, and then the politicians will dissent upon the state. andther words, in montana whatever the order is that we'll sort of -- that's where the politicians will go through that order. it is unfair that iowa gets all this mass millions of advertising dollars that pour

into the state every single year. the iowa people are no better than the hawaiian people and we need to stop with this system where every state can vote when they want to hold their primary. the most important take away from this is that you get both the popular vote, but the electoral vote that is awarded based on the popular vote is ity 1, so candidates have at , build to 26, you win the presidency. host: stick around, plenty more to talk about today. up next we will be joined by congressman earl blumenauer to discuss his efforts to expand the legalization of marijuana. we will be right back. ♪ announcer: historian douglas

brinkley talks about his book "american moonshot: john f. kennedy and the great space race." >> he thought fdr's deal was too big, but what he did was beyond social security. he built the tba grand coulee dam, had the highway system. kennedy is thinking what is my administration's big public works thing? he picked the right number, technology. the computer chip gets developed in the late 1950's. starts kicking in. 1960,ack kennedy runs in there are no computer science classes and universities. by the time he is killed in dallas, there are computer science classes everywhere. people are flying more and more. hub airports being developed. it was the jet age, the space

age, and kennedy made that the cornerstone of the new frontier. announcer: sunday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span's human day. q & a.an's with 1979, a small network an unusual name rolled out a big idea. let users decide what was important to them. bringing you unfiltered content from congress and beyond. in the age of power to the people, this was true people power. in the 40 years since, the landscape has changed. broadcasting has given way to a narrowcasting. youtube stars are a thing. he c-span's big idea is more relevant today. coverage ofrtisan

washington is funded as a public service by your cable or satellite provider. on television and online, c-span is your unfiltered view of government so you can make up your own mind. ♪ announcer: "washington journal" continues. host: we are joined at our desk by the founder and cochair of cannabisessional ca caucus. .ou introduced house bill 420 what would it do? guest: we are trying to normalize the way cannabis is government.he falseclearly a categorization. it is not highly addictive, but it does have medicinal purposes. 47 states have moved to legalize some form of cannabis and we

have legislation that would clear up that ambiguity and there would be a number of other pieces that will be moving in the near future. called the regulate marijuana like alcohol act. guest: the states ought to be able to clarify what they want to do and being able to tax and regulate and allow individual states to do what they want to do like they do with alcohol. it would actually, in a sense, ratify what states are already doing, but without the threat of federal prosecution or interference and there are other problems associated with that like not having access to a bank account or research. guest: you talk about -- host: you talk about some of the other moving parts. what are some of the other parts moving this week? guest: a big development that took place last week was there was a three day work session.

first time in congressional history, focusing on a cannabis related piece of legislation. this was the safe act that would allow cannabis industry to be able to have access to bank accounts. i have been working on this for years all over the country. i have never met a single human being that thinks there is a benefit -- pay with duffel bags full of $20 bills. host: do you think that would happen? guest: it happens all across the country every day. backpacks, duffel bags, shopping bags. it is a public safety threat. this bill passed out of financial services 45-15 with 9 republicans, so there is bipartisan support, some momentum. i think this is a first step in a series we outlined early in

the year to have a blueprint that this congress finally clean this mess up. host: why that sort of blueprint, that piecemeal approach? why not put a bill on the floor to legalize marijuana? guest: i think what we have to have is be able to build, support, and understanding -- build support and understanding. we have some pieces that gained traction. we have an amendment i sponsored for years that prevents the federal government from interfering with state legal cannabis, medical marijuana through the appropriations process. getting people to become double and aware, banking is one of the most obvious steps and get people debating, discussing, and deal with other key elements where there is broad bipartisan support. i have legislation that was .upport access to veterans

i think we have an excellent opportunity as we get two or three of these things on the -- raise the awareness to have a more opera hence of piece that moves forward and we will comprehensive piece that moves forward and we will be introducing the states act in the house and senate. ultimately, this will this will probably put together a judiciary committee that will take bits and pieces and put it together in a comprehensive effort that is in a stand-alone piece moving now. i think it will be a committee process. host: talking marijuana legalization with earl blumenauer with us until the top of the hour. if you want to join the discussion, republicans it is 202-748-8001.

democrats, 202-748-8000. independents, 202-748-8002. plenty of collars for you already. an independent. caller: i think the marijuana law should be enforced that says you cannot mix marijuana in anything, you can only smoke it. you cannot mix it in candy and cookies. that is bad for children who do not know it is in there. that is where you should draw the line, smoke it only. guest: there has been an explosion of cannabis related products. tinctures -- oils and tinctures that are arguably safer for people than smoking. states have been very aggressive in programs to protect children. they are shrink-wrapped, double

wrapped in childproof containers . i think it would not be wise to limit the product development. we want to work hard to keep marijuana out of the hands of young people anywhere in any form. raising awareness, parental discussion, innovative packaging , but the bottom line is unless and until we have a system that regulates and taxes marijuana, we are not going to be very successful keeping it out of the hands of children. i have never visited a place where people think it is harder for their kid to get a joint than a sixpack of beer. no corner drug dealer checks for age, they don't have a license to lose. when we tax and regulate, we have an opportunity to be able to provide those protections

like we do without the hall. -- with alcohol. host: how did you become a champion of this issue? guest: i was in the legislature in the 1970's when oregon became the first state to decriminalize marijuana. it became obvious we had a disproportionate response to a product that had been known by for productive purposes for years. we had a vote at that point in use1970's to legalize adult . it seemed the government was dramatically out of step. richard nixon launched this disastrous war on drugs. it was clearly political, aimed at young african-americans, at young people. he did so, ignoring the advice of his own blue-ribbon

commission that suggested there be a more reasonable approach to decriminalize and regulate. nothing i have seen in the 40 years since then convinced me that is not the right approach. we have 47 states where people decided they want to move forward, most of these by overwhelming votes of the public and it is time the federal government stops being part of the problem. host: steve is an independent, good morning. caller: thanks for taking my call. today.bject, good talk i appreciate all you are doing. i am for decriminalizing it instead of legalizing it. i just don't think they should hold this to you for your whole life. we have all made mistakes and done different things, but keep it at home just like your guns. use it at home and under your own house. missouri voted -- this is a

republican state and we voted for the legalization just like theindependent picking of district like your last subject and the republicans in our state want to throw that all out even though the people voted for it. that is why we need to remove the electrical college and decriminalize marijuana. host: why would you not go so far as to legalize marijuana? caller: i think it just pushes -- maybele to use it you can go out and drive a truck and smoked pot and stuff like that. you don't want that either like the dwis and stuff going on where if you decriminalize it, you are not a criminal, you pay a fine and stuff like that, you know what i mean? host: i was in missouri when the

voters picked through three conflicting ballot measures to approve what i think was the appropriate one legalizing medical marijuana. steve raises the question about impaired driving, that is important, nobody should be driving while impaired. nothing in terms of legalization would prevent employers or authorities from denying people who are impaired from operating motor vehicles. one of the things we need to have is a good test for impairment. we don't have a good test for impairment. marijuana stays in the system for days and days, long after the effects have worn out. we need to be able to do a better job of that. experience in states that have legalized adult use is there has not been a spike of problems with impaired driving. it hasn't encouraged lots of people to move -- the usage is

more or less the same and there are regulatory tools to help prevent people -- young people from using it that we would not have had before. host: you talk about some of the bipartisan support. do you have enough votes to move this legislation out of the house? guest: as we move through these other elements. i mentioned banking, veterans, if we start building support and people focus on it, i think there will be enough votes in the house for a measure that legalizeriminalize and -- marijuana, but it will take a while to build that momentum. this is the most pro-cannabis congress we have ever had. host: what about the support in the senate and ultimately the white house? have you reached out to them? guest: donald trump famously had

an interview in 2016 where he said he felt colorado should be able to do what they wanted to do with marijuana. in 2016, where we had 9 states that voted on legalization, all but one passed. the marijuana votes were greater than either donald trump or hillary clinton in those 9 states. i don't think it is a high priority for mr. trump. theas expressed support for states going their own way. in the senate, we are watching support growth. until recently, there had not been legislation introduced and now there are a number of members who introduced their own legislation. they will be senate cosponsors of the estates act we will introduce this week. i think the support is there if we are able to demonstrate,

build momentum, and move it through. host: fort lauderdale, florida is next. cindy is a democrat. caller: i have a comment for you. i have been listening and it sounds to me like the government is interested in it because they salivate like pavlov's dogs over tax money. give me some more, cannot wait to taste it. you need to remember you have the right to life, liberty, and the support of happiness and marijuana was here before the colonies were here. without taxes, without the house and the senate and what happened, as you said and mr. nixon started this war on drugs because he did not want to see young people get lazy and i think when you take out

knowledge is passed from generation to generation and when you take out of the idea of somebody teaching you what it is and what it should be used for, that is when you have the problems you say as young people getting their hands on it who should not who do not understand . instead of telling us how to live our lives and violating our rights both republican and democrat, why don't you stand up for the founding documents that guarantee that right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness by letting people have a plant in their house, in their yard, on their balcony for their own whatever medicinal purposes and if they have children, because i know children of alcoholics who cannot stand people who drink who are not alcoholics because they have been put through too much and you have people that same way with drugs. don't tell me you cannot get addicted. i grew up to people -- with

people who had never seen it before who got addicted and young, brilliant minds were lost. you know why? because nobody ever taught them the proper use or what it is really for. guest: your caller touched on a number of different points. first of all, many of the state measures enable people to have a plant for personal consumption that would not be taxed, they would be able to manage. the same way as alcohol and people can brew their own alcohol after we ended prohibition. most people don't. there is a need for a regulated market for people who want to take advantage of that. it has been the same way tobacco taxs -- having a modest will help us get rid of the black market, be able to have a source of revenue to deal with challenges people have and it is

