tuesday. on c-span, the house is back at 10:00 a.m. is time for general speeches with legislative noon.ss at several veteran-related bills, including one on suicide prevention. on c-span 2 the senate votes on more judicial nominations including daniel collins for the ninth circuit court of appeals. on c-span3, and judiciary hearing on the mueller report without don mcgann who informed that he would not appear based on instructions from the white house. at 3:00 a house ways and means committee looks to protect patients from unexpected medical bills at 3:00 p.m. eastern. >> coming up on today's "washington journal" tom cotton joins us to talk about his book "sacred duty" about arlington cemetery.

and president trump's merit-based approach to immigrant visas. we look at infrastructure funding with the transportation subcommittee chair on highways and transit. ♪ ♪ host: good morning, it's tuesday, may 21, 2018. we begin this morning with the expected meeting between congressional leaders and trump administration officials focused on averting automatic cuts to the budget in 2020. as we take you through the latest we're asking you to take on the role of federal budget maker this morning. if it were up to you, what agencies would you increase and decrease federal funding for? give us a call with your budgeting cuts, additions, and

reasons why. democrats can call in at (202) 748-8000, republicans at (202) 748-8001, independents at (202) 748-8002. you can catch up with a social , journal@c-span.org and twitter, @cspanwj. getting to your phone calls in just a second, but first return to alex bolton, joining us on the phone this morning. remind us why potential automatic budget cuts are back. guest: well, because the budget control act that congress negotiated with president obama in 2011 is still on the books. the sequester is due to kick in unless the president

raises the spending caps in the next two months or wipes out the budget control act. remind us who the big four congressional leaders are. guest: speaker pelosi, senate majority leader mitch mcconnell, democratic leader chuck schumer, and house minority leader kevin mccarthy. they will be meeting at 10:30 in nancy pelosi's office this morning with steven mnuchin, and the acting omb director, the acting white house budget director. they will talk about putting together a two-year deal. some are skeptical of a two-year deal because it will raise spending limits for defense and nondefense programs and it will be a big number and when president trump is running for reelection in 2020 he wants to have some semblance of fiscal

conservatism or a claim to fiscal conservatism. we have i think a potential impasse here. however, i spoke to senate appropriations committee chairman rick shelby late yesterday. in thea meeting afternoon yesterday in which he made a strong pitch to trump fiscale said that if the year 2020 spending caps laid out by the budget are allowed to go back into effect will result in what he called a jerk conan cut in defense programs, saying it sends the wrong message to adversaries around the world. there is of course a military buildup right now in the middle east to contain the threat caused by iran so maybe that is an effective message for the

of what lookserms like it will be an impassive meeting today. we are talking $71 billion in cuts to the pentagon, another $55 billion on the domestic side of programs, but also complicating things here is the fact that the debt ceiling is playing into these discussions. remind viewers what that is and when that would kick in. the debt ceiling is essentially the limit on the federal government's ability to borrow money. so technically the federal government could hit the debt march. in the treasury secretary, steven mnuchin, has been using something he has been used in the past, called extraordinary measures, to basically get more dollars out of it. shifting obligations around so that you can stretch out the time left for the government to

borrow money. if it is not raised by congress, there's a big question as to when we lostppen the debt limit right up to the deadline. the borrowing authority is going to be increased in part of it will be the spending deal in april where the white house proposed doing these things debtately, not wanting the limit to get caught in the spending cap negotiations. sounds like those things will be dealt with in the same deal. this meeting happening near the start here of a short .eek ahead of a 10 week recess what are your expectations about and thes done today

negotiations, how they play out in the weeks to come? host: attend a recess, right? 10 day recess, right? host: yes, thank you. guest: [laughter] without the spending deal, you don't know what you're topline number for defense is. if you don't have that, it's are difficult to pass appropriations bills. don't know the total number, it's tough to get those bills done. i think that's why they are eager to get some sort of deal. there's speculation that maybe schumer,, pelosi, mccarthy, will bring a rough deal to the table to try to sell the administration on. mulvaney and russ vote , the acting omb director and

staunch fiscal conservative, i don't know, if i be tough to get them to sign off on a two-year deal. i would be surprised if they emerged from the meeting with any tangible results. i think that is why did shelby was made chairman. that's why he met with trump yesterday, to sag tell your guys to ok the deal. miniature and i think is seen as less of a fiscal conservative. he is someone i am sure is eager to get the debt limit squared away. right now the economy is facing headwinds of uncertainty regarding the trade war in china. uncertainty in the over congress raising the debt limit, it's not good for the economic environment. i think he wants smooth sailing and might be more inclined to cut a deal. but we will just see. ultimately the president has to sign off on any deal that there is. even if this meeting goes well

as could be expected, white house officials still have to take a proposal back to trump to get him to sign off on it. i think maybe what shelby is is with-- hoping for iran emerging as more of a threat that trump is going to feel like it's paramount that these defense spending numbers be increased and therefore he's going to agree to the democratic rice for increasing defense spending which is social spending in problem is the are deal increases both sides and it will probably be a pretty big number. remember in 2018, the last time there was a two-year spending deal it raised spending $300 billion over two years. trump would have said he was not happy, would not when he got the results of the bill, wanted nothing like that. there is some drama here. alex bolton, covering the

hill" newspaper. thank you as always for your time. guest: thanks for having me. host: we are asking you the viewer to take on the role of budget negotiator this morning. where would you increase spending and decrease spending? phone lines as usual this morning, (202) 748-8000. republicans, it's (202) 748-8001 . .ndependents, (202) 748-8002 if no deal is reached ahead of the beginning of the new fiscal year and the spending caps go wouldffect, the pentagon be cut $571 billion, domestic programs cap-$5 billion compared to this year. that's because of the 2011 bipartisan is act that went into effect, putting in spending caps over the next decade.

from we want to hear your calls this morning, your thoughts. here is how the question plays out in a recent poll from the pew research center. they asked as we did, if you were making up the budget for the federal budget, where would you increase and decrease spending and where would you keep at the same? they gave those that they surveyed a variety of choices on the issue of education, 72% of respondents to the poll said last month they would increase spending there. just 9% saying they would decrease spending on education. when it came to veterans benefits, 72% saying they would saying they only 4% would decrease spending for veterans benefits. rebuilding highways and bridges, 62% of respondents said they would increase spending in a category. 7% saying they would increase spending.

as you get farther down the list, the number of respondents saying that they would decrease spending takes up when it comes to military defense. 23% said that they would decrease spending on military defense in this country. when it comes to assistance to the needy, 28% said they would decrease spending and when it comes to assisting the unemployed, 23% said they would decrease spending in that category. those are the results from a poll released last month, you can see that on their website. we want to hear from you this morning, your thoughts about where you would make those increases and angry -- decreases. democratic line, good morning. caller: good morning, good morning america. yes, i would increase the education and stem programs. food stamps. no -- food stamps, we need

-- it's a wonderful program. host: if you increase spending there, where would you decrease spending? >> we have got more than 10,000 atomic weapons in the united states. we don't need all that, it's really insane. i was in the military. they spent too much on the military now. they have to have more money for the troops salary but we shouldn't spend so much money on all these nuclear missiles they want to build. here is how president trump laid it out in his fiscal 2020 budget proposal. you will remember that it was released earlier in the spring. on military spending, the biggest expense was the department of defense base budget. overseas contingency operations, the war fighting fund, those were estimated to cost

approximately $174 billion. military spending included 200 $22.9 billion for defense departments including homeland security and veterans affairs. these departments also received 26.1ency funding of billion dollars. added up, total spending on defense is just a shade under a trillion dollars. president's fiscal 2020 budget. we are asking you where you would increase and decrease spending. phone lines for democrats, republicans, and independent's this morning. john, good morning, republican line. liker: how come they get two and a half weeks off for vacation, the republicans? take me to your budget recommendations. we lost john. this is rick in philadelphia. rick, go ahead.

caller: good morning, sir. leaning more towards independent right now. that withstanding, i just don't think it's feasible to continue amounts indecent this consistent manner. we cannot continue to support such. so if you were looking to cut defense spending, where would you put that money? caller: in reserves. it's time, looking for -- towards the future, expenditures like you would do in your home and your country -- your company, you have to build reserves. that was john in philadelphia, pennsylvania this morning. the president's fiscal plan would spend $4.7 trillion. federalmated government revenue, 23.6 trillion, creating

a $1.1 trillion deficit if you go by that spending plan. again, congress will have plenty of time to dissect the president's budget in the coming add or decrease their own funding priorities. we want to hear from you this morning, the last couple of colors from pennsylvania, president trump was in pennsylvania yesterday, north-central pennsylvania headlining a rally there. one of the issues that he talked about is one of his top spending priorities, the issue of immigration in this country and plans to defend the southern border. if this was the president had to say last night in pennsylvania. [video clip] >> democratic policies have left borders over run on detention facilities being overwhelmed. as fast as we build them, they fill up. hospitals, schools, public resources are overburdened. our country is full.

we don't want people coming up here. our country is full. we want mexico to stop. we want all of them to stop. our country is packed to the gills. we don't want them coming up. if you want to watch the president's entire rally, you can do so on our website, our homepage, it's their, www.c-span.org. in this first segment of the washington journal, we're asking you to play federal budget maker this morning. where would you increase spending? where would you decrease federal spending if it was up to you? john, independent, oregon, what do you think? caller: i was watching the show the other day and they were talking about nuclear energy and they were talking about spending money on's end nuclear waste.

the rear admiral heading it up said that he would court-martial the members of the nuclear regulatory commission for not following procedures. i think we need to look into that. one disaster is going to wipe out our whole river system. what about disaster aid spending in general? something you are in favor of? it's an issue being discussed on the floor this week. all yeah, definitely. the flooding in nebraska, farmers losses and all of that, we have to deal with other tragedies, to. but i feel like the nuclear tragedy, if we don't deal with that, they really just don't have the right way of dealing with spent fuel. we need to get that settled. so if we are increasing spending on protecting the nuclear arsenal and ensuring its safe, where would you decrease

spending? caller: where would i decrease spending? making newoverall weapons like the one suggested earlier. overall we need a strong defense, but i think we are going overboard on that. that is john in oregon this morning on disaster aid spending in this country. a package working its way through congress right now, senator chuck schumer, the minority leader in the senate, discussing the democratic proposals on the floor and his expectations for what's going to be happening in the coming days. [video clip] of americans have waited long enough for the government to provide relief in the wake of recent natural disasters. we have one week left in this week. this is crunch time. it would be an awful conclusion if we left without passing a relief package.

so, we must focus on concluding our negotiations and reaching consensus on the final legislation. that is why i am alarmed by rumors that the of -- the republican majority bank attach the violence against women act to the disaster bill, rather than the reform bill. that's a formula for deadlock. they won't vote for in the house. thedo we have to load up disaster bill with extraneous positions? especially those that might bring conflict? not to be very careful allow this and other extraneous from members to get on the bill. it would only imperil the success of bipartisan disaster relief. watch hisou want to entire remarks, search for chuck schumer in the top search bar of the page. in the meantime, more of your

thoughts on if you were in charge of the federal budget, where you would increase and decrease federal spending next year. phoenix, montana, democratic line, good morning. i think we are asking the wrong question. you had a caller who called in for example and said that we need to balance the budget like you do in your household. incorrect.irely if the american people understood our monetary system, they would know that. the federal government creates money. your household does not create money. states and local governments cannot create the money. matter of fact, there were five senators i believe who introduced the bill in the senate this last week trying to .ondemn modern monetary theory they are running scared, afraid the american people are going to figure out how the system really works.

