about the fund that compensates victims of the 911 attacks. we'll take your calls and join the conversation on facebook and twitter as well. "washington journal" is next. . is next. ♪ host: good morning. it is monday, june 24, 2019. the house will meet at noon today and the senate reconvenes at 3:00 p.m. we are with you for the next three hours on the "washington journal," just days removed from onaborted military strike iran. we are asking whether you think congress should be doing more to r powerit's wa authority. if you think it should, 202-748-8000 is the number. if you think it should not, 202-748-8001.

you can catch up with us on social media. on twitter it is @cspanwj. on facebook it is facebook.com/cspan. very good monday morning to you. you can start calling in on this question of war power authority. here is the basics. the constitution and powering the president to wage wars as commander-in-chief. the constitution empowering congress to declare wars and fund wars. presidents can order u.s. troops when the country is attacked or attack appears imminent, but the war powers resolution requires a president terminate combat unless there is congressional passedzation to continue over the veto of richard nixon. the war powers debate has stemmed from how much the war

power authorizations have been stretched and some argue stretched too far. in particular, the 2001 authorization of use of military force a week after the september 11 attacks. that said the president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those authorizations or organizations -- in order to prevent future acts of terrorism against the united states. that 2001 authorization was brought up by senator tim kaine, democrat of virginia last week when he was making a case for congress to step in and do more when it comes to authorizing any potential action against iran. [video clip] on amendment that will be

the table and hopefully receive a vote on that is bipartisan in nature that would prevent funding for any war in iran unless there is a vote of congress to authorize such a war. thatmendment makes clear no previous congressional act, for example, the 2001 authorization can be tortured and twisted and stretched and bootstrapped into a declaration of war. the administration has been trying to lay that as a predicate suggesting and authorization that did not wouldn iran in 2001 authorize war against iran win not a single person who voted for it in 2001 ever thought it was to be used in justification for war against iran. the administration would like to use that as a justification. think about this. if they are so afraid to come to

congress and ask for authorization that they want to use something from 18 years ago, what does it tell us about their confidence that they have a good justification we need to be in a war. the amendment we have does not prevent the u.s. from defending themselves from attack against iran. the war powers resolution specifies that power and does not codify it, it does not need to be codified. it makes clear that power is always inherent. our amendment does not suggest iran's behavior is contemptible or consistent with international norms. i have been part of many efforts to impose sanctions on iran if they violated, for example, ballistic missile protocols, u.n. sanctions or rules, engaged in human rights abuses. the purpose is not to stand up and defend iranian behavior, but

it is to stand for the proposition that we should not be committed to a war without a vote of congress. host: democratic senator tim kaine last week on the floor of the senate. this topic over congressional war power authority came up in our newsmakers program. we interviewed mike rogers, the ranking member of the house homeland security committee. [video clip] congressembers of have said the president should come before congress and request an authorization for military use of force. you sound like you are opposed to that. you believe the president has the authority to launch military attacks against iran. correct. he did take the time to consult with congress yesterday. he had the leaders of both chambers and leading members of the armed services committee, foreign affairs committee, and a

couple of others to talk with him about what he should do. he did consult with congress as he was trying to decide what action to take. when you have a country like iran shoot down an american drone in international airspace, i don't think we need three months of argument in congress to decide what needs to be done. we have him to make decisions like this. i felt the same about barack obama when he was president. if we are going to get into a long-term war, it is a different story. he needs to take action in a quick manner, whether it is sanctions or connecticut tack, he needs to make that call. otherwise, you will see countries like north korea, china, and russia becoming much more provocative. host: republican congressman mike rogers on our newsmakers

program. in terms of the action the trump administration is taking, here is the lead story in the wall street journal. president trump set to boost sanctions on iran, they are being described as major new sanctions although they have not been detailed yet as to exactly what they are. also, we are finding out more about cyber strikes that targeted iran late last week. the u.s. covertly launched cyber operations against iranian intelligence on thursday, the same day president trump pulled back on using more traditional measures of military force. the wall street journal pointing out the cyber strikes which president trump approved targeted computer systems used to control missile and rocket launchers. the strikes were carried out by u.s. cyber command in coordination with u.s. central command.