something that is accepted for alcohol and something that is accepted in the 47 states that have taken action and i think it is the most reasonable way going forward. in most states that are legalizing for adult use, people can cultivate a plant for their own uses. host: frank in texas, a republican. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i am wondering how much the represent of can tell us how much study has been done as to the effects of marijuana on the .uman body such as the lungs high times magazine came out with an article a couple years inhaleding marijuana does, indeed, because copd and emphysema. if you could comment on that, i would appreciate it. guest: sure. one of the reasons we need to

change the federal government's policy is it has restricted research into the impact of cannabis. we want to strip that away so there can be more research. it is clear when you smoke marijuana like tobacco, that it has potential negative consequences for ones health for the respiratory system, that is one of the reasons there is growing interest in alternative methods of delivering cannabis. tinctures.ls, it is, i think, wholly appropriate for people to be careful. there are consequences. there is a lot of research on the impact of cannabis on the developing brain, another reason we don't want young people to have it. pregnant women should not be smoking or ingesting cannabis, but we have got a long way to go

with the research. what we have seen is promising and something we can move forward with in a reasonably regulated fashion. host: only about five minutes left. we often talk about trade issues and you work on the trade subcommittee, on the ways and means committee. i wanted to ask about the status of the u.s. mta trade agreement and when congress will get its hands on that and go through the ratification process? host: we are expecting the economic impact statement to be issued soon that was delayed because of the government shutdown. the subcommittee had its first hearing last week where we heard from a variety of people in organized labor who had not been heard from to talk about their views. we are working hard to find ways to strengthen the agreement. very few, if any people want to blow it up.

what has been negotiated that was based on the tpp, kind of picked it up and tweaked it, is better than the original legislation. we think there are things that can be done to improve it further. access to medicine is a big question. making sure mexico actually implements the legislation that would require them to deal with the compensation of their workers, part of the deal going forward. enforcement remains a big question mark. the united states has a checkered record and forcing trade agreements. one provision i was responsible for in the through free-trade agreement dealt with illegal logging and the united states has been asleep at the switch in terms of enforcing those provisions. host: if congress makes those changes, how hard do you think it will be to get mexico and canada to agree to those

changes? guest: i don't think there will be much problem with canada. i had an opportunity to meet with officials from canada and mexico. i think they are ready to move forward. are the things we are talking fort are not deal breakers mexicans or canadians. the access to medicine was forced on them by united states negotiators. it's not something they care about. they have a keen interest making we don't have a breakdown. we have 25 years under the nafta system, we have integrated supply chains. they understand a lot is at stake and they have a strong ability to work on a cooperative basis and move forward if we are able to strengthen the agreement. host: patrick has been waiting, line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. i am a proud father of two and i

have been -- one is 15 and one is 17. i have raised them with morals and respect and i smoked cannabis their whole life. i have dealt with ms my whole life and -- their whole lives, pardon me. my children know that the developing brain is a very important thing and i have asked them not to ingest anything, anything, alcohol, tobacco, 27.hing until they are until their brain is pretty much solidified. , they tell me they are not going to do anything not because they have been exposed to the evils of cannabis, but

because they have been exposed to education and information. guest: good for you. i think that is good advice for young people to stay away from it. you highlighted the advantage you have had with medical marijuana, which has been life-changing for people with ms, als, people who have traumatic brain injury, chronic pain, for people undergoing chemotherapy, being able to suppress violent nausea. for little babies that have extreme seizure disorders. cannabis makes it possible for them to live and not be tortured . i think there are many proven benefits and that is why medical marijuana is overwhelmingly supported by the american public. georgia.f waiting in a republican. good morning. caller: good morning.

i have a question for him. i want to know if he has ever had to live with somebody that smokes marijuana, that their whole life -- your whole family's lives depends on him day.ng high for that i have. guest: not in my experience. caller: i have. my brother is in prison for 20 years. all he did is when he would wake up, he wanted to get high. we went without food to supply him with money to go by his drugs, marijuana. it was illegal. i am all for legalizing marijuana. i am, truly. i have been through it. i have nine staples in my school because my brother tried to kill me one day because she could not

get high. guest: your callers experience is not borne out by what we see in the field. law enforcement, when they talk about impaired drivers, a drunk driver might be road rage. someone who has smoked dope is more likely to pull over by the side of the road and get some cheaters and chill. i am not going to speculate about individual cases. in the main, it is not associated with violence. in the main, it is not heavily addictive. anything used to access has -- excess has downsides. we are saying the prohibition of marijuana is unwarranted. it is not as addictive as cigarettes or alcohol. it does not need to be put in the category of a controlled

substance and use the force of law to interfere. the federal government needs to get out of the way and let the states go forward. host: one last call from an independent in maine. about: hi, i was called -- calling about the issue of marijuana. i have been driving drums home for more than 30 years. i have been pulled over for taillights, other reasons. never gotten a ticket. some people don't have a problem with that. they are making a big deal in beingdo about people admitted to the hospital's for edibles. do you know how many of our people drive to parties and call ambulances because their friends have alcohol poisoning, and yet they put it in my corner store. they have made it so easy to get hard liquor. people bypass the beer and go

straight to hard liquor. they are in trouble for that. nobody cares. guest: i don't agree with that. care about abuse of alcohol, abuse of any drug. we certainly don't want people on the road being impaired. i think people care about that. the experience in states that have legalized is it is a manageable issue. now isuation we have that there are millions of people who use it on a regular basis. prohibition did not work. we are better off taxing, regulating, and moving forward. that is what we are working on. blumenauer, democrat from maryland, -- oregon, thank you. guest: always a pleasure. host: a question for you, should the senate change its rules to

help speed up truck nominees? phone lines for those who support and oppose are on your screen now. we will be right back. >> once tv was simply three giant networks and a government supported service called pbs. network9, a small rolled out a big idea. let viewers decide on their own what was important to them. c-span opened the door to washington policymaking for all to see, bringing you unfiltered content from congress and beyond. in the age of power to the people, this was true people power. the landscape has clearly changed. there is no monolithic media. broadcasting has given way to narrow casting. c-span's big idea is more relevant today than ever.

no government money supports c-span. iss nonpartisan coverage sponsored by your cable or satellite provider. viewn is your unfiltered of washington so you can make up your mind. >> 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. >> and the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us send. -- soon. >> c-span's newest book, the presidents, noted historians rank america's best and worst chief executives. stories gathered by interviews with noted presidential historians. explore the life events that

shaped our leaders, challenges they faced, and the legacies they left behind. published by public affairs, the presidents will be on shelves april 23. you can preorder your copy as a hardcover today. c-span.org or wherever books are sold. "washington journal" continues. host: we're talking about the judicial confirmation process during the segment. mitch a week in which mcconnell is looking to speed up that process for certain judges. for more we turn to david hawkins, editor in chief of the firewall. which judges in particular with this effort apply to? guest: it would apply to every federal judge under the supreme court. fill anominee to

supreme court vacancy, but below that. there is a second tier of judges called the circuit court of appeals. there are about 180 judges on that around the country could they are the intermediate steps between the federal trial courts and the supreme court did there are 95 -- supreme court. 95 districts around the country. they are all the ones that are subject to senate confirmation, lifetime appointments. why does mitch mcconnell believe it is necessary to speed up the confirmation process? guest: in the current political dynamic where it is president trump making nominations and senate democrats no longer having the power to filibuster them. we should recall that it was the

senate democrats when they were in the majority working with president obama, they were frustrated at the pace of judicial confirmations. they did away with the ability to filibuster a judicial nomination except a supreme court justice back in 2013 in order to speed up president fill's efforts to spee vacancies. the only avenue of protest or disagreement that is left to the minority party is to slow walk the nomination through maximizing the amount of what they call post-cloture debate, the debate that takes place after the filibuster has been broken. the only avenue available to the disappointed minority is to take up a maximum amount of time to give speeches saying why they don't think this judge is a good idea. mitch mcconnell says that is a

waste of time in his view. it means that a judge could take the better part of a week if the whatrats use all of their they view as dilatory tactics. he wants seven judges or more a week. this is why he wants to move now. host: because of this conversation, we are once again talking about the nuclear option. explain why this might be in play this week. guest: it is called the nuclear option for two different reasons i guess. to its critics, this is striking at the very heart of what makes the senate unique in the legislatures of the world, which is the ability of the minority have its objections heard, if not be dispositive, at least heard.