dr. stephanie kelton has a presentation at stony brook university and youtube. it's called the presidential lecture. she explains how the money system works. there is one called how you are kang to pay for that by dr. oubub. host: all that being said, the at. debt right now is $22,309,000,000,000. about $67,800 to per citizen in this country. do those numbers concern you? will tonot at all and i you why. all that represents is money that the federal government has created or allowed to be created by the private commercial banks and it is residing in treasury bonds in somebody's bank account out there. at any time the federal

government can tax the money back or, you say we are concerned when ben bernanke printed a $24 trillion in digital money to bail out the banksters.day -- he pushed it into those reserve accounts, took the bad that's off the back where they had been speculating and gambling and got the system going again so that they could start the ponzi loaning again. if the american people understand that, they will understand that social security is broke. host: getting your thoughts on the question what federal program you would increase or decrease spending for. some of the comments this morning from twitter and facebook, --

join the conversation on facebook or twitter, or give us a call. independent line, alabama, good morning. caller: i would double the budget for nasa. nasa is put upon as the whipping boy. i would decrease it in the military. specifically the u.s. air force. the f-35 joint strike fighter is going to cost the american .axpayer $1.5 trillion and the thing is, it's really obsolete. my understanding is that in some recent wargames there were advanced persistent threat, which is what they call china these days, they were wargaming and carriers are often simulated

sunk by a lot of submarines. it turns out that some of the 21 missiles have a further reach towards the ocean than the fighters. especially the stealth fighters with internal munitions loads. frankly if we had something in the space that could strike an object without telegraphing the punches and mobilizing carrier anups, why would you need air force or carrier group anyway? we still have this obsolete world war ii infrastructure and architecture, a logistical nightmare where apparently the people in the pentagon still for are fighting the battle of midway. about thedo you feel idea of creating something like of space force? i would be in favor, i think it would be cheaper. with the logistical nightmare of aces and bodies all over the planet, we are basically funding a second and a third country, if

you will, in terms of all these people overseas. if you can just strike something , space force would be cheaper than what we're doing now. got to get space out of the air force and air force out of space. the space force needs to be truly independent, fighter jocks have been interfering too much with space over the years. time we doubled the budget of nasa and had the space force. the f-35 needs to die and i would remain -- remand the air force back to the united states army air corps. host: historical trends on the question asking where respondents would increase or decrease spending. ofk in 2001, 40 7% respondents said that they would increase spending on military by 2002that picked up

in 2003. it came out as 40% of respondents saying that they would increase spending on military defense. 34% of respondents today saying that they would keep it the same as it is today. john, manchester, good morning. i would decrease spending on programs. it is my experience that the problems that we have in america are not the cause of a lack of money. we just think that we can throw money at something and that will suffice. i worked as a teacher for 38 years. , my payhose years increased, funding ceased. this was an inner-city school by the way. had all the latest gadgetry.

it was a taj mahal of conveniences. kidshe scores of those just went down. we don't know how to allocate resources. we think that we are spending somebody else's money and everything will be all right. we spend more money on health than any other country, but not as many people are covered. i would decrease all programs and then have administrators really look at what the priorities are and spend it there. thank you for the call. several respondents are calling for across-the-board cuts, , who talks about reducing the departments of the federal government by combining or eliminating everything on the table, including reducing or

eliminating u.s. troops in germany or japan. from becky this morning, saying to decrease pentagon and increase preschool. mike saying defund the atf. pat saying increase spending and attention on immigration infrastructure and being manufacturing jobs back to the united states. constant oversight to make sure that the money is spent wisely. join the conversation this morning. this is the first hour of "the today.ton journal," a reminder that if some deal is not reached in the white house and congressional leaders, we are looking at a fiscal 2020 budget that would see automatic cuts come back without any action, $71 billion in cuts to the pentagon, domestic programs $55 billion.

that again because of the budget control act from 2011 and the 10 the cap's that they put on federal budget. the caps were lifted in recent years, which is what we haven't heard about the automatic cuts recently, but the deals have ended on that front for the fiscal 2018 fiscal 2019. it's a 2020 year that would see the budget control act come back. we are asking you to play a jet maker this morning for the federal government. it's just about 7:30. on the east coast we have a phone line for democrats, (202) 748-8000, republicans (202) 748-8001, independents (202) 748-8002. go ahead. washington journal" is a great opinion show.

keep in mind, that's all it is. it's entertainment. it gives you an opinion. but a lady called in two calls of and explained it to the t what it is, how our federal money is spent. numbers to make us be afraid. if you take care of your own house, keep your house in order, make sure that everything is edited for your fine, america.be these are just things to keep the people in fear and afraid. the lady two collars ago, you should just have somebody like a financial expert explained it has she explained. whoever you were, lady, that was beautiful. thank you, guys. we have lots of financial experts coming through to talk about these issues, the debts

and deficits, federal spending. you can find them all in our , and in the meantime phone calls, asking you where you would increase and decrease federal spending in the budget. tom is in fort lauderdale, florida. good morning. caller: the sad thing about this conversation is that the legislature of the united states, the congress, knows exactly how to do that and how to balance the budget. it has been documented. not only has it been documented, but we had a president by the name of a barack obama who formed the commission to find the best economic path for the united states. the commission was bipartisan and it was a group of brave bipartisan people on the commission.

there were republicans. there were democrats. they turned into cowards, though, i guess at the last in it. that was our best hope for having a decent economic path for the united states. the president could have jumped in and done something about making the recommendations of the commission laws. but he wouldn't, he didn't. i blame him, but i also blame republicans. like paul ryan. so, we know exactly what to do. it's a myth that this is a big mystery on what to do to balance the budget. it's false. we know exactly what we can do. host: how did you feel when the budget control act was passed in 2011 and the automatic budget cuts, the sequester funding cuts that we heard about for the past eight years now? substitutewas a poor

for what the barack obama economic and -- commission, for what they came up with. a very poor substitute. it was a punishment act. couldh political faction garnish some area of the economy to make a point. if i had a dream, i would andnstitute that omission make the recommendations mandatory. there is one emergency thing i have an meaning to do, eliminate the department of education. let's be honest, the department of education was formed for one ,eason, to enforce segregation enforce integration. that has been done, except illinois and new york. so i would eliminate the

department of education or tell them -- prove that you are effective. as a matter of fact, for the department of commerce, prove that you are effective. if you are not, we will start cutting you like crazy. the waste of funds in the department of education and the education system is crazy. money they spend on football students. these teams are traveling at rustic country. what has that got to do with education? it's crazy what we do with our education dollars. we have a board of education for every county and every state. that is crazy, what do you need -- a board of education single county? i will tell you why. they can go to their education department for a big fat salary.

-- host:st: the obama the obama era commission you were referring to, the national mission on fiscal responsibility and reform, better known as the simpson bowles commission act in 2010, that is when that commission came together. more of your phone calls this morning on you would cut an budget. the federal dan, tacoma, washington is next. independent, go ahead. caller: i would eliminate all funding for enforcement of drug now calledare illegal drugs. it's a fundamental violation of human right. i would release all people from prison, from federal prison. for any drug offense, including dealing at any level. i don't know what funding i would decrease to get us from being such a crazy warmongering

-- crazy warmongering nation. i would like to move us towards a more persuasive course society. susan, virginia, republican, good morning. caller: thank you so much for holding this discussion. the reason why things didn't happen after the simpson bowles project was because the obama administration, the white house decided not to move on it. i wanted to wait out a fact. thank you so much for your time. host: any thoughts on in 2020 where you would in the recent federal spending? dennis, maryland, go ahead. thanks her having me, this is my first time calling, i'm 20 years old. you mentioned the $989 billion expended in defense.

a lot of that i think it goes without saying is going into conventional military defense. we need to start worrying about security.cyber there's this huge gash we have seen in our election system, homemade train have been hacked. these big companies, and in the public actor, to very is a need to put money into cyber security. it's one of these things that is talked about as much and could really harm our society. light is cyber security important to you? it's just the way we are going. technology, ai, advanced technology, it's going to become even more if part of our lives in every faction. as i'm growing up, when i'm your

age or whatever, i don't know how old you are, it's definitely going to be an even bigger part of our lives. host: what do you do, dennis? in school? caller: yeah, i'm in school. host: are you studying cyber security? caller: actually am studying history. history areind of you studying? what is focused going to be? caller: american history. host: thank you for the call this morning. it is a 30 day rule the ep are between phone calls, hope you join us again down the road. gloria is next, bakersfield, good morning. caller: hello? host: go ahead, you are on "the washington journal." , ok, firstould like of all i would like to mention two things first of all. in order for congress to balance

a budget, they have to stop anding taxpayer money uh, providing money for abortion throughout this country him, as well as for abortions for foreign countries. other governments outside of these governments, other governments, they need to protect first of all the u.s. citizens, ok? and they need to fix that immigration. they need to build the wall. .hey need to decrease education they need to build the wall on the southern border between the united states and mexico. they need to decrease education

of funds for all undocumented. are you there? host: yes, ma'am. caller: ok. they need to decrease money for all of these people that are undocumented. the schools are full of it, ok? -- i mean, first of all they have to take care of the citizens. and their constituents. that put themens in the government. host: that is gloria, bakersfield. onr seven -- this after 7:30 the east coast, this is one of the top -- topics we are tracking today in washington, a meeting of the so-called big four leaders on capitol hill along with the members of the trump administration, including

acting chief of staff mick mulvaney. talking about the budget caps and that limits your he also today, pentagon and intelligence officials are set to brief members of congress on the iranian threat that is happening later this afternoon. mcgann will not testify before the house judiciary committee. the house judiciary committee headset today as the date to hear from the warmer legal counsel in the white house. the white house and justice department issued a legal opinion yesterday saying that he could not be required to appear before the house judiciary committee and don mcgann, who has since left the administration through his lawyer said that he would abide by that opinion. also today a federal judge has upheld a subpoena for congressional overseers to see the trump financial records. here's the reporting from open of the washington post" about it, calling the ruling from the

district or judge for the district of columbia "crazy," saying he would appeal the ruling, calling it the totally wrong decision by an obama of to appointed judge. we will continue to monitor the reaction. minutes, more of your phone calls with you playing the role of federal budget maker. where would you increase and decrease spending if it were up to you? jimmy, california, democratic line, go ahead. caller: good morning, thank you for taking my call. concern is with the offshore contingency operations. host: the overseas contingency operations? caller: yes, sir. it's a huge part of the defense proposed budget. obama it that under was down to $60 billion and now we are of $200 billion.