we are learning more about that today as well. having a discussion about congress and the war powers authority, should congress do more to assert that authority? if you think congress should, the phone number is 202-748-8000 . if you don't think congress should, 202-748-8001. virginia.first from good morning. caller: good morning. actree the war powers should be enacted through congress. they have that authority. we don't want to see another war over nothing, you know? host: what do you want to see from congress this week? did you listen to senator tim kaine's proposal asking for the trump administration to seek authorization before they commit any action? do you think that might tie the president's hands?

caller: yes. this is barney out of florida. good morning. caller: good morning. good morning. host: good morning, barney. go ahead. caller: i think congress should assert their power. we never would have been in iraq if congress had asserted their powers. like you mentioned before, saudi arabia attacked the twin towers. this same mess with this mad we , he alreadyoffice had a deal for 10 years. just because of spite, mr. trump

got in today. host: what do you think congress should ask of the trump administration before the president be allowed to move forward with military action? what do you think congress should want to see? should there be an attack against american troops and not just american property? american lives, that is what we should be protecting. we let that deal stay in place. we are not going to get any allies. why would you trust a president that is confident -- constantly lying? would you follow a liar into this problem? host: the president was interviewed by meet the press. it aired over the weekend. he was asked if he felt like he

was being pushed into military action by those in his administration. here is some of that interview. [video clip] >> did you feel like you was -- you were being pushed into military action? >> i have some dobbs and some hawks. john bolton is a hawk. i want both sides. some people said -- i was against going into iraq for years and years and before it even happened, i was against going into iraq. i was against going into the middle east. we have spent $7 trillion in the middle east right now. host: that was president trump on meet the press. the president mentioning john bolton, depicted in the editorial cartoon that appears in today's usa today as the devil on trump's shoulder opposite the angel of restraint on the president's other shoulder.

when it comes to john bolton, a story about his travel, he is currently in israel and arrived saturday night. on with benjamin netanyahu sunday and warned iranian leaders not to interpret mr. trump's decision to scrub the attack as a sign of weakness being quoted as saying no one has granted them a hunting license in the middle east, that is the president's national security advisor john bolton. asking you, do you think congress should do more to reassert its war power authority? 202-748-8000 if you think it should. 202-748-8001 if you think it should not. dave in florida on the line for those who think congress should. why is that, dave? caller: my background. and ia military pilot just want the american people to know a had secret briefings and top secret briefings and every

time, every time we were lying to the american people and that's how we got in the iraq war, vietnam. ciae flags created by the for money? wall street guys? that is why i feel like we should reassert. host: do you think congress will reassert its authority? caller: no, they have not. they have not done it with monetary policy as well. they have the right to monetary -- we have phony money chasing these wars. they just keep printing money. that's how we got in debt. they are not doing their job. host: that is dave out of florida. this is surely in tennessee -- shirley in tennessee. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. caller: i believe, most

definitely, with this president, congress should reassert its war --hority because host: i am listening. because why? listen to your phone, do not worry about your television. you have to turn that down. caller: because with this president, he does not know what he is going to do from one moment to the next and if congress lets him usurp the war authority, he could attack anyone in the world within a minutes notice and nobody would know about it until the troops had been ordered out. in my opinion, i have to tell you, they should use article 25 and get rid of him. thank you so much. taking your thoughts this morning on phone lines. for those who think congress should be doing more to reassert

its war power authority, 202-748-8000. if you think they should not, 202-748-8001. here is some of the debate that has played out on capitol hill over the past week amid the rising tensions with iran. members commenting on their twitter pages and facebook pages. marco rubio is one of those saying the trump administration has repeatedly said it has no plans to start a war, but made clear it will respond forcefully to attack. it president trump does not need authorization to defend our nation against attacks. barbara lee saying as president trump and mike pompeo continue to invoke war, it is more important than ever congress take back -- we cannot give the executive branch a blank check for endless war.