strikes at the heart of what makes the senate the senate. the ability of the minority to get its way. called theay it is nuclear option is mitch mcconnell himself put it best when he was on the losing side of this debate six years ago, he said it so often. this is breaking the rules in order to change the rules. without getting too bogged down a what almost sounds like triple or quadruple negative, the notion here is that changing the senate rules generally requires not just 60 votes, but two thirds of the senate to go along. what the nuclear option does is a complicated parliamentary maneuver that gets passed that two thirds majority agreement threshold and makes it a simple majority vote, which means it can become a partyline vote,

which is a pretty big deal in the 200 plus year history of the senate. host: when could this happen this week? what sort of response is mitch mcconnell getting from his party? are they willing to go the nuclear route? guest: that seems like the vast majority of them are. adages in oldest politics is if you've got the votes, then vote. it does not appear as though mr. mcconnell does have victory secured. there are a handful of republicans, generally republicans who have been around a while and who know what it is like to have to wear the shoe on the other foot to be in the minority and want the minority rights preserved. in an election or two, it could

be the case that the republicans are no longer driving the agenda, and they would want, these folks say, minority rights preserved they succeeded with that in older days. they would like the ability to succeed that way again. this may well be president trump's signature legacy, in a divided government, his ability to get much of a legislative program seems pretty limited, but he has the power to reshape the judiciary. he has already filled essentially one out of every six seats on these appeals courts. these are in some ways overlooked. they are in many ways as important as the supreme court. they offer the last word on the vast majority of

litigation that comes through the courts. thesedavid hawkins for complicated legislative maneuvers, it is always good to have you. editor in chief of the firewall. you can follow him on twitter. thank you for your time this morning. we will continue to watch the floor as this plays out. guest: thanks as always. host: our question to our viewers, do you think senate rules should be changed to speed up the trunk judicial -- trump judicial nominee process? we show you mitch mcconnell from the floor recently about this fight. [video clip] >> the supreme court and certain independent boards and commissions would not change. for most other nominations, for of lower-level

nominations that every new president makes, post-cloture debate time would be reduced from 30 hours to two hours. this would keep the floor moving. it would facilitate more efficient consent agreements, and it would allow the administration finally two years nure to staff numerous important positions that remain unfilled with nominees that have been languishing. this resolution has come through the regular order, through the rules committee. next week, we will vote on it. it deserves the same kind of bipartisan vote that senator schumer and senator reed's proposal received during the obama administration. i understand that many of my democratic colleagues have indicated they would be all for this reform as long as it does not go into effect until 2021.

they obviously help someone else might be in the white house, but they are reluctant to support it now. give me a break. calls in this segment, if you would support changing the senate rule process to speed up the confirmation process, (202) 748-8000. if you oppose it, (202) 748-8001 . you just saw the senate majority leader from last week on the senate floor. here is the senate minority leader chuck schumer from yesterday. [video clip] >> despite openly bragging about the number of donald trump judges he has led the senate to confirm, leader mcconnell demands the rules of the senate be changed to speed up confirmation. on the one hand, there is too much obstruction. on the other, we proved we have

supported a record amount of judges and gotten them through. leader mcconnell, you cannot have it both ways. you can't have it both ways. everyone sees through that. .he senate needs to do its job we should not be a conveyor belt for president trump's radical and unqualified judicial nominees. let's call this for what it is. this rules change is yet another power grab by leader mcconnell, the republican party, and its right wing allies. it is a transparent attempt to further politicize our courts by packing them with president trump's hard right, ideological, and too often unqualified nominees. we will not be complicit in the , whichcan leaders games ityrificed much of the come and bipartisanship the senate used to support.

host: we will be watching the senate for action today when they gavel in at 10:00 a.m. this morning. you can watch live coverage as always of the senate on c-span2. joseph is up first on that line for those who support this change, pennsylvania. go ahead. caller: yes, at the rate they are going, they are only going to confirm not even one judge on the appellate court per week. we need these judges desperately. the only way to get them is to speed up the confirmations. janice is on the line for those that oppose this move in brooklyn. caller: good morning. put judges onan whenever. we need a debate.

this is ridiculous. everyone is talking about whether or not they are going to be conservative or not. they should be able to practice or know the law. sooner or later, people will not even have to go to law school. this makes no sense. there is no reason to rush this through. this person will have to talk about labor issues. things dealing with health care. it is not just going to be about abortion. we really need to step back and make sure we are putting people on who is going to uphold the law or just interpret the law. texas, on theth, line for those who support the idea of speeding up the confirmation process for trump nominees. caller: hello? host: go ahead. caller: what do you want me to

do? host: we want to hear your thoughts. caller: i support the idea of the nuclear option because that appears to be the only way to get anything done in this congress. is to use the nuclear option libs aretherwise the going to sit around and do nothing. we don't need a 30 hour debate on one person, one judge. we can do it in two or three hours. it is getting ridiculous. our whole government is out of control. you're all getting ridiculous. host: how concerned are you about what happens down the road if the next time democrats are in charge of the senate and a democratic president is making his or her appointments? caller: then they will probably

do the same thing. they will have the option to do the same thing. thever, i don't believe conservatives are as hardheaded as the liberals are about stuff like that. host: why not? caller: they just are not. the liberals have gone crazy. host: here is more from the senate floor yesterday. republican senator lamar alexander lamenting the choice facing the senate this week. [video clip] >> we are faced with a truly miserable choice. we know this has to change. our friends on the other side know it has to change. they may have a democratic ,resident in 18 or 20 months but there will be at least one republican senator will do to what they are doing to president trump. they will not be able to form a

government. we have a truly miserable choice. either we continue to diminish the constitutional advice and consent role of the senate, we can do that, or we can use the harry reid precedent to change the rules of the senate by majority vote. the problem with the harry reid precedent is it does not change the rules, it just means that the rules do not mean what they say. it is the senate president. the majority may do that. avoid that if we possibly can. host: this debate over the time mp is taking for tru judicial nominees and the possibility of going nuclear in the senate taking place this week and last week as well. we want to hear from you in this segment of the washington

journal about whether you would change the senate rules to help speed up trump nominees. in ohio, support. go ahead. caller: i do support this. i do support this president. more importantly, i think the american citizenship wants to see term limits. it is time for term limits from the supreme court down. all three parts of government should have term limits. people should not be lifetime politicians. back in the to see early days when america was just beginning with farmers and shopkeepers being in the congress and house. too much judicial power is taking over the american public. i think there is an awakening for this. if we don't have term limits soon in america, we are going to end up strangled by all of these laws that are being imposed on

the american public. there is an awakening in america right now. what donald trump did is awaken the american public, whether they are conservative or liberal, to say we want to be in charge of what our politicians do, not the other way around. i think it is going to come to pass that the american public -- go ahead. host: when it comes to the judiciary, how long do you think a judge should serve? caller: one term, six years. host: for every federal judge? caller: why not. there are enough attorneys out there. are replacing every judge in the u.s. every six years, this judicial confirmation process becomes bogged down even more with that many positions to fill? caller: only time can tell that. we are in a changing society. we see with the young people and

their attitudes. i think we will see more of this awareness. we are being stricken with all kinds of politicians nowadays. i think people want to get back to normal life. host: this change that is being debated in the senate floor to lower court judges. not the supreme court confirmation process. it would also apply to confirm executive branch positions below the cabinet level. on that point in the national review, he said there is over 1000 executive branch positions that require senate confirmation. if 30 hours of debate occurred on all of them, i would be more than 30,000 hours of senate floor time. there are 8760 hours in the year. if all the post-cloture debate time were used, they might be able to complete debate sometime in the middle of the president's last year of office. i have not even added in the

judicial nominees. i want to hear more about whether this confirmation process should be streamlined. that is the rule change being debated in the senate. maine on the line from for those who oppose the idea. go ahead. are you with us this morning? go ahead. caller: yes. that the judicial appointments are far too important to be rushed through. i think given the gravity of the office and the fact that these are lifetime appointees that one should not curtail the number of hours that the senate spends or congress spends confirming them.

i believe that the supreme court from to add anded couple more judges and some mechanism could be devised to ensure that no one particular philosophy rules. i also believe that the executive branch of government, which currently means one person should also be changed. i don't believe that judges should be appointed by the president. branchves the executive over the political

philosophy of the core. -- court. i think judges should be independently selected, perhaps by a consortium of law schools who evaluate the legal bona applicants. various your point. that is a bigger change then we are discussing in this segment. we have a lot of callers calling in to talk about speeding up the confirmation process. gary is one of them from north carolina on that line for those who support the idea. go ahead. caller: i see through what schumer is trying to do. hours, you are not going to vote for the guy anyway.

you can get accomplished not voting for him in two hours. the whole idea of dragging the thing on is to push it past the distance, to move the goalposts back. if they are going to disagree, they can disagree in two hours just as well as they can in the long term. it makes no difference except for them wanting to move the time limit back. every good argument can be put forth in a few hours. they can do their homework quick. things have to move along. we see through that. they are moving the goalposts back when they are not going to vote for it anyway. it works for both. that. see through host: when it comes to the numbers of appointments and

confirmations, tom bruegger breaks them down in a recent rollcall story. he notes that a dozen trump appointments to the influential appeals courts, which have the --in say in the 70 cases the cases that had to the , there are 37 district court nominees waiting. it took 133 days from committee vote to final confirmation vote. are 37 district court nominees still waiting for a floor vote. he also adds that when it comes to procedural obstruction, democrats during the trump administration have done less than republicans did during the obama administration.

while 65% of obama's district court nominees needed a rollcall vote as opposed to a confirmation by a voice vote, only 51% of trumps nominees need a rollcall vote. time for a few more calls on this topic. kirby from north carolina. go ahead. caller: good morning. have isthe problem we that we are forgetting this is america, and some of the things that are going on we just don't do. it is not us. i think they should leave the rules alone. go ahead and carry on like we have and look at themselves and realize they are voted in. one of the main reasons is because you look at all the nominees donald trump has, every last one of them almost at the issues. -- have legal issues.

go through the process and let things work out. kirby in north carolina. our last caller in this segment. this is going to play out on the senate floor today. the senate at 12:00 will recess for their weekly caucus meetings and lunches. at 2:15 we expect this to take place, the potential procedural vote on the new their option this afternoon on the senate floor. make sure to stay tuned to .-span2 for all the proceedings up next on the "washington journal," we will be joined by new york representative tom reed to discuss the affordable care act. later we will be joined by the wilson center's benjamin gedan todiscuss recent cuts in usa guatemala, el salvador, and honduras.