most of the money goes to military contractors. you have had guests on before, i believe it was the inspector general in the iran-iraq conflict of the 2000's, the mess that was made of it, all the money that was waste it. this $189 billion goes to military contractors and hiring illegals from other countries to serve food to the troops, ridiculous contracts like that, just wasting our money. host: making sure we have the right numbers here, it's $174 billion in the presidents fiscal 2020 budget. go ahead. caller: that's still nearly three times what we spent just three years ago. we obviously have a lot of international conflicts that are getting escalated by this type of spending. i agree with the earlier caller that we need to stop the militarization of the world and

start spending that money on food for the poor of the world, education, thinking about i'm a change, the environment, these are much more existential threats to the country than anything that defense department is coming up with. i think the department of defense needs to be audited. it's a huge expense of the country. you get callers all the time talking about wasteful programs. so many of these defense programs, absolutely no accountability. and they have a lot of other problems him not even created by these military endeavors. how about a piece for that of a space force? our country is just going down the tubes in stupidity, thinking about the world in a very backwards way. we need to start thinking forward. where are all of the budget hawks that were so concerned about this huge military spending that just adds to the

deficit? where are all of the republicans that were so concerned about the national debt? i heard about it all the time until trump got elected, then we didn't hear a thing. host: the base pentagon budget next year, if the president's budget were enacted, would be $576 billion. what if no deal is reached to avoid the budget cap, that would go into effect in 2020, it would be taken down by $71 billion of automatic cuts going into effect on both the military side and the domestic side. the program budgets would be cut by $55 billion for -- if no plan is reached to avoid the budget caps. john, ohio, independent, good morning. thank you for taking my call, john. if i was in control, i would decrease all federal funding -- not decrease, eliminate federal

funding for illegal immigrants in this country. and i would increase the federal funding for the united states citizen. thank you for taking my call. how? what program would you give the money to? what's the best way to do that? caller: better medical, lower prescriptions. i just read the other day that there are only two bank countries in this world that toow the pharmaceuticals advertise to the general public. the united states of america and new zealand. thank you. host: this is hot springs national park, arkansas. democratic line, good morning. caller: yes, john. you know what, the united states is living on a credit card. we are wrote, basically. the budget, it's a $1 trillion

deficit on the budget this year, probably even worse next year. the money they are spending is borrowed money. it comes from people, from the sale of bonds, treasury bonds. cutting serious about back? they need to stop selling these treasury bonds. that way we have to live on what we have got coming into the treasury. but as long as they can sell the bonds to raise money, the national debt goes up and up, the budget deficit goes up and we keep on living on our credit card. if i may make one more point, the president in the piece that you showed earlier, talking about immigrants coming up from south and central america, we don't want them coming up? why not do something about it? he's not doing anything about them leaving central america. all they want to do is build a wall down there. we could put military bases across central america and help

the people fight the gangs and the drug problem down there and they would stop coming up here. we are not smart enough to do that. all we want to do is build a wall across texas year. that's all i have to say. i appreciate you taking my call. host: stick around, coming up in about 10 minutes we will be joined by one of your two senators from your home state. tom cotton will join us to talk about his new book, sacred duty, a soldiers to her at the arlington national cemetery." having that conversation from 8:00 until eight: 30 this morning. back to your phone calls, edna, republican, good morning. caller: the morning, how are you doing? host: doing well. go ahead, where would you increase and decrease spending if it were up to you? caller: i would decrease all the freespending, the medical problems, the welfare things. there's jobs, so many these

people not even working. our medical is so expensive. i have to pay so much co-pay. they sit on their behind's and work under the table, they need to stop it, go get a job. oute's paying jobs, go there and get to work if they are able. i'm not against anybody that can work, don't get me wrong, but this stuff, 50% of it is getting the foods amps and this other stuff. it needs to stop. they give it all to immigrants, that's ridiculous. host: social security, is that a good place to spend money? yours, i mean that's that's not nobody giving you that. you pay for that. but is unbelievable, there's a lot of fraud in the social security system. medicare, that's an awful thing, to. -- too.

i'm a nurse. when the government took over medicine, they split it down the range. get out of medicine, other people take care of it, it gets better. on mandatory spending this morning, like social security, the president's fiscal 2020 budget estimates that mandatory spending will be about $2.8 trillion in 2020, social security by far the biggest expense. billion,is next, $679 followed by medicaid. social security cost currently covered by payroll taxes and interest on investment. until 2010 there was more coming to thee london and think investments, the trust fund is still running at a surplus, but the board estimates that the surplus will be depleted by 2032. by the way, those numbers can be

, goingt the balance.com through the president's fiscal 2020 budget released this year. time for a few more of your calls. christine, new hampshire, independent line, go ahead. caller: good morning, how are you? host: doing well. caller: thank you for taking my call. i would increase money for social security. welfare federal spending, a lot of people out there are young, times weg, it's hard look into what's going on out there. i see a lot of people who just live on money from the federal government and they don't even bother with getting a job. decrease the spending, but you would have to increase looking into it. [laughter] caller: who is really on welfare

and who isn't, who deserves it. how much waste, fraud, and abuse is there in the system? earning yourer: own money, that's something i would love to do rather than expecting it check from the government every month when a reason, you know? host: a few more comments from facebook -- host: market is in florida, republican, good morning. caller: thank you for the my call. host: go ahead, sir.

caller: it seems more difficult than what's being reported in a way, idling either party has their act together and unfortunately people vote on party lines, both based on someone's gender, appropriateness for the job in which values are in amended or not. they vote for race, whether or not that makes sense as well. most are not brought up to speed on the issues. second thing, people i have traveled with, those who haven't been in on -- and other countries, they are the most common ones who say cut the defense spending. if you have seen some of these other countries where they are overrun by corrupt military and the druglords, you wouldn't be preset spending, you would increase it. host: on that point, what about assistance to needy countries in the world? asking the same question we're asking viewers, the largest response was those who said they

would decrease spending came in that category, 28% saying they decrease assistant to the navy in the world. when i was in a multinational company enough thrill you i had to get a visa that demonstrated that i had skills that a local australian prison visit. on the other hand, leaving immigrants into this country that education or a way of supporting themselves and they don't intend to. host: how do you feel about the president will or illegal immigration, moving a more merit system? i was sayings what with the us to thing. it has to be merit based. the harsh realities are that we cannot save everybody. it's like having a family with too many kids and your paycheck doesn't make it.

it's not going to happen. how can you really protect the people who have earned the right to be here? and how can you bring things in that will make this country improved? are willing to get an education, willing to work. later this morning at eight: 30 we will be talking about the president's proposal and the move towards more merit based immigration with sarah pierce. that discussion in about 35 minutes. ruby, callsign, oklahoma, next. caller:+ -- caller: i'm 91-year-old, i have been drawing from the social security are about 28 years. in, with what i put other people for a long time, i

mean if you live any length of time, you will get a lot more back you could have. where i would cut, one place i would cut is my understanding of trump is looking to send people to the moon and i don't see the sense. you won't be living on the moon. ok? host: did you hear about the president's proposal for a military branch focused on outer space? i don't think it's going to work out, not in the near future anyway. host: thank you for the call from oklahoma this morning. sarah, this, independent, you are next. caller: hello, good morning. host: good morning. i'm not quite so upset

about the spending or too particularly focused on increasing or decreasing. my focus is mainly on we should look at first where all the money is being allocated. whenever i talk to people, my fun example, because of my military background, was smoke detector's, making people understand just how much money we were spending in the bad britt -- and the bad business practices we were making in some of the parts that we need in the military and how we are not trying to find better prices. the smoke detector in your home is $30, but what i had to purchase in the military was $5,000. if you are building a brand-new place, 2.5 million dollars, dropping it down to what you buy 15,004 the same

around number for a small boy, you would be saving $2.45 million, which could then be allocated that are to better roads on the bases. the infrastructure, like the rest of the country, not that great. we still have buildings with asbestos. aworked in one building where fire alarm was out of service for the six-month that i worked there. things, because the money could be allocated towards. you had an interesting person --t week whether business where their business, the open the book's website, i would love to see more people in the government eating as meticulous in finding where the money is going and what it is the spent on. that website that we do for any department of our government,

whether it he department of defense, department of energy asian, just making sure that the money is being spent wisely and not being wasted. thank you for the call from texas this morning, sarah. time for one more call. amy, republican line, where would you increase and decrease spending? caller: good morning, i'm a first-time caller. i would start -- well, decreasing spending is never a vote getting topic for republicans, democrats, or independent. however there are things the can be done. first and foremost, social security, i believe, could have the age raised for the age at which you can collect that. that could begin with some of the younger generation that i'm a part of. secondly, if you make a certain threshold of money, of income,

really, you don't need social security. i think could have social security system for into the those who have not earned great income in their lifespan. the other i would look critically at our welfare programs. this is maybe a local level issue. for those collecting welfare, there should be mandatory drug define to help to whether the folks on welfare are using their financial resources in a way that will improve their family lives in their lives and if those folks are abusers of drugs, alcohol, cigarettes, i do not believe their finances are going to a wholesome cause to

improve life. >> if you're looking to make savings on social security and welfare, is there a place where you would put that money? we lost amy. our last collar in this first segment of washington journal. in this first segment of washington journal. coming up, tom cotton, the author of the new book, sacred duty, a soldiers tour at national arlington cemetery. later, we focus on a merit-based approach to immigration, we are joined by sarah pierce. stick around. we will be right back. ♪ >> sunday night on q&a, watch our interview with joanne freeman on her book, the field of blood.

congressmen in a mass brawl. guys throwing punches and spittoon's, a massive encounter. what was interesting to me is people looked at it at the time and what they saw was a group of northerners and southerners, lots of them armed, running at each other in the house of representatives and several of them said, this does not look like a normal flight. this looks like north against south, a battle. that is striking. indeed, it certainly did look like a battle and it is not that long before the civil war. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern on q&a. >> the house will be in order. >> for 40 years, unfiltered coverage of congress, the white

house, supreme court and public policy events from washington dc and around the country, so you can make up your own mind. 1979, c-spanble, brought to you by your local cable or satellite provider. c-span. your unfiltered view of government. >> starting memorial day, may 27, all week in primetime, c-span coverage of commencement ceremonies taking place at colleges across the country. speakers include elijah cummings, patrick shanahan, stacey abrams, president donald trump and sonia sotomayor. commencement coverage starts memorial day at 8 p.m. eastern on c-span, watch online anytime at www.c-span.org and listen on the free journal@c-span.org

radio app. >> washington journal continues. cotton served in the army in iraq and afghanistan and between tors he served with the infantry regiment, old guard at arlington national cemetery. he explains what will be happening thursday at the cemetery. guest: thank you for your interest. every thursday before memorial day, thursday is a normal working day in the cemetery, funerals performed at 3 p.m.. of the army,l unit the only time of the year old guard soldiers wear combat fatigues and the cemetery and carrying march in american flags. they have phase lines, timelines

and the mission is to place a flag at every single headstone and niche in the cemetery. every soldier buried in arlington, a quarter of a million graves will have a single moment with a new soldier currently wearing uniform to honor their sacrifice to our nation. host: is there a specific way to put the flags in? guest: there is a briefing before hand, operation order, overhead infantry, phase lines, tricks and techniques soldiers have. 2010, i was going down the rows, placing my flags at the headstone a foot, you use your foot to space it, it had not rained for a while. i asked young soldiers, how are you moving so fast? they asked me if i had a bottle cap.