mike pompeo state was in saudi arabia on sunday, increasing fears of military confrontation between the united states and iran change to the character and timing of his weeklong trip. it was initially billed around him discussing trade in india and then joining president trump to talk about jumpstarting nuclear talks with north korea. stops were added in saudi arabia and the united arab emirates. discuss the strategy of coalition building with iran's fervent adversaries. we are hearing from you this morning asking whether you think congress should do more to reassert its authority and if you think it should, do you .hink congress will teresa from chantilly, virginia. theer: ultimately,

constitution was created for a reason so we would have a balance of power. congress is giving up powers to the executive branch. do i think they will? no. i don't think members of congress actually care about their duties. i think we are going to be going down -- it is a slippery slope. i heard your last caller say it is about this president. it is about all presidents. host: how did you feel about military power and what congress was doing with it under president obama? caller: i am in the military -- it is not just obama, it is also bush. they gave up a lot of their powers. countryit is to our detriment. i don't necessarily think it was a bad decision, but it doesn't matter. it is about the fact that it is

not their job to do that. host: what do you think it will take to get congress to be more aggressive on this front and sort of taking back that power from the executive branch? think --he problem, i right now we have a divided .ongress i honestly don't know because it seems like no matter what trump does, democrats are going to try to go one way and republicans are going to go the other. until congress can stop making decisions based on partisan politics, i don't think they are going to do anything. there are ways to get around that, but the way it is right now -- maybe if he starts bombing multiple countries, that is the only way. host: congressman ted lieu brought up the constitution last week at a house foreign relations committee iran policy.

he was questioning brian hook, the iran special representative and here is a bit of that discussion. [video clip] >> i agree that iran is a malignant state actor. that is a different issue as to who is authorized to allow force to be used against another country. under our constitution, does the president have the power to the claremore? -- to declare war? not a trick question. under the constitution, does the president have the power to declare war? let me make it clear for you. under the constitution, congress has the power to declare war, correct? sir. not a trick question, have you read the constitution? >> we will do everything we are required to do. >> mr. hook. have you read the constitution? >> i have read the constitution. >> under the constitution, the

framers gave congress the power to declare war, correct? just a yes or no. >> my understanding is we are here to talk about iran foreign policy, which i can do. i am going to submit the u.s. constitution the record. host: our question this morning on the washington journal, should congress do more to reassert war authority? greg from mechanicsburg saying no. why is that, greg? caller: what do you think this congress could possibly approve that might address the facts of the situation other than the political reality that the andcrat national committee everybody -- the 25 plus running against him want to hamstring him? is that going to be a good

alternative to what is the current situation? there is no doubt the answer is no. host: when it comes to authorizing military action, some concern about the trump administration laying the groundwork to use that 2001 authorization of use of military thee pass a week after september 11 attacks as the legal authorization to move forward if they go forward with military action. do you think that should be ok? caller: yes because what is the alternative? multiple presidents, multiple have used the same authority to do things. it was essentially ok when barack obama did it, the same people who are upset with donald trump because they are still upset about 2016 and because

they perceive because he is white, it is good to say bad things about him, that is there position. they can wrap themselves in the flag all day long. the outcome will be nothing but drag it out until 2020. that is what this is all about on behalf of mr. lou, mr. kane, it is all about politics, has nothing to do with the merits of the question. this is gil out of north carolina, good morning. caller: good morning. i have three questions i would like to ask and i support the iu amf role of congress to authorize before we go to war. my questions are this, let's go back to the incident that happened. a japanese tanker and a norwegian tanker were affected

by strikes. how come this was not taken to the united nations first? the two nations were norway and japan, you take this to the united nations, security council. 20% of the oil comes through the 20% goes to the far east and europe. why haven't we consulted our nato allies? there has been no consultation, no going to the u.n. or the security council and why should the united states fight a proxy war for the government's of saudi arabia and israel? now we are standing the questions and disagreements we have with iran. we should have congress military strikes

or going to war, that is the mistakes we have made in the past. why should we wait -- make another mistake and lose lives and treasure when we have not consulted our nato allies, we have not gone to the u.n. and why should we fight a war that other countries refuse to go to war against their so-called enemy? an enemy of my enemy is not my friend. host: that is gil out of north carolina. this is tony in michigan. good morning. good morning. the caller a couple of calls ahead of the last guy was very disingenuous. i kept hearing him talk about barack obama and the redline affect. what he did is when he wanted to bomb syria and he knew america was tired of war, he actually went to get congressional approval to bomb syria and was