aid to quite a lot, el salvador, and honduras. >> the only thing we have to fear is fear itself. >> ask not what your country can do for you. ask what you can do for your country. >> and the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon. >> c-span snow spoke the president's -- newest book the president's. it provides insight into the lives of the 44 american presidents through stories cap with interviews with noted presidential historians. explore the challenges they faced and the legacies they have left behind. published by public affairs, the presidents will be on shelves

april 23. you can preorder your copy today at c-span.org or wherever books are sold. once tv was simply three giant networks and a government supported service called pbs. in 1979, a small network with an unusual name rolled out a big idea, let viewers decide on their own what was important to them. c-span opened the doors to washington for all to see, bringing you unfiltered content from congress and beyond. the age of power to the people this was true people power. in the 40 years since, the landscape has changed. there is no monolithic media. broadcasting has given way to narrowcasting. c-span's big idea is more relevant than ever. no government money supports c-span. it is funded as a public service

by your cable or satellite providers. online, c-span is your unfiltered view of government. "washington journal" continues. host: along with his work as cochair of the problem solvers caucus, new york representative tom reed works on the health, ways and means committee. do you agree with that move? guest: thank you for having me on. it is great to be here. i disagree with that move in the courts. it is forcing us to bring health care back into the domain of d.c. in washington, we need to fix this. the health care system right now is failing. the affordable care act is not doing what it was promised to do.

with this position, it is good to force us in congress to do our job. host: what has the white house told you about this move? were they trying to spark renewed discussion? guest: i believe that is the purpose. the constitutionality of the law is a serious question. that is up for the courts. with the individual mandate being repealed, i can see the supreme court ruling the law unconstitutional. there is a substantive position. also calling the question. we represent the people. we should be fixing this problem. for that purpose, i am hopeful we will be able to get something done. host: some reporting that mick mulvaney was one of the voices pushing for this move. what are your thoughts about mick mulvaney? guest: i have served with mick.

i know his philosophy. he is a conservative individual. i respect that. i believe he does believe the law is unconstitutional. from the perspective of having a plan in black and white that we can present to those people that the white house can support, that we can support in congress, i think that would be the prudent step to take. reaching across the aisle to work with democrats to say if you agree that the affordable care act needs to be fixed, that the health care system needs reform, let's roll up our sleeves, joined together, and put the american people first. host: are we going to see a new republican health care plan to replace the affordable care act? guest: i believe you will. what i am going to focus on is take the areas of health care in washington, d.c., that we are already spending trillions of dollars on. medicare and medicaid.

those are government programs. the federal government has direct oversight over those programs. we can start there. let's start improving the health care delivery for medicare and medicaid and getting health care costs curves going down. we can lead in the right direction, and that is lower, so people have better access to care. us until reed joining the top of the hour this morning. if you want to join us, give us a call. republicans (202) 748-8001. democrats (202) 748-8000. independents (202) 748-8002. we will start with billy, a democrat. caller: i'm just calling to ask what is the major problem with the aca? daca was started by a right-wing think tank, the heritage foundation, promoted by governor romney in massachusetts.

it seems like obamacare is already a right-wing compromise since single-payer is what other countries have like canada. what is the big problem with the individual mandate is my question? host: go ahead. guest: the fundamental problem with the affordable care act is it puts government in control of health care decisions and uses government press control to somehow limit health care costs increase in america. that is a tool in the toolbox led by democratic philosophers who believe that is the source of the power that can control this issue. we have an alternative. it is based on one principle. we are going to unleash the power of the people, unleash the power of the dollar in the system to reward behavior, incentivize good behavior when it comes to taking your medicine, having doctors prescribe drugs that have an effective outcome.

host: georgia, scott is a republican. good morning. caller: good morning. that sounded really insightful thinking. i always hear people talk about where we are going to lower health care costs. we have to do things to make things easier. when i got to see the doctor now, i don't get to see a doctor. i see a pa. the doctor is nowhere to be seen. that are different studies show from 60% to 80% of all health issues are lifestyle related. when you go out at night and see all the fast food restaurants where people are eating, i wonder how people stay as healthy as they do eating at those places. i applaud that line of thought. standpointvernmental and i wish they would get out of it and what the markets decide and put more incentives to provide healthier lifestyles. guest: that is the heart of the

republican proposal. we want to empower people, empower doctors. that means not only empowering them, but reward individuals and doctors as well as the carriers and folks that are the demonstrators behind the scenes. it is a two front attack in the health care system and also in the health insurance market. host: democrats attribute their gains in the 2018 election in the house to the health care issue. do you think the white house moved to invalidate the aca through the judicial system puts it back on the ballot in 2020? guest: i think it was always going to be on the ballot. the bottom line is health care in america is not performing the way americans deserve. that is why congress needs to act. it was going to be an issue regardless of the situation in the court.

2018,sly, the results of the health care issue did not go in our favor on the republican side. i would agree with that assessment. the bottom line that this will do is allow us to reopen the debate on health care that hopefully democrats and republicans because now democrats are in charge. they have to be part of the solution. they cannot to stay on the sidelines and point fingers and say obamacare is the thing that is going to save health care. it is broken. it is not working. maybe people will awaken that movement to solve this problem together. host: host: fort collins, colorado, charles on an independent. good morning. caller: what he is suggesting, everyone is going to quit eating mcdonald's, and they are going to quit smoking. that sounds like fairytale land. the thing i suggest all these

guys to do in congress is to go .h.o. reports. don't go off of your nine years of we don't have a plan. countries that have a single player system run on a fortified cost. we are running around 21% or 22%. people can't get health care. you guys need to look at actuarial tables. you guys need to get real on this. doing some kind of piddly jiggly stuff is not going to work. i am sick of people trying to say socialized medicine. the fda is socialized. the v.a. is socialized. we live under a social democratic system. you want to get rid of the cdc? it is socialized. if you guys would get real and catch up with the other

industrialized countries in this world, it would be a pleasant, pleasant thing. guest: obviously i am going to disagree with charles. charles, i don't believe the issue of rewarding behavior that avoids smoking, avoids the fast food lifestyle that is unhealthy. i am talking about rewarding, making those decisions that lead to better health care and health conditions for people. i think that is a real power. when you talk to people. just talk to people. when they receive a tangible benefit, a check, gift certificate, behavior changes. i know i will get that if i do this. that behavioral change is what we are looking for. thatagree with charles which the following other countries, that somehow other countries are the leaders in this issue. i come from america. i believe america leads the world in the best outcomes in

the best policy decisions. that is based on the cornerstone principle that government is secondary to the power of the people. that freedom and democracy in america is going to improve this situation. other countries, the end of the day, i predict, will be following us. next, line for democrats. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i like to comment that republicans were against social security, against medicare, against medicaid. they were against unemployment compensation. they opposed the affordable care act. i had the affordable care act insurance. it was the best insurance i had, and i worked for one company my whole life. i am now on social security and medicare. the day that republicans come up with a great health plan will

the day that takes flight. -- pigs fly. guest: have a good day. guest:i appreciate that. we will keep trying. apparently government controlling your life you support and believe in, i disagree with. i believe the people should be the source of the power of our government and that the people should be the ones that have the power of the government, not government having power over the people. that is a fundamental difference of opinion and ideology. as we go forward, to talk about these issues, medicare and social security i support. look at the condition of those programs. both are on the path to insolvency. you cannot dispute that fact. the problem with these programs at some point in time you have a $22 trillion national debt is that if you don't keep them in check, it will overtake the

entire government. it will bring the government down. that source of power you believe in could be jeopardized in the long-term. 10:00the house is in at a.m. we are expecting democrats to put a resolution on the floor today that would condemn the trump administration's legal campaign to take away americans health care. that is how it is being described by democrats. guest: i will be supporting that resolution, sending the message that before we ask the entire law be invalidated, let's put some proposals out there in black and white. joining with that effort i believe is the appropriate position to take. i respect my colleagues in the white house with respect to their position moving forward. bewe go forward, there will one cornerstone of reform. that is the reform in the health

insurance market that deals with existing conditions. i think democrats and republicans ended 2018, the people spoke loudly. to remove that reform from the law of the land will not be accepted by the people. i think we need to heat that voice -- heed that was going for. s will being condition the cornerstone of any health care reform law. host: how many republicans do you expect will join you in supporting that resolution? track.i don't keep that is for the whip to decide. i'm sure there will be a handful of us. this is not a resolution that is going to make its way through the system and somehow become law or anything like that. this is a position. this is a political position the democrats are putting out.

i am going to join them. i'm willing to stand up to our party, our leader in the white house and say we owe it to the american people to have a black and white roadmap "we are going to do when the court -- roadmap "we are going to do when the what we aredmap of going to do when the court rules it unconstitutional. host: how much respect you get from the whip or the minority leader? guest: there is always that pressure. i respect that. we are not afraid to do that. as an independent thinker, i try to listen to our district, represent our district. we are going to send that message. breaking with the party comes with pressure, consequences. at the end of the day, we are all at it from the same perspective. we believe in that cornerstone

that people control their lives, not government. we are going to be more in agreement with that. i have 11 older brothers and sisters. we never agree on everything. host: what are some possible consequences? guest: there are alwaysguest: concerns. rather than getting to inside things, we just move forward. people are always putting pressure. democrats do it. nancy pelosi does it to her people. it is not a republican unique thing. it is an inside d.c. problem. i would hope more members would stand up and leave in regards to in regards -- lead to challenging where we need to go. set the partisan bickering aside. if you start doing that, you would see more agreement, more solutions coming out of washington, d.c. hopefully this is where we will

change the culture host:. what is the problem solvers caucus? guest: it is a caucus that i cochair on the republican side with my good friend from new jersey. we have come together to vote together when we can get a consensus position of 75% support on the proposal before us. we have leaders from across the country come in and speak with us. we debate quietly with the cameras off from 9:00 at night until sometimes 1:00 in the morning. we have real discussions about policy and what we can do to help people back on. it has changed the house rules. that is an institutional change that will go on for generations. we are empowering the members more. think cameras are

keeping their from being real discussion? guest: you have this partisan divide. might/7 new cycle contribute to it. everyone is trying to gain that five second headline in order to get a political advantage. that can be problematic. if all you are worried about is that five minutes of fame or 30 seconds of headline, it becomes very shortsighted, and it becomes the primary motivation of what drives the debate as opposed to roll up your sleeves, let's sit down and have an honest conversation. ask the stupid questions. a lot of people are afraid because the cameras watching. we are not experts. as members of congress, we are not experts in every issue. we should be able to have that free flowing educational debate.