i said, no. they looked at me with astonishment. is likea bottlecap, missing a rifle in iraq. i can understand why it was critical. you move faster. host: how did you go from combat in iraq to serving in arlington? story.different old guard has some of the strictest eligibility standards in army. they act on behalf of the nation at one of the highest profile locations. normally it is application, volunteer only. high standards. you have to have a ranger tab and airborne wings for officers. .n my final weeks, i got notice i went up to the call trailer, called the personnel officer.

they had hand selected six officers, because they were short, as so many units were strained in those days because the nation had given more missions to the army then personnel could handle and reasonable fashion. when your hand selected that typically means you have done something well or are being increasedgiven responsibility. there must be a lot of meet the criteria. how do you choose six? that they said, -- we chose the six tallest ones. hadmonths later, we all screaming eagle combat patches 6"7".raq and one was aboutsacred duty, talking it with the author, senator tom

cotton of arkansas, republican, joining us until 8:30 a.m. this morning. phone lines are different. active and retired military, (202)-748-8000. we want to hear from you. all others, (202)-748-8001. host: why did you think this book was needed now? guest: i was greatly honored to serve with the old guard in between iraq and afghanistan. i don't think i fully appreciated what a special place it has in the hearts of fellow citizens until i came to congress. thousands come to visit me every year. mostly, they stick around for days and see the sights in washington. for many, this is the first and only time they come to the capital. i asked them what the highlight of the tour was and they almost say, they almost always say, the tour of the national cemetery. good booknever been a

about the old guard, a rich and long story going back to 1784, three years before the constitution was written. i want to tell the story of the young soldiers of the old guard who have defended our country on the front lines and have performed that sacred duty in arlington to honor our fallen heroes. host: what is a no fail zero defect mission? guest: most missions get accomplished one way or another. sometimes easier, sometimes harder. for funerals, for all garden arlington, that is a no fail and zero defect mission. they perform up to 30 funerals per day. for every family, that is a unique once-in-a-lifetime moment. we take it with the greatest seriousness. we spend hours and hours preparing uniforms, building metal racks, perfecting our craft, folding flags, marching,

making seven rifle sound like one during the volley. for every family member, that is the last moment they will have with the united states army before they lay there loved one to rest. expection and army perfection in those moments. host: take us through the sequence of events when a u.s. soldier dies on a battle, say afghanistan, what happens leading up to that funeral? guest: i write about this in sacred duty. there is always someone with a soldier, accompanied by a servicemember of some kind. for instance, a soldier dies on the battlefield. there is no doubt he is killed in iraq. this happened to us in 2006. remains taken to a mortuary, usually at an airport, they will then be transferred to aircraft. these days, there is enough time

in capacity for a ramp ceremony. they will often be transferred from a vehicle converted to a battlefield hearse. lots of soldiers, other service partnerssome posts and will honor that soldier as he leaves on that airfield. dover's airds at force base. old guard takes over. i often flew on a black hawk helicopter with a six man team and a general officer as a distinguished visitor for these events, carried those remains often airplane, at the air force base after the old guard has conducted dignified transfer, remains under autopsy, they are prepared for final uniform, final presentation to the family and fellow mourners.

plot ismes, a family preferred. in many occasions, it has been in arlington, section 60, the internal home of those who have fallen in the war on terrorism. host: how long does it take? is fromhe high-priority the moment they die to the time they are interred, it is somewhat dependent on the family's wishes. two weeks is probably a good average. they can be faster depending on where the family is and where the person may have died overseas, maybe longer or shorter. host: tom cotton with us until 8:30 a.m. active and calls, retired military, (202)-748- 8000. all others, (202)-748-8001. we want to hear from you as we talk to the senator about his

new book, sacred duty. how long was your tour? how many funerals did you participate in? 2007-2008months, between iraq and afghan descent. 400 to 500 -- iraq and afghanistan. i performed 400 to 500 funerals. one of the old guard companies was deployed overseas when i was there. that put pressure on the old guard companies that stayed behind. we had to cut down on other missions, much less tactical training for soldiers. ra no fail zero defect mission. that does not stop for arlington. last december, during president bush's state funeral, funerals

proceeded every day in arlington for families. host: tom from princeton, new jersey, good morning. caller: good morning. hi, mr. kotten. -- mr. cotton. i served during the reagan .dministration looking for a job has been more and more difficult because we do not get recognized as a serving in the cold war, which in my opinion was the last war we actually won. we still signed on the line and dedicated our life to the country yet there is no veterans preference, nothing between 1975-1990, is really sort of lost. we don't get recognized on any job application. what is congress doing regarding

recognizing, even giving one preference point for soldiers that served during that era? host: thank you for your call and your service. --st: we want to earn of t we want to honor the service of all veterans. the cold war without firing a shot because of the brave men and women who wore the uniform in those days. if we have preferences, they should apply for all veterans. we have additional or heightened preferences for people who have been wounded in combat and are in purple heart. there is increasing recognition in society that veterans can do any job that requires leadership and management, even if they don't necessarily have skills or background in that specific industry or company, put a veteran in that job and they can pick up those skills.

what everyone else lacks is the lessons they learned in the military and in combat. responsibility, discipline, teamwork, acting in ambiguous circumstances. that is what i would tell my soldiers when they were worried about getting a job. you can apply all intangible lessons we learn in the army in almost any workplace setting. palms, california. larry. caller: good morning. patriotic but you stood by when this guy sitting in the white house called mccain not a hero. where were you? when trump called obama not a real president, where were you? i am pretty disgusted with you republicans. host: larry. guest: thank you for your service.

i believe john mccain served his nation valiantly and in particularly as a prisoner of war. i honor his service over many decades, first as a naval aviator, then a senator. i was privileged to serve from them. willie,tired military, louisiana. caller: good morning. i think god i got a chance to talk to this guy. about iran. to hear this guy talk like this, he needs to be whipped. deaths, iran, military how concerned are you about a new shooting war? guest: i am very concerned. the reason we are sending new aircraft carriers, b-52 bombers, patriot missile-defense systems is not to take military action. it is to stop military action by iran.

if iran struck the united states, there would be two strikes. what i mean is we will not provoke military action. iran would be taking the first type. if they take it, we will retaliate ferociously. that would be the last strike. we can totally destroy iran's military. host: what can you tell us about the briefing today? guest: secretary of state and director of cia will be there, maybe other officials will be there as well. as a member of the intelligence committee, i have been following it carefully every day for the last three weeks. i can tell you, there is increased and more intense reporting about the threats we face from iran through their own forces and proxy forces. there are multiple credible threats. that is one reason why our military took actions of deploying additional carriers

and missile-defense systems to the region. we hope that will have a deterrent effect from iran making a grave mistake. that is the reason we postured additional weapons in the middle east. host: tom cotton with us for the next 10 minutes, his new book, now theuty is released head of a very important weekend -- released now ahead of a very important weekend, memorial day. yorktown is an important place for members of the u.s. military. jan, retiredginia, military. caller: thank you. i am a retired navy nurse. desert storm era. went, had awhen we

, whene in saudi arabia i am sureame down, you remember -- we had a service at the airport and the military was flown back to america to be interred in various areas of the world. i am saddened by what is happening today. i want people to know i am a peacekeeper. i believe that we should really try not to get involved in the saudi arabia area and let them handle their own problems. we can support them from afar. let me tell you, we need to get off the oil and onto more energy efficient areas. guest: thank you for your service, jan.

that is exactly what we are trying to do. over the last couple weeks, we weapons todditional avoid the terry conflict from happening in the first place. if we had taken -- avoid military conflict from happening in the first place. threatsd taken seriously in the first place, we could have aborted that war in the first place. host: when it comes to the war on terror, you note in your book, the old guard at arlington were some of the first uniformed soldiers on the battlefield in the war on terror in 2001. guard was old probably the first army regiment deployed on 9/11.

yardson, a couple hundred across washington boulevard from the southeastern corner of the cemetery. when the airline lasted into the pentagon, funerals were already underway. this is another example of no fail zero defect mission. they continued all day. -- for everygarch oligarch soldier not committed to doing funerals that day, they were sent to the pentagon. helped sort through debris to make sure loved ones got back --sonal effects, wallace wallets, keys, and so forth. they were at the pentagon for a month after 9/11. funerals continued.

for 30 days, they were on that first battlefield of 9/11. host: jimmy, active or retired military, washington, d.c.. i go to arlington every month. service member shall never be forgotten. i appreciate senator tom cotton's obligation. it is a religious place for me and my family. it is inspiring. me that c-span has invited tom cotton on the show. senator cotton, take your nose out of it. always itching for war with iraq, not to mention john bolton. you never met a war you didn't like, did you? guest: thank you for your service and thank you for what you do, visiting those in

arlington. the reason i think we need a firm stance toward iran and other adversaries like china and russia, as so we do not have more wars. so there are not more young soldiers, like i was, or others today who have to fly to the air force base and carry those remains often aircraft. aircraft. host: how often do you get a chance to visit arlington cemetery? guest: a lot of us have been back a lot over the last month. for the last year, dozens and dozens of times as i researched this book. fortimes i go for funerals arkansasans who are there. some of the young soldiers i have met have special occasions in the cemetery.

the two guards, when they are leaving, the old guard will perform a last walk, the tomb of the unknown soldier. i was there last month for a young sergeants last walk. i tried to go regularly. there,rom your service through your time is senator, is there one funeral you remember in particular? guest: every funeral is unique. it is the families only chance to lay their loved one to rest. one funeral that stands out in my mind, that so unusual, nothing i ever experienced like 40. the funeral for ez a black hawk helicopter shot down in 2007, all members perished. the army took many months and work hard to identify remains. there were still some commingled, unidentifiable remains. burialas a group

in 2007. 12 of us stood at the head of the casket bearing flags. there were hundreds and hundreds of family members and other mourners, four-star generals, large media contingent in section 60. that funeral stands out. there was so unusual, such a large group burial for active-duty soldiers who had perished overseas. host: retired military, petersburg, virginia, stewart. caller: i served in the nato strikeforce in germany in 1962 and i was part of the virginia national guard. do they still retrieve soldiers from vietnam and korea from dogtags? you give of service do a soldier identified by dogtags? agencythere is an entire

in the pentagon called the dod pow mia county agency. they employ hundreds of experts, forensic scientists, anthropologists and they're working all around the world to try to identify soldiers from every conflict where we still have missing soldiers, world war ii, korea, vietnam. it is a regular occurrence. you can go on their website and find their releases on a weekly basis of the remains of soldiers who have been identified. they are given the same treatment a soldier killed in iraq or afghanistan. i've been to many funerals where the old guard is performing a funeral for a soldier killed in .orld war ii, korea, vietnam sometimes, those funerals are

small. they do not have any relatives. someone killed in world war ii, 18 years old, did not have a wife or children -- in some ways those funerals are as much for us, the living, as they are to honor those who died. we want to commemorate their service and lay them to rest on their own soil. all those young soldiers are looking at the way we honor our fallen heroes from 70 years ago. they know they take away from that the lessons our nation will pay any price, they will never stop looking for those fallen on the battlefield. it is a powerful message. host: a couple minutes left with you. president trump's introduction last week of his new overall overhaul of the immigration system in this country. you have worked on that effort. are you supporting the president's plan? guest: i think it is a step in the right direction.