denied by the republicans. of course, congress. because they are a coequal branch of power for america. in other words, donald trump should not just be able to cause war because he have -- has war hawks in his administration. this is a very dangerous effect happening in america with this president and his staff and we need to wake up. we need to wake up because it is out of control and i don't care -- you can be a racist and not like somebody, but at the end of the day, if you see a line of people walking off a cliff, you have a choice. you can make the choice not to go off the cliff with them. if you continue to support donald trump, you are walking off a dead end clip. host: here are some comments from social media on the question should congress do more

to assert war authority. chris writing the president does not need congressional approval to conduct a series of strikes. the president is commander-in-chief recent. gary saying congress should have taken back power a long time ago . the constitution makes it clear which branch can declare war. charlie saying president trump should go before congress and request a declaration of war. trump seeks no war with anyone and will keep us safely out of any conflicts. just a few of the comments taking place this morning on social media. wheretter it is @cspanwj you can call on phone lines. for those who say congress should be doing more, 202-748-8000. for those who say congress should not be doing more, 202-748-8001 is that number.

christopher is on that latter line out of oklahoma. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you? host: doing well. caller: there is a lot of technical stuff in this topic. ofe in article 1, section 8 the constitution, congress has .ower to declare war didn't harry truman bypass all that stuff to go to war with korea? .e make all this stuff up when you really sit and think about it, does anyone individual

-- aoup really have a lot right to declare such a violent concept? on any other individual or group? is that really even saying? this may be a philosophical question. host: how do you answer that question, christopher? sad we i think it is have to answer that question. i think if people look deep in their heart, they will realize we should not even be asking a question like that. how could someone have a right ?o inflict violence have the authority to say someone has that right, someone doesn't have that right.

if we keep going around in circles the way we think about all these things and we don't get outside of the way we are thinking about it -- i don't understand it. host: that is christopher out of oklahoma and this is celia out of connecticut. caller: good morning. complex ands very we are, at this point, number one militarily. we really have to reconsider using our force. secondly, the most important thing is what is important to this country? the citizens. i think we are exhausted with all the money used in the wars and the lack of good educational funds and for the environment,

the highway, et cetera, et cetera. we really have to pay attention more domestically, make this country science number one, education number one. thank you for accepting my call and considering my suggestions. host: stephanie is next out of new york. good morning. caller: hi, good morning. i am calling because i feel that congress have a right to give authority towards the president because this war that he is trying to create with iran is .njust because of israel he is causing this war. this is a war that should not be. we have lost enough americans in

the last war we had. every time there is republicans. look at the history. every time we have republicans as president, they create or find some kind of war. caused war in this country. now we have another republican who is trump and it is going to be another war. host: you can keep calling in on this question, should congress reassert its war authority? 202-748-8000 if you think it should. 202-748-8001 if you think congress should not and we will get to more of your phone calls and a second. it is just after 7:30 and we are coming up on the opening of the supreme court on what is expected to be another decision day. decisions will be coming down later this afternoon. we are joined on the phone now by amy howell, cofounder of

scotus blog. today was supposed to be the last decision day of the current supreme court term. how many decisions are we waiting for today? guest: we are waiting for 12. we don't actually expect today to be the last day. the supreme court keeps us in suspense every year with what day is going to be the last day and when they will announce the final big lock buster opinions. there is a dozen left and we expect them to finish up this week, but we still don't know how many opinions we will get today or what the last day of the term before summer recess will be. ist: for that delay, what the explanation for that? is the supreme court still arguing cases and trying to come to a decision on them? guest: they are finalizing them -- certainly seems the case this year.