constant tom reed is the cochair of the problem solvers caucus. go ahead. caller: good morning. i am curious as to your opinion about how the administration, how the bureaucracy has grown over the years, and how that has contributed to the increasing costs of health care. i have been a paramedic for over 30 years. i see every hospital getting the latest bell and whistle toy, whether it is m.r.i., anastasia respiratory ventilators. the changes are so negligible and have negligible benefit because it is just the latest and greatest tool. is there a way to cap some of

this useless bureaucracy and restricting getting these patient care devices where there is miniscule benefit? host: got your point. guest: i think tim's voice needs to be heard loud and clear. is a first responder. he is at the front line of america. that in point israel to be. -- input is real to me. a lot of the health care system does not award efficiency. it does not award effective health care outcomes. it just awards the bells and whistles. that is where we have to change the whole incentive structure of you reward there delivery of care, the delivery of product, delivery of drugs that leads to better health care

outcomes for the patients. when you do that, you will see this pr christy cut down -- bureaucracy cut down. that will lower costs and bring health care to a more effective position. edward is ansey, independent. i agree with you about responsible behavior. i am not here to argue that. i think there are decisions that affect my health that i am not in control of like working various shifts, working too many hours, i have to keep a house and a car on the road and maybe retire. what are you doing to alleviate things that will affect my health, these behavioral decisions that i am not in control of, but the system needs to help out further. thank you. guest: the point on the

behavioral stuff is to reward that behavior. some people are not quick to change that behavior. we are not talking about penalizing you can but we will make sure the safety nets are there to catch those individuals. individuals that are controlling outcomes will get a reward for that. you will see studies that show positive behavioral change as a result of that. he is talking about allowing individuals on those other issues. he brought up retirement. there are a lot of things we can do under the tax code to encourage savings in america. that is the fight we have with the democratic side. someone has to pay for this government. of theck and tired strawman argument that the other guy is going to pay for it. the 1%. anyone who has done the math will tell you the 1% cannot pay

for what the proposals on the table are going to do. it would be mathematically impossible if you took all of the wealth of the 1% and try to ca convert that. that is part of the political partisan advantage there trying to achieve by saying the other guy is going to pay the bill. don't before. who pays the bill? hard-working americans because that is where the money is. host: montgomery, alabama is next. go ahead. caller: good morning. reppreciate representative ed coming on to defend his position. i find it highly suspect after he has been in congress 10 years that he now wants to be nonpartisan and work across the aisle. the republicans have no plan.

they have not had a plan for a decade. despite pronouncements this morning, there is still no plan. ideas -- cot the opted the ideas of keeping children on their parents health until they are 26. you have not developed that into actual legislation. it overshadows everything you have said this morning because you still have no plan. we see that. democrats won in 2018 and i believe they will win again in 2020. guest: i appreciate that. i disagree with your conclusion republicans have no plan when it comes to pre-existing conditions and those reforms that we should rightfully celebrated every republican plan -- rightfully celebrate.

every republican plan has that in it going forward. there were debates and issues about how that would be covered and paid for. -- corner store and cornerstone reform was there in black and white. health insurance will have a pre-existing condition protection. i applaud my democratic colleagues leading on that issue. i joined them on that issue. that is good news. reforms ared, those going to be there. that is a good thing. to say that the affordable care do is the best we can think is giving up on the issue. we can do better than that. to ask you about the southern border. drastic border actions are a flood.

threatening to seal off the entire southern border. guest: i hope it does not come to that. this is another example of congress. i have been a critic of congress. threatening to seal off the entire southern border. i am one of 435. i want to be a loud voice to say congress needs to do its job. the whole row can immigration broken edit -- immigration system, at its root cause is republicans and democrats failing to come together to solve this problem. i hope congress will wake up and do its job. the american people should hold congress accountable. enough of the shenanigans, us versus them. closing the border, not closing the border. if you don't believe protecting our american citizens should be a common position we take, then you should not be here. to think this idea of opening the borders and everyone is

going to come here peacefully and there are no bad guys, that is not the real world. i live in the real world. the reality of the situation needs to be put forward. we need to do our job to solve this problem. host: you are on the whip team for the u.s. mexico and canada agreement. how much harder will that make your position? guest: we want to make sure the relationship with mexico and between mexico and canada is strong, and having this issue on the table of a broken immigration system obviously puts pressure on that relationship. but at the end of the day, the issue of the border and is to be addressed. it is an issue impacting mexico and also impacting canada. they just said that we have an issue of the southern border, that it doesn't do the issue justice. it is bigger than just the southern border. all of our borders, it is

the security of america at risk it.e don't fix host: from leesburg, virginia, republican. caller: i was calling to talk about health care. we have had almost eight years to do something, to work on obamacare, but we haven't. i get the impression a lot of times when i listen to the congressmen and senators and come on the program, they are not being honest brokers. or addressix nothing an issue if you will not be an honest broker. -- juste to the issue like the issue you just talked about, the border. you are not being honest about how we feel about those people coming up from central america. we are not being honest about the issue of health care when we congressmen and

senators supposedly representing the people in the state. there are not supposed to be lining up the caucuses. we got elected to do something. you are a representative of your estate, then you get there, and then you all form your own club. and doesn't make any sense to me. people recognize that is what is going on. host: thanks for the call. obviously with the classes, we are trying to align ourselves with those who are willing to put country first rather than party politics. so to align yourself with man ofup and bring a bloc votes, you have to remember, there is a belief in america that sometimes one individual member of congress controls the outcome of policy. there are two numbers that are the most critical numbers in washington, d.c. -- 218 house members and 60 senators. you need to get to those votes done. something

and the best outcome is to identify those individuals, those elected representatives, and come up with a bipartisan solution. that is at the heart of what we're trying to do in the problem solvers caucus. left or rightt a solution, it is about finding a path in congress that represents a bit majority of america. host: how do someone find out if there congress member is part of the caucus? guest: the media has sourced many of the folks. ,ne of the things we don't do we have some hard left and hard right folks, and there is no lift of folks that is there, but you can ask your member. if you member feels comfortable and wants to identify that, that is up to the members to put forward. ,ost: congressman reed republican from new york, always i appreciate your time. you.: good to be with

host: up next, we will be joined benjaminlson center gedan to discuss the trump administration's newly announced cuts in foreign aid to guatemala, el salvador and honduras. stick around. we will be right back. ♪ announcer: this week on q&a, a historian talks about his book "american one-shot: john f. kennedy and the great space race." he thought fdr's deal was too big, but what fdr did well was beyond social security, he built the grand coulee dam, and eisenhower had the highway system. kennedy was thinking, what is my administration's public works thing? technology. the computer chip gets developed in the late 1950's.

modern aviation starts kicking in. 1960,ack kennedy runs in there are no computer science classes at universities. but a time he is killed in dallas, there are computer science classes everywhere. air travel is replacing automobile and train travel. people are flying more and more. hub airports being developed all across the country. it was the jet age, the space age, and kennedy made that the cornerstone of the new frontier . announcer: sunday night on c-span's q&a. ♪ once, to be was simply three networks and a government supported service called pbs. then in 1979, a small network rolled out a big idea, let viewers decide all on their own what was important to them. doors toen the washington policymaking for all to see, bringing you unfiltered

content from congress and beyond. in the age of power to the people, this was true people power. in the 40 years since, the landscape has changed. media,s no monolithic broadcasting has given way to narrowcasting, youtube stars are a thing. but the big idea is still relevant today. no government money supports c-span. it is nonpartisan coverage of washington funded as a public service by your cable or provider. on television and online, c-span is your unfiltered view of government. so you can make up your own mind. ♪ announcer: washington journal continues. regiment gedan, senior for the wilson centers latin america program, joining us after president donald trump moved to cut aid to guatemala, el salvador and honduras.

benjamin, how much money are we talking about here, and what was the money original targeted to? guest: the money has been diminishing on its own and last few years, that it is still significant given the size of economies. it was 750 million in 2016, that is less than $200 million for each country now. the sums are meaningful because these are relatively small countries. host: how often does the united states cut money in foreign aid to the region, and it doesn't work to get the countries to do with -- to do what we want them to do? guest: very rarely. usually the notion of the funding is long-term, they are trying to solve structural problems that have driven migration to the united states. the funding targets and diverse set of objectives. foridea of cutting funding this to medically this quickly is unusual and has really put policy making in disarray. host: you study the region, the

northern triangle can get what the northern triangle. what would be the impact to the countries in this were to go through? guest: these governments are heavily reliable on the uss distance, for -- for the u.s. assistance, for law enforcement aid to institutions. life is difficult already, and all these problems would be exacerbated if the aide were to disappear. host: benjamin gedan is our guest this morning from the wilson center. republicans can call in at 202-7 48-8001, democrats, 202-748 -eight thousand, and independents, 202-748-8002. here are the amounts given to each country.