i want to review the text. we need to move away from our current system, which does not prioritize jobs and skills, to one that does. is the blueprint for what the president has proposed. it would eliminate quotas in the system and prioritize simple criteria that is objective and easy to apply toward success in the economy. english speaking ability, age, education at higher levels in fields like science or in fields like science or thateering, a job offer already pays more than average wage in your local community, that would be very good for our economy. we need folks like doctors, engineers and computer scientists. but it would also be good for blue-collar workers, folks who work on their feet and hands all day long, who are finally starting to see their wages go up and don't need to see any

wave of low skilled immigrants come to this country to compete with their jobs. host: i understand that the raise acts would seek to cut the overall immigration level in this country. the president's immigration bill would not do it, that would just change the system? guest: the number of overall immigration i think we are at almost record numbers of foreign-born residents in this country almost one in seven. and most of those came here without any reference to their job skills. that is one reason why blue-collar workers have not had a prerace for many years because there are too many people here in this country competing for low skilled jobs. was to get the immigration system right, a system that is focused on the high skilled workers renate, that will be subject to negotiations in congress. host: jerry from pennsylvania, go ahead. caller: gary, actually. you mention immigration.

i was in the service. , did not see any actual combat but i was in harms way for a while. i won't speak to other veterans, but one of the reasons i felt that one of the things i was fighting for was the integrity of our borders. on that.id the other point i want to make is about the media. a few months ago, not that long, they reported that mr. trump had authorized a payment of $2 million to the chinese for health care for someone they did send back in a coma, i believe his name was warmbier. then, it was retracted. this morning, they reported that

an alligator was found on the blowup raft but the reporter made a point of pointing out that they had verified the picture. host: we have run out of time. i want to give sen. cotton: .ast-minute guest: you do have to defend your borders as a nation. the old guard has spent time on the southern border, it was considered a genuine threat .uring world war i pancho villa,.

host: tom cotton, we appreciate the time. guest: thank you. host:, returned to the immigration debate and talk about pres. trump's new plan to move to a new legal immigration approach. next we will be joined by sarah pierce from the migration policy institute, than later, we will be joined by the delegate from washington, d.c., eleanor holmes norton. will be right back. ♪

announcer: starting memorial week, c-spanall has coverage of commencement ceremonies taking place at colleges and universities across the country. featured speakers include maryland representative elijah cummings, acting defense secretary patrick shanahan, former georgia minority leader, stacy abrams, president trump, and supreme court justice sotomayor. watch online anytime at c-span.org, and listen on the free c-span radio app. book, theewest presidents, noted historians mark america's best and worst chief executives. through stores governed by

interviews with noted presidential historians, explore the life events that shaped our leaders, challenges they faced, and the legacies they left behind. order your copy today. he spins the presidents is now available as a hardcover or e-book that c-span.org/thepresidents. , watchay night on q&a our october 2018 interview with yale university historian joanne , violence inr book congress and the road to civil war. >> a mass brawl. it enough itself it was traumatic, guys throwing punches, a massive counter. but what was really interesting to me was people at the time looked at it and what they saw was a group of northerners and a group of southerners running at each other in the house of

representatives. several of them said, this does not look like a normal congressional fight, this looks like north against south, this looks like in battle. and that is really striking. it certainly did look like a battle, and it was not that long before the civil war. announcer: sunday night at 8:00 eastern on the skins q&a -- c-span q&a. announcer: washington journal continues. host: sarah pierce is on your screen. she is a policy analyst at the migration policy institute. she joins us to discuss president's new plan for a legal immigration system. take us back to 1965, to the immigration and nationality act, and how that created the immigration system that we have today. guest: it is kind of incredible that this act that passed in 1965 is still going. back in 1965, they made the decision to make it more

family-based. it was based on racial and ethnic concerns. they wanted to keep the united states looking howard looked in 1965. and they thought that if they skewed and more towards family-based immigration, that would happen. way.did not turn out that we have a very diverse country thanks in part to family-based immigration. host: how much of the illegal immigration in this country is based on family ties and how much is merit-factored in right now? guest: right now, two thirds of the immigrants that get a green cars each year our family-based. the rest are a mix between humanitarian migrants -- asylum seekers or refugees, and then, employment-based. employment-based is about 12% of the green cards we develop it year. host: so with that base of knowledge, how would the trunk plan released last week, how would it change the

system? guest: first of all, it would skew it more toward this idea of an economic stream of migrants, which right now is 12% of our system. that would increase it to 57%, majority economic stream migrants. it also would change how we go about getting those migrants. right now we have an employer-led system. employers are choosing the migrants who come in on our employer-based immigration system. president trump wants to make it a point-based system, where the government would decide how to allocate the point, which type of education it would prefer, what kind of skills it would prefer, and then look at the total pull of interested migrants and likely skim off the top. host: we are having this discussion with sarah pierce from the migration policy institute. democrats can join us on

202-748-8000 republicans, 202-748-8001,, an independents, 748-8002, and then we have 48-8003. line, 202-7 what are the arguments for and against moving toward a marriage-based system? where do they think this will take the country? guest: a lot of countries have the point-based system. for example, canada, australia and new zealand. they have had success with that. so i think the president is trying to re-create that system. it is very successful. it is very transparent. our current system is complicated, so the idea of a transparent system would increase public trust in the system.tion the disadvantages are numerous

for the united states, though. right now, to have a point-based system that functions well, you need to be input to assess the to be a that you need would to assess the outcomes according to market needs. the u.s. government is not a very. flexible entity. we value that our government moves slowly, we don't like to see quickchange. so the u.s. government is not -- is note while really built right now to implement this system on other countries with the system, are the nimble enough to make these changes, and if so, how? guest: not only are they nimble enough, they have their research to do this. canada has conducted long-term studies of immigrant outcomes. they look at where those immigrants are moving, what type of field so they are going to, are they being underemployed, over employed, and how is that meeting the labor market demands. the u.s. has no similar studies

of the immigrants coming to the united states, so we don't have the research off of which to decision. host: outside of a merit-based system, what are the other aspects of the plan released by the trump administration? guest: it had a large border security. issue he incorporated strict changes to the southern border, including asylum at the southern border because that is a huge concern. it would also drastically reduce the ability of immigrants to andtion for their family relatives. right now, u.s. citizens can petition for their parents, siblings, espouses and children. the presidents plan would limit --to minors and children limit it to minor children. host: if you are joining us, sarah pierce is here from the migrant policy institute.

roland from maryland, go ahead. caller: during the time of george bush and reagan, they give amnesty and the economy of the country move forward, because then, the immigrants in this country paid a fine, but it helps the economy. been inpeople who had this country for so long and up traveling out, buying tickets to the to their home country, then they register companies, and establish, they are able to get social security. but with the current system, the 20 million people in this country, nobody is talking about them. we know that they are illegal aliens who are here, and they overstay their visa, now we are talking of daca, of a points system, but what about the people currently in the system? guest: he makes a good pointp

the president could have. a comprehensive reform of our immigration system. but it ignored key aspects, including unauthorized immigrants in the united states. we have closer to 11 million unauthorized immigrants in the united states, and the plan does not speak to them at all. it is true that in the past, we have had legalization and we have seen economic benefits from this legalization. right now the immigrants in the united states who are not authorized to work frequently have to work being paid under the table, which is brought for u.s. wages and for the labor market. so legalization programs do economy, boost to the and the president has not addressed that yet. host: a caller last week on the program said that the number of illegal immigrants has been 11 million for years now. how is that possible. there have been many coming into this country, how does it stay

at that number? guest: i think it is important to point out that we had a huge economic recession in 2008 that really drastically reduced the number of unauthorized immigrants coming into the country. if we don't have jobs for them, they will not come in. waysve a small amount of unauthorized immigrants can legalize. u.s. nationals, unauthorized immigrants move home, or they die and pass away. so we have had a pretty study population.- steady host: patricia in minneapolis, republican. good morning. caller: good morning. unauthorized immigrants. they are illegal immigrants. recently there was an article --t sayed that they did some that said that they did some testing on children that adults were claiming were there's, and it turns out they aren't their children.

with family immigration, how do we know that there are family? may consider everybody is their family. we need to protect our borders. -- they can say that anybody is their family. we need to protect our borders. pretending that they are unauthorized, just be honest, they are illegal immigrants in bidding or country. guest: so patricia is talk into the movement of the southern border, a massive amount of asylum-seekers, unprecedented numbers of families and unaccompanied children. the administration has been concerned that some of these families are fraudulent, that they are claiming to have children who aren't actually there's. so the president implemented dna testing along the southern border. in reality, the testing has not been implemented across the full length of the border, but it is a small percentage of the

families coming in who have been found to be fraudulent. it is true that fraudulent families are a concern when we are talking about legal immigration, people petitioning for their family members to come here. be the u.s.c.i.s. has a variety of different ways that they check these relationships, looking at the documentation, interviewing the applicants, different things like that. host: casper from wyoming on the independent line. caller: good morning. explain to this woman that this is america. and you can go anywhere in this americannd find homeless veterans who fought for our country that are not receiving any benefits.