a lot of big cases of the term are argued at the end. one of the big cases is the dispute over the census, whether the trump administration can add a question about citizenship to the census and that is the kind of case that would probably take them a very long time to decide, but it was not argued until the end of april. they are probably finalizing that opinion. another set of cases is a dispute over partisan gerrymandering. there are two cases. carolina whereh a map was said to be the product of gerrymandering and another one out of maryland where a federal district court struck district.gle partisan that case was argued in march and this has been an area the supreme court struggled with. last year they had two cases,

including the maryland one and could not come to decisions on the merits. these are tough issues and it is kind of like when we were all in school and many of us go down to the wire turning in a paper or a test. the justices are going back and forth probably arguing about the last couple of words and trying to get done before summer recess. host: are there any tea leaves to be read on the gerrymandering case on how the court has decided some other cases? is there anything that points to this court moving in one direction or the other? guest: the tea leaves really come from the oral argument. the census case, there was a divide between the conservative justices on the one hand and liberal justices on the others case, the trump administration said it wanted to add the citizenship question

based on a request from the department of justice which said it wanted the data from the citizenship question so it could enforce federal voting rights laws. liberal justices were kind of down in the weeds looking at whether or not adding this question would actually make the census more accurate or less accurate and the conservative justices were up at the 35,000 foot level saying that apartment of commerce, which administers the comp -- census seems like they had a good reason for wanting to add the citizenship question and that is kind of enough for us. on the partisan gerrymandering cases, as i said, they really struggled with it and it was something they struggled with last term and they have struggled with for years. there are a couple of different options. one other thing they could say

and that some of the justices sayan -- seemed inclined to said it is too difficult to come up with a standard for courts to use to decide whether or not a particular map is the product of partisan gerrymandering, so we are going to say courts should not be in the business of partisan gerrymandering at all. some more liberal justices wanted to say this is something the courts can and should get involved in, but if they say that, what is the standard going to be? there is a lot of suspense right now among court watchers. suspense.ys a lot of 12 cases left to be decided. how many do you expect will come down today.

caller: it is kind of all just speculation. we will get them all one way or the other. host: what time do you expect those to come down today? guest: 10:00 a.m. host: will you be up there? guest: i will be in the press room. you can sit in the courtroom and listen or you can be downstairs in the public information office where physical copies of the opinions are handed out. i will be in the public information office. host: if you cannot be any of those places, the next best place is scotusblog.com. back to this question we started with today about congressional war power authority. should congress be doing more to reassert that authority amid .ising tensions with iran

we want to hear your thoughts on phone lines split up by those who think congress should be doing more, 202-748-8000. and those who think congress should not be doing more, 202-748-8001 is that number. on that latter line, larry in savannah, georgia. good morning. caller: good morning. it would be ok for congress to do more if we had sensible people in congress. right now, democrats are so blinded with hate and's -- still grieving because hillary lost, they would rather see the country blown up then see president trump succeed in anything. host: you think politics have gotten so bad it has spread even into defense issues and military strikes? caller: yes because of the blind hatred. we see it every day. anypresident is not getting

support. host: richard is next out of massachusetts on the line for those who think congress should be doing more. go ahead. caller: yes. they should do more. the president can make a suggestion and then congress should make the final act -- the final decision, i mean. like the guy from north carolina -- all overhe cia the world. we are in wars we do not even know about. that was the cia behind all of that. congress has to take control completely and make the decisions. just get the information from what they are going to do from the cia and the president and they should have the power.

you cannot just have one person. we always hated iran. host: does that apply if the u.s. is attacked first? withould go to congress whether the united states should respond to that? caller: they haven't attacked us, iran. like the guy from north carolina said, they were from norway and japan. the united nations never do nothing. that is war. this is not war. this is an even our ships, you know? that is how i look at it. host: in terms of what the trump administration is doing today, we expect to hear more about what is going called major new

sanctions against iran. and we are learning more details as well about the cyber attacks carried out late last week against iran, carried out by u.s. cyber command in coordination with u.s. central -- here launching cyber is the story about that as well from the wall street journal. we showed you president trump speaking about iran on meet the press. other officials going on the sunday shows as well amid increasing tensions with iran. this is vice president mike pence on cnn's state of the union yesterday. [video clip] >> we are prepared to talk to iran without preconditions, but we will never allow them to obtain nuclear weapons and we will not allow them to continue to so violence across this region.