can you talk about the main uses of those funds? the governments themselves, are we talking ngos can? guest: it is a combination. the targets are diverse. theseoblems in countries are complex and structural, and they have lasted for decades. these countries are among the most violent in the world. a lot of it goes to strengthening law enforcement, and also to economic opportunity, strengthening the judicial system, some of it goes to u.s. aid to do the development work it does, and a lot of it goes to the treasury, the justice department, the , lots of.e.a. government agencies on the ground trying to solve some of these very difficult problems. there was a wide-ranging discussion yesterday at the center. house foreign affairs committee ranking member was asked about

the potential cuts to the northern triangle and this is what he had to say. have notk some people studied the issue, maybe they don't understand what the foreign aid actually does. -- are sending my grand they are sending migrants, and then we should cut of the foreign aid, the fact is, when you get a presentation of what usaid is doing out there, rerouting at risk youth into helping law enforcement. in el salvador where ms 13 is prevalent, it is hugely successful. they have made, all the crackdown on ms 13. in the last two years, the numbers perspective to this aid has actually lower the crime rate, have the economy. we have to stabilize these areas. if we don't, it is not going to

help the immigration situation, it is just going to get worse. we can be very reactive and our border to stop them from coming in, but if we don't address the repository problem through the central american security initiative, we will continue to have this problem. host: if you would like to watch the entire event at the wilson center, we covered it, on c-span, on our website at c-span.org. on then gedan significance of the top republican on the house foreign affairs committee speaking about the impact of the money and saying that it is making a difference. guest: support for these programs is bipartisan. in the last two years, president trump tried to significantly decrease the funding in each budget he proposed. and every time, congress pushed back strongly. obamapport for the then administration policy was also supported broadly across the two political parties, and the reason is that all experts agree, you have to address the

route causes or migration will continue to worsen. host: can congress block the president? guest: i think it will be difficult in the short-term. it is uncertain how to implement to this tweet from the president. i don't think it is the result of strategic planning in the national security system, so even at the state department right now, they are unclear. are we pulling advisors from the region, are we cutting programs overnight? so these decisions bureaucratically are unclear. host: you mentioned the treat president. the president on twitter saying last week, mexico is doing nothing to stop the flow of a legal immigration to our country , and likewise, honduras, guatemala and el salvador have taken our money for years and done nothing. we continue to see the results of that tweet this week play out here in washington dc. taking your calls as we focus on the foreign aid aspect of that, with benjamin gedan of the

wilson center. there are the numbers for you to call. the first color, independent from michigan. color bama i think it is a wonderful idea that he is going to cut off aid to these countries. in, thetate i am governor wants to raise our gasoline taxes $.45 a gallon because we have no infrastructure left. our schools are absolutely deplorable. we have no money for that. we have no money for feeding our poor children in our state, and yet, we send all this money overseas to help these people. all they want to do is run over

our burden ofo our schools, our hospitals. , so betweencare medicare and my supplement, i pay $700 a month. i get $836 in social security. host: thank you for sharing your story. guest: look, i think foreign assistance in general is a miniscule portion of the budget. many scholars agree that it saves the united states money by addressing the root causes of problems in these countries before they become failed states. or security threats to the united states sandra which is so linked to the united states, the problems their affect us very directly and quickly, and the cost of absorbing these migrants and processing them at the border is much higher in the long-term than addressing the instability and security of

those countries. it doesn't mean i am insensitive to the struggles from the caller. i think the question is, does it make sense to cut the assistance now, let the problems worsen and then spend more addressing the those issues as they arise. host: how do they make sure the foreign aid is being used as intended? guest: in this case, some of the metrics are improved governance, a reduction in the homicide rate, increases in economic a unity, employment creation, and stringentas imposed requirements on this assistance. that was the trend even in the obama white house, to make sure the surge would be well used. these governments are typically poor. levels of corruption are high. the president of honduras was elected two years ago in a disputed election. the president of guatemala has been fighting a you and anticorruption agency even

though anticorruption is part of the requirements of the foreign assistance. so it is a very difficult environment for aid absorption, and i think everyone should be sensitive to that dynamic. is it in the long-term interest for the united states for conditions to worsen in those countries? that is what we need to ask ourselves? guest: roy, republican. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. i have some problems. first of all, how much money does this person have to give away to a foreign country when we are having to borrow and borrow, and borrow? this is ridiculous. we borrow money to give to somebody else. this should be a worldwide thing. it should be taken not just for one country, but from every country, if they are going to give. host: benjamin?

guest: u.s. of debt is a serious issue, and a lot of it relates to budget issues that have nothing to do with foreign assistance, it is less than 1% of the budget. tax policies right now is what is driving they deficit in the debt. again, even if you're not interested in the human tragedies in our neighboring countries in central america, including some of the worst crime rates in the world, gang violence, apocalyptic insecurity income entities, one can still see that you are saving money in the long-term by supporting these countries. it is a bit of a hard case to make for communities struggling with their own challenges of poor infrastructure and low levels of employment in the united states. i am completely sensitive to the challenges in the united states. but again, supporting these countries is in the u.s. interest. host: on the democrat line, good morning. caller: good morning.

thank you for taking my call. i would like to ask your guests, what isn't the united -- why can't united nations do anything? i personally don't feel that i want to support all of president down there on the border, but how can the m2 three countries into our one country? three can you empty countries into our country. immigrants have to come up with a solution. look at russia sneaking into venezuela, that is all broken down. a we only give i guess russia chance to come in and take over some parts of our section of the world, do you have in answers for why the u.n. isn't working on that? guest: it is unfortunate. i think much of the international community has

deferred to united states on central america policy. it is links to the united states, it is part of the free trade agreement, these migration patterns. so it is the case that the united states, if they are not the principal actor in the region, nobody will support these governments. i think the level of poverty and underdevelopment would demand a broader global reaction, but that is simply not happening. so will the united states be the principal actor or no one, that is what they are facing. host: the governments of these countries in the northern triangle, do they want to keep them in their country, or are they happy to see the migrants go? guest: to give some credit to the trump administration as it addresses the problem, i think you can recognize the frustration that these governments may benefit from the outward migration. not only does it reduce their social services burden, but it remittances, a source

of income from workers who are here working several jobs and families.ney to their it is a huge source of foreign exchange for these governments. there are steps these governments could take. i know it is not realistic to say that the answer is law enforcement in central america. mostly, these migrants are not violating any laws in their country. but they could start attacking some of these smuggling networks. there is criminal activity going on in organizing these so-called caravans and i think that is what the united states is doing right now with this threat. the goal is to spoke the government into taking some action to reduce the outflows. i am skeptical in a solution will work without addressing the root causes of migration. but there is reason to believe that haven't done enough. host: a comment in today's "washington times" points to the reporting in the u.k. -- mexico's interior secretary has warned about "the mother of all

migrant caravans is forming in " saying that the caravan could include about 20,000 migrants, another caravan of 2500 migrants currently heading northward. the unit anything about those caravans? guest: i think the phenomenon of caravans is just a new way that migrants are traveling. other than the last few months, patterns of migration had not changed very significantly, the hadn't. in president trump's first year in office, there was a significant decrease. what is different is who is traveling. it is often families with young children, traveling in numbers for safety. host: who organizes them? guest: there are a lot of conspiracy theories about who governs them, but it seems fairly grass-roots, different organizations or individuals who find ways to gather, or through social networks, for people to become aware of caribbean is leaving. out of think it is driving

people to leave, it is driving people to leave in a safer fashion. historically there have been abuses in mexico and elsewhere throughout the journey. host: what is a typical leadership journey structure? heavy study the caravans? those with have studied them have not found any consistency in leadership, it changes and is quite flexible. it is driven in part by mexican policy on the provincial level, level.evel, and national are they finding opportunities to work through legal means as subject by the -- as suggested by the president of ne mexico, or are these authorities moving them along because they bear the burden of taking in these individuals. sometimes they remain, sometimes e at the u.s. border in mexico, sometimes they get into the united states.

it is like someone changes all the time. gedan, taking your calls for about 10 more minutes this morning. we have someone waiting in michigan on the independent line. good morning. caller: just underneath the wire. thank you much. stipends for farmers for letting some of the crop die or what have you, why can't we farm that food up, process it, give the company who processes food money, or a discount, or tax aid. we take that food and give it to the countries just outside the they willnd maybe stay in that area if they know there is food, than that could governorre could be a to confirm and try to give them from migrating. that means he might have to give something to mexico. why can't we be more productive

in that attitude rather than thinking a wall is going to keep tom -- but a wall is going solve a spiritual problem in that particular region? i think it's kind of naive and stupid. it is politics. [beep] but they don't want to be responsible for the money there are getting now for our taxes, they want to give it to the oil company, or the coal company. host: got your point. benjamin kanawha do you think? guest: side -- benjamin, what do you think? guest: i think often the driver in theme disparity communities, and a short distance to central america and the united states. i take your point, i think these countries don't have economic opportunity, they do have basic security, a responsive government, so the result is

that people leave and inevitably will continue to do so unless conditions in their home improve. again, i am sensitive to the idea that the challenges are daunting, that governance is countries.in those by the reality is that the objective view of the united states is to reduce migration and the only way we will succeed is if those countries have an improved quality of life. host: brian on the independent line, go ahead. caller: i think what they need to do is double their aid and then, sent some represented as down there and help them establish a police force that will protect those in their homes so they are not being threatened by gangs. it would save us a lot more money in the long run. host: brian, thank you for the idea. guest: i think coordination with these governments is extraordinary. underappreciated.