and that us as taxpayers that are americans do not want our money going to foreigners who break our laws by breaking into the front door of our houses. they have no right. host: miss peers, can you talk ms. pierce, can you talk to that? guest: so public benefits have been a huge part of that discussion. in reality, immigrants don't qualify for public benefits, until they have are agreed cardholders -- until they have been green card holders for five years. and i think there's also the concern that the u.s. immigration system is a tax on u.s. nationals, and if the president is moving toward this s,re economic stream immigrant

what will be the effect on the u.s. nationals? that is always a concern in the immigration system and something that the president has to answer to. host: when you say for the most part they aren't receiving benefits what are some ways of getting around that? guest: there are different states that allow certain immigrants to receive benefits, may be at certain times in their life. for example, children or pregnant women frequently are able to receive stage benefits. those states have decided that looking at a cost-benefit analysis, and benefits of them overall to care for their residents and provide these benefits. host: the department of homeland security's systematic alien verification for entitlements system. can you explain what that is and when it is used? guest: yes. it is used to ensure that anyone entitled for benefits, anyone applying for benefits, that benefit agency should be running

the individuals information through the save system to ensure the individual is legally entitled to receive the benefits. host: one was the system set up? guest: unfortunately, this is getting outside my area of expertise, i don't know, but we have had it for a long time. host: on the democrats line, good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i find myself in the position my aging parents are american residents and citizens, and my wife's aging parents are citizens and residents of a different country. so i am curious if the switch from family-based, to merit-based would result in a proportional decrease of family to support the increase of merit-based, and whether or not the family-based reduction would be based on the size of the applicable number of family or ifs that can apply,

immediate family would be unaffected. guest: that is a good question. the president's line would reduce the number of family-based immigrants come get it year. presidents-- the plan would reduce the number of family-based immigrants coming in its year. so her wife would not be allowed to petition for her parents in the new plan. host: and the term the administration is using is the build america. what else should people know about the build america visa? guest: it would be a points-based system, favoring, giving out points to workers who are younger, who have a certain specialized skill, advanced education, will would be paid higher wages or who have a promise of helping the u.s. economy. host: 10 minutes left with sarah

pierce of the migration policy institute, it is migrationpolicy.org. . eric in virginia, on the republican line good morning. caller: hello. i would like to make a comment about the immigration policy. according to some data i looked 2017, theked like united states admitted 1.1 6 million illegal immigrants, which accounts for a little more than 3000 numeral immigrants per day, every single day of the year -- 3000 illegal immigrants legal immigrants per day. where is that number, where is stop? >> where is the line going to be drawn on how many people can come to this country? the other thing i would like the guest comment on, what other countries have a policy where if you are born, simply born in that country, you automatically

become a citizen, and you can bring other people into the country and become a citizen, or you can migrate to that country and easily become a citizen by staying there over a particular period of time, because i don't think that gets enough. information think the united states policy has been beaten by the media and its opponents, but they leave out the simple fact that what other country does what we do? i would like to know from the guest? guest: he brings up two interesting issues. right now the current level of immigrants is that 1.1 million each year, that is how many green cards to give out annually. the president's proposal is to actually keep that number the surprising.is president trump is a first president in modern times to actually advocate for reducing legal immigration. most presidents may not be right through a positive lens, but they have always viewed immigration, legal immigration

three positive lens. but president sees it -- the president sees it as a economic threat to the united states. but this wiki is saying that will keep the level the same but skew it to a more economic base. general position on immigration has opened up the conversation on what is the best level. senator tom cotton has advocated for drastically reducing the number of illegal immigrants. i think going forward, before anything passes in congress, there will be a broad conversation on what level of legal immigration is next. the other question he brought up is that when people come to the united states, or born in the united states, they are automatically given u.s. citizenship. the u.s. is actually in the minority for having this type of system. most countries, if you are just born there, you are not necessarily given citizenship in that country. there is a lot of reasons for

it. it is part of our u.s. tradition and constitution, so it would be very hard to change. also, a lot of scholars associated with good immigrant integration outcomes. immigrants who come here, their families quickly become part of fabric.ion's host: and we still have the line for those who are recipients of work visas in this country. we would like to hear your stories and how you managed the process. the number is 202-748-8003. mary is an independent from college park maryland, good morning. caller: good morning. can you tell us a bit of history, even before the 1960's, of what the immigration policy was. specifically, was there a time where people could just arrived to the united states and go through ellis island, that they could just legally reside here? was there a time like that, and if so, what was the evolution of

how immigration got stricter? guest: that is a good question. i am afraid i am not in a good position to speak to the details for a but you are right, while, the u.s. borders were just open. if you entered the united states, you could easily immigrate. we did not start putting levels on immigration until the early 1900s, and 1965 is the first time we really implemented a full-blown immigration system in which we were regulating who was in.ng before 1965, the system was largely nationality-based. we were working to keep the united states looking like it did, which is essentially white and caucasian. time65, that was the first we took a step away from that and created this system that was family and less economic driven. host: what and who spur of the change in 1965?

guest: a lot of it was related to the civil rights movement. the idea that we had a system that was racist in place. it was looking at the face of the united states and trying to keep the face the same. it made a lot of people uncomfortable as we were also struggling with civil rights in the united states. that spur-of-the-moment toward immigration and nationality act. host: in clinton township, michigan, lorraine. caller: thank you for taking my call. we have so many people, americans that are living on the street, that are really hungry and yet you say that none of their tax dollars go to support the people that are coming in illegally. i don't see them on the streets, i don't see them begging for food. could you explain to me who is feeding them, and who is helping them? thank you? guest: this is a difficult

question to answer. always thethere's position of u.s. national suffering and the idea of why we do bring immigrants when there are u.s. national suffering. there have been a lot of studies done found that immigration grows the u.s. economy, and it really helps all of us in the end. so it is hard to juxtapose suffering u.s. nationals with immigrants on a very direct basis. host: a question from twitter. under president trump's plan, what would happen to agriculture in this country? don't have plenty of land to cultivate, and would that not help our economy and future to bring in more people for agriculture? guest: agriculture is always a huge question when it comes to immigration because our system is so dependent on immigrants especially unauthorized

immigrants. they form a large portion of the population that is actually working in a culture. his plan as he vocalized it did not include any acknowledgment of the agricultural industry. but the fact is right now, just working off the president's speech, the white house is working on a more detailed legislation. so in the coming weeks, we will know more and see there is an agricultural component. host: wayne from reidsville, georgia on the republican line, go ahead. caller: good morning. host: good morning. i amr: my comment is this, kind of looking at this from a different view. for years, we have had an immigration problem, and we have had elected officials who have done nothing about it. why do we hold the elected officials to have been up there accountable0 years and start deleting their

monetary status, and have them come up with a better policy that we have now? that is my comment this morning. i work a job for 30 something years, and i was accountable for all of my actions. yet the people we have elected, which have not held accountable. host: wayne, thank you for the call. guest: you bring up a really good point. congress has struggled with this for a long . the last time we had change on legislation on immigration was 1990, so it has been three decades. and of course, congress has struggled many times in the past, most recently in 2006, 2007, 2013, to try to tackle our immigration system. a politically difficult issue for congress.

unfortunately, i don't have a lot of optimism that they will change anything anytime soon. host: last call john in oregon, a democrat. caller: good morning. this will be interesting. area is a family and our that in the beginning of may migrated to canada. one of the parents was under the tps from nicaragua, the mother was under daca, but she is a pharmacist. so she is contributing to our country. so to me, in terms of this idea of a marriage-based, it is imbalanced -- merit-based is imbalanced. it is not looking at the total picture of the family and also the potential of that child in

this family. thank you. host: thanks for the call. guest: i think he touches on some interesting points. there is a lot of discomfort merit-based, the idea that our current flows of family-based immigrants are somehow not merited or do not merit the status they are given. that is likely something we will suffer with going forward and talking about this issue. also the fact that canada has this very functioning and quite confident immigration system, while the u.s. is still struggling even to legalize the 11 million unauthorized immigrants we have in the united states right now, and some of those immigrants, as you mentioned, are skilled. that woman was a pharmacist. and perhaps under the president new system, she would qualify. right now, i think canada benefits frequently from the

fact that the u.s. has such a dysfunctional immigration system, and they are increasingly getting skilled immigrants that would have been interested in coming to the united states had they been able to. host: for much more from the migration policy institute, the website is migrationpolicy.org. sarah pierce is a. policy analyst there. thank you for joining us. guest: thank you for joining me. host: up next, we talk about efforts to craft a new $2 trillion infrastructure package with delegate eleanor holmes norton from washington, d.c.. we will be right back. ♪

announcer: sunday night on q&a, watch our october 2018 interview with yearly university historian joanne freeman on her book "the field of blood,: violence in congress and the civil war" ?>. , it is justching guys were punching, he was aggressive encounter. bubble was interesting to me was that people looked at it and what they saw was a group of northerners and a group of southerners often armed, running after each other in the house of representatives. and several said, this does not look like a normal flight, this looks like north against south. this looks like a battle. and that is really striking. and indeed, it certainly did. it was not that long before the civil war. announcer: sunday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span's q&a.

♪ order.house will be in announcer: for 40 years, c-span has been providing unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court and public policy events from washington, d.c. and around the country, so you can make up your own mind. created by cable in 1979, c-span is brought to you by your local cable or satellite provider. span. you unfiltered view of government. ♪ announcer: washington journal continues. host: congresswoman eleanor now.s norton joins us she is a member of the house transportation and infrastructure committee, where she serves as the chair of the highway and transit committee. democrats in the house are preparing to meet again in the white house with the president to craft this infrastructure bill. where would the money go, and

how would you pay for it? guest: the first question is one that has stumped congress for about 25 years now. there has not been any increase in what we have been relying on, the so-called gas tax. in 25 years, it has lost 40% of its value. in fact, we passed a bill for years ago, and the majority of that money came out of the treasury. that is not the way it is supposed to work, it is supposed to work as a user fee. those who use the roads pay for the roads. there is an efficiency now with gas, and that does not pay for the roads. we are really working off a transportation funding mechanism created in the eisenhower era. it is about time to bring this into the 21st century. but in order to do so, congress has to have the guts to

understand that you can't pay for highways, roads and transit without money. just can't be done. host: president trump was asked about the transportation negotiations the infrastructure negotiations on fox news. this is what he had to say. >> that you still want the big infrastructure? >> i do. but i think we are being played by the democrats a bit. they want me to say that i will raise taxes and do this and this and this. and then they will have a news conference -- see, trump wants to raise taxes. so i think it is a bit of a game. yes, i would like to have a infrastructure. but we need to have it on the right terms. i do like it, we have to or roads in our bridges. and it creates a lot of jobs. host: congresswoman norton, would you like trump to raise taxes? guest: the user fee is not a tax. the way we are funding the roads and bridges now is attacks on the american people, because the

user fee has not been raised in more than 25 years. the majority of the bill that we funded for years ago came out of the treasury. so that really is a tax, if you want to call it that way. the american people, even those who don't use the roads. so now, mr. trump, we would not raise taxes. in fact, during the eisenhower era, america found a way to tax, if you want to call it that, those who use the roads, and have not raised that. the past chair of the full committee propose an increase in that tax before he left congress voluntarily, an increase of the user fee by 15%.

but it is interesting that the republican chair, the democrats took over the house in the next best we are five months into a democratic house now -- it is interesting that as he voluntarily decided to retire is when he proposed an increase in the user fee. host: bc delegate eleanor holmes norton will be with us until the bottom of the hour this morning taking your calls. she is a senior member of the in frustration and transportation -- infrastructure and transportation committee. to us,would like to talk the democrats, 202-748-8000, republicans, you can call independents,and 202-748-8002. what would you do if you were able to get the infrastructure deal in place? guest: as we go around this region, the district of maryland

d.c. region, our roads and bridges are falling apart. transportation and infrastructure, particularly infrastructure, is how we made america into an economic power. the longer we wait. to put our roads and bridges together, the more we risk 's standing asld an economic power. seldom does the public make a link between what makes this country strong internally and what makes it strong in the world. this is a complex country, spanning from one ocean to the next, having to move goods and services quickly in order to maintain our economy. so that if the means of moving those goods is not kept up to

date, that reflects directly on your economic standing and on your economy. host: how much do you think we should focus on fixing the infrastructure already there versus investing in new trends transact technologies and different -- new transit technologies? guest: we have gone to the point where if you don't do all the above, we are in trouble. what we have got is falling apart. they will cost a great deal more to rebuild it from you. we are having to do that on the frederick douglas bridge here in the nation's capital, moving from the nation's capital to parts of virginia and maryland. they are having to construct a whole new bridge because they could not fix the bridge. so you have got to maintain what you have. areon the grid

possibilities that were not even thought of just four years ago when we did this bill. technology was not even a part of what we did. specialcy and resiliency in roads and bridges, we did not think of resiliency, we just thought of getting it done. alternative. modes of transportation that you have to make room on the roads for scooters, bicycles, uber, lyft, the kinds of transportation that are moving people rapidly but not in their own cars. to think that those issues were agoeven a part four years of our transportation and ill tellscture b you just how far we have to go this time, and we are stuck on stupid. we are stuck on money at the moment. that means you have hearings on the issues we are discussing this morning.