there is this idea in latin america, the sphere of the imperialist of the united states. but these governments work very closely, both with the obama administration and now, the trump administration to deal with it would cause is in return for the foreign aid. we embed police officers in those units, we do background checks, we require human rights training, we are in the courthouses, we trained special investigative units, to address narcotics trafficking. we are in the schools, , wetering gang recruitment are all over these countries addressing every issue under the sun. and we are very welcome to do so. we do it in a very hands-on manner. are these programs effective? he asked about the metrics. governance is very poor, but the reality is that there are quite welcoming of u.s. intervention to an extraordinary level. host: yesterday at the wilson center, congressman mccaul reference the regional security initiative. what is that? the central american

regional security initiative, it is often referred by the trump administration as the central american strategy, an approach that addresses the drivers of migration. it began and lasted for a long time, initially ramped up in 2014 when there was a surge in unaccompanied minors, and this crisis of children arriving without caregivers. now, migration patterns have shifted, and these caravans have created problems in numbers and composition. the response of the united states with bipartisan support has been to address all these structural and systematic weaknesses. host: is this the same thing the new york times is referring to in their lead editorial, talking about the homeland security with officialsng from the northern triangle to help curb the drivers of international migration? guest: absolutely. and vice president hans and vice

president biden have both been involved with this for a long time. we have been talking to these governments to address every issue we can to stop the migrant flows. host: so what happened last week? guest: at was further commitments from these governments to take more steps under and, to address these flows and these criminal syndicates that facilitate migration, but also to fight corruption, improve transparency, improve human rights and of the capability of their police forces, in coordination with u.s. intelligence and security agencies. host: was there any indication last week that these funds could be cut off as soon as this week? guest: before the tweet, nobody in the white house or the state department, or the homeland would have thought this was possible. there has been threats to cut aid in the past, but i think nobody thought it would happen here, because of the white house seemed to be on board with the notion that even though they aren't fans of foreign aid, you

have to be committed in the long-term to solving these problems on the ground. host: in davis junction, illinois, republican. caller: i was wondering why we don't get someone, i think we finally have someone in the white house would like to enforce the law. e-verify, if they would start putting heavy fines on these people who hire illegals, it would stop a lot of this. i lost to them good jobs to illegal aliens because here in the chicago area, this is a century country. -- this is century country, and thus this is sanctuary country. it is all in the goals. also, the homebuilding industry, you go to a homebuilding site and all you see are hispanics. all we hear is that the experts , studiestudies say have made a mess the last 30

years. so we need something done. guest: yes. some of the drivers of migration in the united states have to do states' legald framework for migration. a borderants arrive at crossing, they make an asylum claim and they know what happens when you are o in unaccompanied minor, or you are with the family. there are questions that can only be addressed by congress through a broader immigration reform. but i think the matter what congress does or no matter how you try to harden the border, if you have these disparities and levels of violence in central america, he will not reduce the inflows to the united states. host: on the democratic line, good morning. caller: good morning. thank you, c-span. 90% of those people coming here are males.

why can't we just trained them? and send them back, and they could clean up their own country? we train them, they get rid of the corruption, and they can participate as a group. that is all i have to say. thank you? guest: that used to be the migration had on. more mexicans used to have a lot of young males come to the united states looking for work opportunities. as you have talked about with this caravan phenomenon, it has changed erotically. it is now a lot of changed dramatically.it has we are having a lot of young women, a lot of families with children. undocumented immigrants back to the region does not really accomplish what they need to accomplish. these governments can barely handle their populations as is. there is an attempt to discontinue temporary protected status for these countries, and that would impose further

burdens on these governments which would again drive migration to the united states. you could call it a rare pro-immigration policy, because in the end it would actually drive migration to the u.s.. tps: we will address those protections status is. guest: there has been a push to discontinue these status that allowed individuals from haiti, nicaragua, el salvador and honduras to remain in the united states and work legally while conditions in their country did not permit them to be safe in their homeland. these would impose a great burden is are thousands of individuals. they would be fodder for gang recruitment. the inevitable result would be even worse migration toward the united states, the opposite of what we are seeing. . host: one last call from flint, michigan. caller: good morning.

can you hear me? host: yes, sir. caller: in my opinion, from my experience at 71 years old, most people who own businesses tend to vote republican because they have money. they are patriotic even though they hire illegals to pad their pockets. their bottom lines. in my experience, if we are really serious about how much money we are sending to help these countries, do american people realize, google it, it costs $3 million each trip to florida for your president every friday to play golf. $3 million each trip. , how many chips

has he taken since he has been in office. 15? 20? think about that. host: alex in michigan, thank you. when it comes to these questions of foreign assistance and support for the state department, in congress, each and every time the president has proposed the cuts, it has been bipartisan in rejecting them and increasing support for foreign aid. that phenomenon continues when it comes to northern central america. there is consensus among experts in congress and elsewhere that you have to solve the drivers of migration and you have to do so over a long period of time with heavy engagement in all the areas we described -- the rule criminal justice system, and providing economic opportunities. host: benjamin gedan is a senior adviser at the wilson center. thank you so much for your time.

next, 25 minutes before the house comes in, return the phone lines over to you. another busy day in washington. we can chat about 80 of the topics we have discussed so far this morning or anything else you are interested in. the phone lines are on your screen, you can start calling in now. we will be right back. physical --♪ q&a, aer: this week on historian talks about his book "american moonshot -- john f. kennedy and the great space race." he thought fdr's deal was too , he but what fdr did well built the tba, the grand coulee dam. eisenhower had the highway system. kennedy's thinking, what is my administration's big public works been? i admire that he

picked the right number, technology. thinkmputer chip, we about it today, it gets developed in the 1950's. modern aviation starts kicking when jack kennedy runs in 1960, are no computer universities. by the time he is killed in dallas, there are computer science classes everywhere. air travel is replacing automobile and train travel in many ways. people are flying more and more. hub airports being developed all across the country. it was about jet age, the space age, and kennedy made that the cornerstone of the new frontier . announcer: sunday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span's q&a. >> once, tv was simply three networks and a government supported service called pbs. then in 1979, a small network with an name rolled out a big idea, let viewers decide on

their own what was important to them. doors toen the washington policymaking for all to see, bringing you unfiltered content from congress and beyond. in the age of power to the people, this was true people power. in the 40 years since, the landscape has changed. no monolithic media, broadcasting has given way to a narrowcasting, youtube stars are a thing, but c-span's idea is more relevant today than ever. as nonpartisan coverage of washington is funded as a public service by your cable or satellite provider. on television and online, c-span is your unfiltered view of government, so you can make up your own mind. ♪ announcer: washington journal continues. host: here is what is happening on capitol hill today.

the senate is in a 10:00, they will recess for the usual weekly 12:30.unches around at 2:15, they return and we are expecting a debate over feeding of judicial nominations for trump's judicial appointments. a debate that could need to a high-profile procedural vote called the nuclear option, to change senate precedent. that is expected to take place on the floor of the senate. you can watch the action on c-span two. the house is also in at 10:00 and we expect a vote on a democratic resolution to condemn the trump administration. of whether judicial efforts on the affordable care act. that is expected after the usual one minute coming into the house for. of course, you can watch all the action on the house here on c-span. we will be with you at 10:00 when the house comes in for coverage.avel also today, we continue to watch the potential release of the mueller report, when it might

happen, and how it might happen. there is a story on today's wall street journal -- house democrats burning to issue subpoenas, demanding a complete version of the special counsel report on russian interference 2016. the democratic led house judiciary committee said it would vote this week to authorize subpoenas days after rejecting a plan from the attorney general to hand over a redacted copy by mid april. that resolution would also authorize the house judiciary committee chairman jerry nadler of new york, to issue subpoenas to former white house counsel don mcgann, former white house camila:'s director hope hicks, reince priebus, and former chief of staff to the white house counsel. speaking of jerry nadler, he has an op-ed in today's new york times entitled -- we are done waiting for the mueller report. the house judiciary committee will do everything it can to

read it, he writes in today's op-ed. best speaker of the house was talking about that very issue this morning. here is nancy pelosi on the status of the mueller report. >> the american people deserve and want the truth overwhelmingly. whatever the truth, let the chips fall where they may. show us the truth. there is no reason why they couldn't be putting some of this out as they have. as the longest-serving person on the intelligence committee, i understand sources and methods, but that is no excuse for hiding the truth from the american people. so, we just see as a go forward. he is saying now, maybe mid april, it keeps getting a little closer. but there will be a release of the miller report. [applause] -- of the mueller report. [applause] spoken to attorney general barb them about this? >> no. >> so what gives you the

confidence that you will see this? >> our old friend, public sentiment that is the biggest force. and you are very much a part of it. public sentiment is everything -- abraham lincoln. without it, you can accomplish just about nothing and with it, you can accomplish everything. he is right then, and he is right now. whether we are talking about equal pay for work, releasing the report, any number of subjects. the public awareness and the public weighing in can simply not be ignored without paying a price. host: speaker of the house talking this morning, in an politico.ed by we can talk about any of these issues this morning or anything else happening today in washington. the phone lines are yours until the house comes in at 10:00. again, here are your phone numbers. democrats, 202-748-8000, republicans, 202-748 -8001, independents, 202-748 -8002. rick is up first in pennsylvania

on the democrat line. go ahead. i was listening to your program about foreign aid, and i am just wondering, these : it seemsller like over the years we give money to everybody and it aesn't seem like -- it helps little in different countries, but it seems like we are throwing gasoline on the fire to try to put it up. the man from michigan that called earlier about losing his job to illegals, i felt for him. it doesn't seem like the government is really doing anything. that is how i feel about what is going on. i think trump is doing the right thing putting this eight off, and i'm hoping he looks at other countries, too. that is my comment, thank you. the: here is how much money

united states gave those so-called northern triangles countries. in 2018, el salvador received $117 million. guatemala received $188 million, honduras, $146 million. when the president announced over the weekend that he was intending to cut aid to those countries, and caused a group of democratic members of congress, leaders in el salvador i surprise -- it caught them by surprise. they were there to talk about u.s. efforts in that country. the statement said -- the president's approach is counterproductive and will only result in more children and families being forced to make dangerous journeys over to the u.s.-mexico border. we will work with our colleagues in congress to push back on the president's misguided approach to central america. that statement was signed by the chairman of the house foreign affairs committee, the chairman of the house judiciary