they have been subject of hearings throughout the house of representatives and inside our subcommittee and full committee. host: we have john calling from maryland. good morning. morning.es, good i have a couple of questions on your topic this morning. first, i just don't think congress has any credibility ,hen it comes to spending money whether you want to call it a user fee, a gas tax, or whatever, how are my guaranteed the money will actually spent on what i was intending it for? i think congress has a long history of spending away the money they get their hands on for different purposes. so i really don't have a lot of trust there. also, what is the congresswoman's position on how the budget should be split between federal, state and local. host: thank you for the

question. guest: that was a very good question. at a thick you have to worry about the money being squirreled think you have to worry about the money being squirreled from the user fee, that money goes straight to the trust fund. there is a trust fund. that is one issue you don't have to worry about. reporters have raised their user fees, but he have to have a federal much to do so. -- you have to have a federal match to do so. even without the federal government having raised the user fees, without congress having done their part, states have done their part, because they are accountable to the people at the local level. host: how many states have done that on their own? guest: about three quarters. host: and then the other

question was about how you split between federal and local and state. guest: typically there will be dated when i first came to the committee was headed by a republican and i saw the way they did it a percent paid for by the federal government from the user fee and 20% by the state. that was what made sense. nobody complained about it. host: my from miami, good morning. caller: good morning. so i just wanted to comment on, i am in ohio, and a lot of the roads are always going up with construction, and we definitely need more funding for the roads from the federal government, because it has been so much construction going on on the interstates, for years and years, i just think that the president needs to spend

less time attacking members of congress and get to work on what he was talking about on the campaign. but i guess he has definitely the all the money with taxes. it is important that we get the roads, the funding for these roads. kind of like with the toll roads, we have to get the fees higher for those so that it can go towards that funding. that is not common for the day. when he sees construction going on, that is probably being paid for by the state's increase in its own user fees. states have not been able to wait, but they can get to where this caller one less they cannot get to where this caller wants us to get if the federal government does not do their part. the fact that states have taken

leadership on roads spending from one part of the country to the other, tells you just how far behind the congress and federal government are to where the states want us to be. host: the have about 15 minutes left with delegate eleanor holmes a democrat representing washington, d.c. with us on the phone lines, as the reviewers found out, if you are in the eastern or central 202-748-8000, if you are in the mountain or pacific time zones, it is 202-748-8001. the last caller brought in president trump. there is a story in politico about pelosi crashing with democrats, reported as rebuffing calls for impeachment from some of her fellow sunni members. this is not about politics but about what is best for the american people. i wonder where you stand on the issue of impeachment. guest: if i had written a -- i waspiece on this

a constitutional lawyer before coming to congress -- if you look at impeachment i am afraid most of us don't recognize the process. impeachment requires essentially an indictment by the house. impeachment doesn't occur until the senate tries the case. the senate is controlled by republicans. , and speakert nancy pelosi, i believe she is resisting calls for impeachment because she understands that not too long ago, we tried impeachment within the lifespan andost of your viewers, yes, we got as far as the indictment, and we did not convict. to go halfway increases the popularity, or did at that time, of president clinton. it increases the popularity of the president in

power. so if the whole point of impeachment is to get rid of the president, that does not do it. we have got to do what speaker pelosi is doing, think this entire process through. why do you want it? to be one it because we want this president -- we want it because you want to this president out of office. will impeachment to do it? there has never been a president thrown out of office because of impeachment. there is only one way to get him out of office, and that is the 2020 election. host: from johnstone, pennsylvania wrong, good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to see more use for high-speed rail, instead of spending a billion dollars for a wall. is way overdue -- four $8 million for a wall.

this country has a rail system that is averaging 45 miles per hour, and i would like to see some of that money -- and also, the callers who talked about taxes. you can't do all the infrastructure with cutting taxes, you have to raise taxes, sometimes to get what you want, especially with disasters and everything else. i am a rea and i feel like amtrak is being shortchanged. host: where is the best place for a high-speed rail rhine in this country -- rail line in this country? caller: where i live in georgetown, we used to have about trains a day, 20 of them. we could use more from pittsburgh to chicago. i think it is really a shame that everything is in the northeast corridor. there should be better transportation in a lot of other cities. there is a lot of bigger cities than johnstone o'donovan have rail service anymore -- then

johnstone who don't even have rail service anymore. guest: you are right on target. the united states is the only advanced power which does not have high-speed rail. that is what i mean by losing your economic place in the world. thereas taken us so long, is some work being done in this corridor, is what we were discussing when we talked about the user fee, you have to have some investment in order to get high-speed rail and we have not done it. not only have we not done it, we have not made any significant investment in high-speed rail. says, sometimes you have to raise taxes. new york state has probably raised the user fees. i think if congress, members of congress were afraid of raising

taxes, as, of course, we have seen for decades, they need only look at what their owns rates have done. evil not get a high-speed rail, you will not even on roads and bridges which you use every day fixed, unless you are willing to , in this case, not raise taxes, raise of user fee so that those who use the roads pay the cost of traveling on those roads. host: to lancaster, california, glenn. caller: good morning. instead of another continued resolution, you guys should write a budget of, start working for the american people instead of yourself. here is something you can do, instead of infrastructure, since we already have these taxes on using the privilege to use our we could fix our factories.

we could instead of this green new deal, we could build stuff , and we couldin have more workers. we would not need to raise another dying in taxes, we could bring the 11 million, which is probably 30 million people out of the shadows and taxes them. because you work so hard for the people that are here in this black-market economy, we contacted them, not just a user tax. we could taxes on like you tax the american -- we could tax american you tax the citizens so they can pay into social security and medicare is that of draining it. host: glenn brings up a couple of different topics there. , when heenn is i think talks about factories and building america, he is taking

us to an america that has moved offshore. costlybecome more because of the cost of labor and the cost of doing business in this country, to engage in the kind of manufacturing that frankly make the american middle ii.s after world war so in order, therefore, to class, and wedle are not doing that very well, with people working two or three jobs often just to maintain their status, we have got to do different kinds of building in america. that is why you see lots of work done in technology, young men and women who used to go into factory work will now go into work.vel technology so you are absolutely right, we are seeing a major transformation in our economy, which means it transformation in

skills will be necessary. that is why you see for example states beginning to offer two-year college training free. ourle are recognizing that young people will not be able to even operate, to work, in a new economy, if they look to get jobs in our factories or in the america that built america, and no longer can do so because those jobs have moved to other parts of the world. . host: he also brought up the green new deal. have you taken a position on the green new deal? guest: i think the green new much ballyhooed about nothing. sections of the deal are i think what most of us agree about, which is climate change. when you talk about a green new deal, which is this great umbrella of issues, you really lose people.

because it is harder for members of congress, much less the focus on so many issues at once. so i would advise people to understand that the green new deal is one way of looking at is the very needs long-term, and not a way to look in thissociety needs term of congress before 2020. host: from alabama, good morning. caller:. good morning senator holmes norton. you really explain what i was going to come with, because people are always thinking that president trump is doing this not. jobs, no, he is like you just said, there are a lot of jobs in each have skills to do, that people don't have

the technology now in 2019. a lot of the jobs have been advanced. technology is advancing every day, and have a lot of people with low-level skills that cannot keep up with these jobs, so they need some type of schooling and training. i am 71as in school -- years old, when i was in school, we talked auto mechanics different barbering, types of things. we did this in my high school. we don't do it anymore. we ought to make it easy for people to go and learn skills. yes, we need infrastructure in the country, we see problems with our bridges and or roads, with potholes and everything. but i want everyone to understand that president trump is not bringing these jobs just under the happened

greater recession ever in america. i want the democrats to explain this. paper don't understand. host: ok, will give the congresswoman a chance. guest: she brings up a very important question about skill training. in any newo say that infrastructure bill, we would take into account that today, to build our roads and technology, you would need more than a strong back. we very much need to heavily invest in skill training for people who work in letfacturing, and in jobs their grandfathers and fathers and with very little training. it is true that i should pick him an apprentice and you -- if you become an apprentice and you're part of a union, you'll get those skills, but we also need other ways to equip people

to work these jobs, so they don't feel that they have to dig a low-level technology job which they will be stuck in and not progressed very far. host: a few minutes ago, you mentioned the 2020 election. bc came up on the 2020 election trail yesterday. a tweet from senator kirsten gillibrand, a candidate in the very large democratic field, she said yesterday in the afternoon -- democracy does not mean for some of us. it is time for washington, d.c. to have statehood and equal representation in congress, and we should only need a simple majority to make it happen. quotes the 51-51 campaign. can he took about their campaign is?what guest: let me thank her for raising what interestingly, most americans don't know that the 700,000 americans who live in their own nations capital don't have the same rights they have. that is where we have a statehood bill.

we almost have to hundred 18 cosponsors, and with 218, we could pass it in the house of representatives. this is an of the oldest jurisdictions in the united states, pays the highest taxes per capita, highest federal taxes per capita, have only me and the congress. item have any final vote on the --se floor, and no senators, i don't have any final vote on the house floor, and no senators, we are having a press conference this morning on 51f or51, that is just one of the many organizations that has brought others on board to rally their own bases for statehood for the district of columbia. host: has statehood for d.c. ever been officially a part of the democratic party platform? guest: not a republican party platform, but, yes, a democratic party platform. host: do you think it will be

this year? guest: i am certain it will be this year. i don't think people should be put off. by the fact that republicans are not for it and democrats are for it. the ways in which states got into the union, and please hear i thinkis, you had hawaii and alaska were the last, one democrat and one republican, states had gone both ways, and finally, before , when it wasates pretty clear state was split, and we got hawaii and alaska. butprobably won't see that there is a kind of impetus toward democracy. goon't think we can long

with the united states being the only nation that has a capital city that does not have the same as all the other members of the country, the other people in the country. >> time for just one or two more calls for you. good morning. >> good morning. i've been in a union for 40 years. they have gone downhill for the last 30. with theoing on democrats. they are supposed to be and it for the working man. you have to wait for a republican to come get presidents before the jobs start coming back? guest: host: i and -- are a unionglad you man. i have been a strong supporter. i don't think either party has to do with what you are talking

about. that is, we need more people to along to unions. the vital role unions plan our country was that there was someone to bargain with employers in order to raise wages. notice wages are going up slowly as a country even as we are on track to -- for some time, ever obama in 2008. why haven't wages boomed as well the most important reason wages were raised was that someone was at the table and said we want to share that prosperity.