committee, and the chairman of the house judiciary subcommittee on citizenship and other democrats in congress. next from arkansas, republican, go ahead. caller: i think it is pretty stupid to have the policies we had to bring people up from those countries and give them , that if the get here they just show up, they can come across the border and never have to come to a hearing. the policy is bad, and we can change that. us is mexico fix it for not really responsible, we should fix it ourselves and not brag about how many people want to come here. if we take these jobs away, our kids and our futures, we are just giving it away, and then brag about how many people want to come here. it is the silliest thing. democrats to be honest, we can absorb all those countries done there. it would be a bad thing for us, it would kill us, that the

democrats can't be honest, they want to say that it is a positive. they are lying to the american people and they can't be honest about it, they have lost their way. this is a bad thing and we have to quit giving them the jobs. there are jobs. togary looks pretty nice, have some sense of national identity. we have none here. the suicide rates are going to go up and up if we lose all hope for our future. this is a bad thing, and want to say it is a good thing, and they know it is bad. host: charles, thank you. today's of op-ed in papers on the issue of the president threatening to close the border, and cutting foreign aid. the new york times editorial: it mr. trump's terrible border the peace byting saying, if cause for proactive measures and not incendiary policies that are destined to

backfire. from the pages of the washington times, in a column -- if it is not an emergency, what is it? the department of homeland security report that is a low immigration just hit a 12 year high. joe in connecticut, an independent, go ahead. caller: my name is joe, i am 90 years old and i am a veteran. i am looking at this from the standpoint of these immigrants. they have been receiving our money for years. the ruling class down there has not done anything to stop these caravans because you know what, they are getting rich. their cisc swiss accounts are voting at the seams. i think it is time the americans was up trump is our. savior, and if people do not realize that, they are stupid. the democrats have nothing to offer but obstruction. they have gone too far. he is a reputable man and the angle.m at every

. what they released the report, they will stop him on something else they are not going to quit. the american people have had enough with the volt [beep] and it is time to start realizing and facing reality. no more money for central america. the result is that all the money has not stopped the caravan. how come? time to think it is completely seal the border as the president has threatened? caller: the border. stop them. trump is right. 100%. the man is our savior. he is going to save this country. the democrats are through. look what they are offering for 2020. look what they are offering, these idiots who are running, what are they offering? they are offering nothing! usa today with some reporting about how it would work to seal the border -- 50

crossings would be closed for entry and exit, stopping hundreds of thousands, and about $1.7 billion in goods and services that cross each day, that is according to the state department. president trump will not be the last president to limit crossings -- the first president to limit crossings, president bush first closed the borders after the 9/11 attacks. waits.today's-long president reagan also ordered similar restrictions in 1985 after the kidnapping and murder of a d.e.a. agent in mexico. john is next, from new jersey, go ahead. caller: good morning. this is a global problem, not just an american problem. are trying to get into our country not only here, but they are also trying to immigrate in europe also. i don't understand why the united nations doesn't get

involved. if we were to take all the money that we send them in aid, as well as the other countries in , gete, to pull the money together and try to solve the problems of why these people need to immigrate in the first place. if there had a good life in the countries where they are emigrating from, they would stay there. it is just history. if you go back in history and look wherever your life seizes to exist or what is comfortable enough to live, you immigrated to an area that was better for you and better for your family. that is how it has always been and how it always will be. a kid blame the people emigrating here, they are just -- you can't blame the people emigrating here, they are just looking for a better life. in future to help the country's, he have to get rid of the dictatorships. i don't believe in everything our president is doing, i don't trust his motives, but some of

the things he says all right. that the aid we are sending these countries is not going towards those people, it is going to the pockets of the dictatorships and the illegal regimes of their. that are a lot of gangs in these places, and these people can't live. nobody would want to live in those kinds of conditions. host: more information on foreign aid, specifically to guatemala. you can search by country or by website foraid's all these facts and charts, that usaid.gov. this is guatemala in 2017, they received $257 million from the united states, ranking fourth in the region. columbia was the highest in 2017 with some $518 million in aid. when it came to all countries the $257 foreign aid,

million for guatemala was 13th overall. egypt with someone $.5 billion that year. again, usaid.com -- egypt with year.1.5 billion that all the information is on usaid.gov. from north carolina, good morning. caller: my comment first of all is on the mueller report. they want to take the president down and they would have already found something. and they know that, and they keep on and keep on, and keep on. this needs to stop and get on the border, trump is 100% right. that should not be trump's issue. they made the democrats and the republicans to do their job in congress and fix the board of. someone is paying -- fix the border. someone is paying all these people to come here. you do not see one democrat up

there trying to fix this problem. you know it. they don't even go to the border . they don't care about those kids. obama did the same thing, but it is not reported correctly on what trump is trying to do. can i ask a question about the mueller reports? would you be interested in seeing the full report, do you think it should be released? caller: yes. to make the democrats look more stupid. they wanted to take this man down. if there were something in that is robert mueller right now saying, i have something in there, and you will find out? you don't hear that man speaking at all. there is nothing in there and the democrats know this. they want to take trump down, they want him out. every tv show that is reported, all the news, you know that. so there is nothing in that report. this is just more garbage. that is all that is.

i used to be a democrat, and i changed. i will never vote for another one. i will never vote for another one. host: that was dana in florida this morning. on the mueller report, jerry nadler, chairman of the house judiciary committee in today's why he istimes," on done waiting on the report. he finishes the of and by writing -- when the full scope of the president's misconduct revealed, when his lies and abuses have been laid bare, i believe members of congress on both sides of the aisle will draft legislation to curb the worst of his offenses. if president trump's behavior was not criminal, then perhaps it should have been. you can read the op-ed in the "new york times" today. john on the independent line, go ahead. caller: thank you. during 2008, doing the takeover,

they haven't bought out the subject yet, when the takeover was there, a coup in honduras, what happens was that hillary clinton and obama, who had voted for, both supported the coup. they denied and that it was -- they denied it was a coup. the problem people don't realize is what the united states is doing is, since world war ii, we are destabilizing these countries. we supported the worst dictators, which we have in the middle east, with libya, with afghanistan, with iraq, we destabilize all these areas, along with europe, and now, they have a refugee crisis in europe, and we have a refugee crisis here. the president is trying to do some good things, but there are 25 rich ruling families there. people don't realize it. when you ask an immigrant, where

are you here? his answer should always be, because you are there. we have been doing this for 55 years. we did it in 40 countries, and all of our destabilization is costing us trillions of dollars. host: john, how often do you ask an immigrant where they are here? don't, because i know why. because my girlfriend is actually from honduras. .he is there now so i don't ask an immigrant, because i know why they are here. that is not to say that some people don't come, and i don't believe in sanctuary cities, i michiganhe guy from was correct, they are taking some jobs. but our problem is that we are running around around the world acting as a policeman in the last 50 years and it is draining our economy. if we continue to do it, we will be bankrupt. host: in oakview california,

democrat, good morning. the last caller nailed it completely. the other thing too, we have been arriving the social security to pay for wars and what have you. and the republicans are quite guilty of that. under eisenhower, we had a 90% tax rate or higher, and by trump giving his tax breaks to the 1% and then saying, we don't have any way to pay for any of these programs inside a united states, and at the same time, you have people in honduras, nicaragua, matamela, coming across the borders, that is all because republicans started those wars domingue. and yes, hillary clinton and obama did have something to do with honduras. all contrived. so we need to basically stand

back to trump and hopefully, the mueller report is brought out and there is a lot of things in the mueller report that i think will be made known to the public. my father was amanda handed nixon his subpoena papers during watergate -- was the man who handed nixon his subpoena papers during watergate, and our family was attacked. i find it really disturbing at all the stuff is coming up again. host: before you go, did your father ever tell you what that was like? caller: he did. in fact, i was escorted out of my high school homeroom because there was a bomb landed in my , after the woman was killed in a plane crash at chicago airport. dad handed nixon the subpoena in san clemente, i was attacked by the san clemente

police, which all of them or ask marines, friends of gordon libby. so the public doesn't realize that the behind-the-scenes stories behind all the stuff, you know, nixon was no hero. trump is no hero. i praise mueller for what he is doing, he has made all these subpoenas and other things going into different districts in new york, and what have you. so it is not over yet, kids. host: just a couple of minutes before the house comes in for the day. we will, of course, take you live there for gavel to gavel coverage. david in denison, texas, republican. go ahead. caller: let me talk about what he just said. pelosi, and nancy that they cannow

get barbara not to do this. speciale clinton prosecutor where everything was done and lots of people who were innocent or hurt because of all that hadmation accumulated over the years of the investigation, the roads are clear, they have to redact for security types of things. the method and all kinds of stuff. grand jury testimony cannot be released. they know the rules for this. the democrats change them, yet they can get up there now and say stuff that is completely different. nadler is talking about -- he is arguing, making the opposite argument when he says they should release testimony from the exact same committee. anyway, it is just such hypocrisy. last guy that called, the trump organization from 2016 or maybe even earlier on was spied on by human spies, wiretapping,

electronic surveillance. all the attorneys at robert mueller put together were democratic attorneys. the donors were democratic donors. him over two years and before that, they had a year of an fbi investigation. there were no indictments after the smaller report, regardless of -- after the numeral report for -- there were no indictments after the robert mueller report on collusion, which supposedly started this thing. host: do you think the attorney general should appoint a second special counsel. ? caller: i think it would take so long. i don't think you can question that this was an attempted coup of donald trump. denison,t was david in texas this morning. that will do it for the day.