no one is at the table now. the answer is for us to do all we can to strengthen the union in america. north carolina. caller: i want to ask, if you can explain, we give you tax dollars, you build walls on the highways just to block sound. but building a wall to protect our country is in moral theory building a wall to protect our country isn't moral? it is one area i think republicans and democrats agree. we voted for a wall. after getting along, the president didn't get as much walls he wanted.

therefore, he has gone around congress are known as against walls. we believe in addition to walls, and easily the use of technology, something that will cost taxpayers like u.s. funds because you can't build one wall in the united states and be effective in maintaining or and we need a theination including nomination. appreciate your time this morning. comes in.he house we will focus on these stories we're tracking today meeting by top congressional leaders and white house officials to discuss budget caps and the debt limit p are pentagon and intelligence

officials are briefing congress on the iran threat today. will not be testifying before the house judiciary committee. forerday, a subpoena president trump's friend and record spirit let us know which story you want to chat about on our phone lines. they are on your screen. you can start calling now and we will be right back. ♪ >> sunday night on q&a, watch an interview on the book "field of blood." >> scores of congressman just so it is dramatic, guys throwing punches. a massive encounter. but what was really interesting it, youeople look at

saw a group of northerners and southerners, a lot of them armed , running at each other in the house of representatives. he said this doesn't look like a normal congressional site. this looks like a battle. that is really striking. >> commencement studies. featured stage -- speakers include elijah cummings, minority leader's stacey abrams, president donald trump. eastern day is :00 p.m.

on c-span. c-span.organytime on and the free c-span radio app. washington journal continues. host: we will take you for live gavel to gavel coverage. that meeting by congressional leaders and administration officials on mandatory budget caps on the fiscal 2020 budget unless a deal is reached. unless there is a deal expected to happen at 10:30 this morning on nancy pelosi passes office. members will be getting a briefing from intelligence officials on threats from iran. don mcgann will not be before the house judiciary committee today.

expectations of whether he may be held in contempt from congress, that he would be taking the advice of the justice department and not testifying for the judiciary committee today. thational fallout from federal judge decision upholding the subpoena by house democrats for president trump's friend and a record. a week story in today's washington post. president from passes accounting firm ordered to turn over those here president trump that link appeal that decision. president trump before leaving israeli yesterday in thatylvania addressed federal judge's's decision about his financial records. >> we disagree. because you look at it, this never happened to any other president. they are trying to get a redo. what we used to call a do over in school.

we had no look, collusion, no structuring, no nothing. were very upset with the mueller report, as perhaps they should be. but the country is very happy about it because there was never anything like that. they are trying to get a redo or a do over. you can't do that. as far as financials are concerned, we think it is totally the wrong decision by obviously obama appointed judge. was a recent, obama appointed judge. >> that was president trump outside the white house yesterday. taking your calls we're tracking today in washington. phone lines -- we will start in louisville, kentucky. richard is a republican. good morning. to ask theas hoping

good congresswoman earlier but apparently time had run out. i wanted to know what the high-speed rail was going to do for inner-city black kids and why she had to come out against abortion because black kids have been aborted more than any other children in this country. why is the abortion debate so important to you? caller: because of the wonderful people we are losing. we had people like martin luther king. people like, it is just mind-boggling. jesus christ would have said to us, i sent you these people but you turn around and denied them. let these people live. thank you. host: in kentucky this morning. the stories we're tracking today in washington, the budget meeting taking place in about 45 minutes this morning. to avert mandatory

budget caps and perhaps raise the debt limit. the pentagon and intelligence ,fficials on the iran threat former white house counsel don mcgann will not testify before the house judiciary any today. the committee is still expected to meet at 10:00 a.m. today. that will be happening on c-span3. about the federal judge upholding a subpoena for print -- for the subpoena, phone lines are open. online for democrats, republicans, and independents as usual. to let hearing on want you know about that you can watch on c-span.org on her website, the house financial services committee is holding a on the housing and urban development agency's oversight efforts. thererson will be testifying at 10:00 this morning.

phone lines again. i am sorry. go ahead. caller: yes. i want to comment from that clown who called in from kentucky talking about how lack women had done more abortions than anybody else in the country. that is a lie. if they did do that, it was by a white man. host: we will hold off. about 15- we have only minutes. it's been a full hour on the

abortion debate in this country. james is in new jersey, a democrat, good morning. caller: happy mother's day. about the subpoenas. host: in what capacity are you working? 1990 seven,e because the federal government, anyhow, i'm not doing it for the pay. [indiscernible] host: what kind of work do you

do? for the pentagon, the white house, senators, --ernors, host: -- [indiscernible] nevada, [indiscernible] host: that is james in newark, new jersey this morning. in tampa, florida, a democrat, good morning. good morning.

beinglling about not prevented from testifying i am not sure how the president is allowed to intervene before -- coming before the house and this being allowed to continue. why is he afraid to have again come and appear. if you want the truth, why are you so defiant and negative and stepping in to prevent this. what is it that you don't want to come out? we need to look at how the want to follow't the law, but he wants to lay down the law for other people. thank you very much. we will show you the house judiciary committee hearing room, a live shot expected to meet at 10:00 a.m. this morning without the white house lawyer don mcgann, there to testify.

we show you that room. this is the reporting from the washington post on the secret of -- sequence of events. the justice department issued a opinion saying he cannot be required to appear before lawmakers in response to a congressional subpoena. democrats subpoenaed him to identify hoping he would become a star witness into the investigation of whether trump obstructed justice. he provided critical testimony about instances of potential obstruction by trump even though don mcgann is no longer a part of the administration and has left the white house. his lawyer says he will abide by the advice of the justice department. the lawyer is quoted in the wall street journal today saying they will respect the president's stretch and spare that is the justiceent to the department. he understands the house judiciary committee, that they

could vote to hold him in contempt should he have them appear today. while we disagree with the position and hope they will instead seek an accommodation with the white house, mr. began must honor his legal obligations. that is from the wall street journal this morning. alabama, independent, good morning. caller: good morning. yes. mcgann.lling about i don't think he should testify. i think he is part of the president's of isaac committee. has confidentiality he should not be briefing. i think the congresswoman you had on before out and out lied heruse nancy pelosi stated sales were immoral. he said no one felt that and that is a total untruth.

this is jackie. good morning. a republican. yes.r: i think i already said my piece somewhere there. just the fact that we need to help the president somewhat but not continually bash him, what he should do. host: that is jackie in michigan. a democrat. good morning. caller: hello. donald trump lies whenever he opens his mouth. obstruction. he is obstructing justice now. thank you. one of the other stories we're tracking today is the briefing set to take life by pentagon intelligence officials by members of congress.

it is expected to happen about one: 30 this afternoon. the washington times today picked up the issue of increasing tensions with iran and takes a look at who is advising president trump right now amid the increased tensions. general successors pushed trump toward war. the officers who once surrounded the president, who mr. trump myudly referred to as generals, maybe exit on the first of the year. when james mattis handed the reins of the pentagon to patrick shanahan, a 30 year corporate executive from contractor boeing. follows that the white house national security adviser h.r. mcmaster and john kelly replaced by foreign policy firebrand john bolton, and former member of congress mick mulvaney. washingtonin the times today.

if you want to read more about it. counselp had a regular still such as joint chief of staff although he is expected to leave that position in october. observers and military insiders say the end of the general era in the white house could not come at a worse time as the administration grapples with combustible crises. about 10 minutes before the house is expected to come in, let us know the story you are most interested in today. -- barbara appeared alexandria, virginia. go ahead. the american people, you need to understand the constitution. first of all, president trump has violated the subpoenas in this country. he has violated the witnesses

and third, we have three branches of executive governance, -- executive residence in the executive office. the democrats have been violated. i think american people, we should demand everyone, we need to have mcgann, and we need to have mueller. these witnesses that come before can's,mittee and as some we are appalled by the way you treated -- host: that is barbara this morning. garrett in west virginia. republican. good morning. yes.r: by how the concerned democrats are treating this whole investigation with trump. i think it is outrageous. the guy has submitted everything he needed to submit.

they keep railing on about william barr and mueller testifying. i think it is absolutely outrageous have a treat him. i believe the public should have access to his tax returns yes. i think certain things the white house classifies, they have the right to do so. that is garrett in west virginia. fran in vermont. which are you tracking in washington? topic, i knowdget the 1% of the big tax cut was supposed to spur jobs and put more money into the taxes. is that really happening? spent the first hour of our program today saying if you are in charge of the federal judge -- federal budget, where would you increase spending and where would you decrease spending? how would you answer the

question? caller: i would increase it in infrastructure to the country. up here in the northeast, you talk about the roads in washington, d.c. you have perfect roads compared what we have here. there are little money gets spent in the northeast. probably, not sure if i would decrease in -- money anywhere. to be honest with you. listeners,ur radio television viewers, i would ask the same question. to some 1500 responders. federalre making up the budget, where would you increase, decrease, and keep spending the same. respondents, 72% of

increased spending there. nevada, a democrat. good morning. caller: good morning it i would like to say that nancy pelosi. she should start police -- impeachment immediately. if they want to honor the law,

throw it out because there are no rules. that is my comment. thank you. host: the reporting last night writing that house democrat leaders sparred internally on monday on whether to begin an impeachment inquiry and her allies rejecting the call for now according to sources. the congressman of rhode island, jamie of maryland, joe of colorado, all members pushed to begin impeachment proceedings according to sources. ben ray of new mexico and team jefferies of new york, some key allies rejected the calls saying the democrats message is being drowned out by the fight over possibly impeaching president trump. that is from politicos you want

to read more this morning. tim is in wisconsin, a republican. go ahead. good morning. i have a question for you. possibly abolish the ?ational gas tax i think the states are doing a lot better than the federal government. is, can we get rid of the department of education? it has been around for 30 or 40 years? we found out we could for all the money we want at education and it does not work. abolishing the federal gas tax, would you then have states all increase their gas taxes by the current federal amount to

make up for the lost funding on infrastructure funds? caller: i don't know about the current amount, but they would --e to they can probably do a better job. there -- they are more local. i understand we built the interstate system and it was a wonderful thing. cannot -- on a highway anywhere without 2-5 years of environmental studies. the numbers now on the federal highway users tax, 18.4 on gasoline.lon cam inim and this is iowa.- kim in

caller: this president needs to be impeached and i don't understand why nancy pelosi is still having a hard time putting in the requirement of impeachment. it is not only what he did with the law with russians. he -- this is nuts. power, iith a foreign never seen our country this toided when a foreign power feared in our election. what is going on? we have got beautiful people in the country. we need to stop all the power grabbing. host: that is cam in iowa this morning. m in iowa this morning. on the house side set to hold

that hearing, don mcgann will not be appearing before the house judiciary committee. members of congress take their seats for the hearing. speaking of the impeachment conversation, one republican member of congress not afraid to move toward impeachment. republican of michigan and his fellow republicans calling for impeachment. the watch the washington post today looking for reaction. punish the libertarian who had a long history of bucking gop leadership even before trump was elected. gopay, kicking out of the congress, would only try more attention to his comments. just a minute or so before the house is expected to come in today. it looks like the doors are getting ready to open right now