took,tions the president the action announced yesterday, the president demonstrated the restraint the american people, i know, admire and are grateful run-upn right up to the of a military attack, the president continue to evaluate and concluded what has -- had been initiated -- iran should formistake restraint resolve. the vice president on cnn .esterday david, what do you think? taking myank you for call. i have been a watcher for decades. i think congress should do exactly what the constitution

says they are supposed to be doing, reassert the authority they are supposed to have and it should start with their checkbook. congress has not been able to control the checkbook for decades. how are they going to defend us against other nations that want to kill us? host: what are your thoughts on those concerns by tim kaine and others that the trump administration has been laying the groundwork to use that 2001 authorization for use of military force as the legal vehicle that would allow military force to take place if the trump administration took that step? caller: you are talking about the patriot act, i assume. host: i am talking about the 2001 authorization, the use of military force signed by president bush, a week after the september 11 attacks. caller: i thought it was the

patriot act thing, which is a new topic in itself. caller: certainly -- host: certainly a big topic. caller: when -- if it has been authorized by congress when it is law, i think congress should have the authority the constitution gave it, congress is so broken, we need term limits, but they are not going to vote themselves out of a paid job. host: that is david out of wisconsin. here is a few more comments from facebook and twitter. scott is saying the president can legally declare war without congressional approval, pointing back to the 1973 war powers resolution. there is little choice but to follow suit. mylan on twitter saying congress relinquished war authority because of emotion after 9/11. it is time to take that authority back. retaliatory strike in this

situation. i do not think striking iran at this time -- i don't support striking iran, but that doesn't mean the president cannot. social join us on a media and twitter or give us a call like jeremy did out of florida. good morning. good morning. i do believe congress needs to have the authority -- the authority of the people is from congress and we are not looking at that, you have to look at the vast majority of the country as opposed to looking at right now -- a portion of the country represented in the administration. you are looking at some of the war hawks, some of the people like the bolton's of the world that have to think about what america represents right now and i don't think that is

-- that is a representation of the people as . whole host: here is the headline from .sa today bolton saying iran is ready to go. don't mistake u.s. prudence for weakness. all visiting and minette and byoo! -- that was said bolton visiting benjamin netanyahu over the weekend. caller: thanks for taking my call. host: go ahead, joe. caller: i think the question you are asking itself is very flawed because you are asking whether congress should reassert its

authority. congress should stay in its lane, to pass legislation for the good of american people, not illegal aliens and foreign interest. the president has the ability to and --hority a it turned out to be prolonged conflict, then the president would have to go to congress for authorization, especially for funding. what i am getting sick and tired of his having a double standard when it comes to president trump . every president since i have been born has had limited military action and the treating to use it -- president trump differently because they hate him and they want to limit him and control him. host: when you say they come a is it just democrats you are concerned about?

are there republicans as well in congress? who is trying to limit the president? are -- democrats establishment republicans like john mccain and flakes ann upset thatthe people donald trump got elected and overturned their control of the government. they don't like president trump in office and they don't like him using his authority for military action and the american people need to realize control is whatea lanes produces a strong economy. if we that the iranians close down shipping lanes, it will give other countries like china encouragement to close shipping lanes maybe in the china sea or

cuba is another country that attacked ships in the caribbean and when that happens, commerce ends and we end up with another world war. the president has shown, i think, great prudence and discipline not attacking iran and retaliating. i think the president is building a case against iran, showing restraint and if iran oversteps and crosses that line and injures or kills american military, that line will be crossed and iran is going to pay the bad price and they will deserve it. host: that is joe in virginia. matt gaetz, one of the president's strong supporters in congress, here is what he had to say last week on hill tv when he was asked about this debate over war powers. [video clip] >> you have been a leader on

reforming or repealing that 2001 -- democrats voted yesterday to f.peal that a umf -- aum can you give a sense on where the rest of the republican caucus stands on this issue? have you gotten support from colleagues on your side of the aisle? arehere are republicans who not interventionist and they tend to be part of the libertarian coalition of our party. these circumstances we see erupting around the world don't always get better when we put u.s. troops on the ground. i represented the district that has the highest concentration of active duty military. when we have to fight, my constituents go first and fight hardest. we know a lot today about the impact of these wars back home and we see we don't always serve

as the most stabilizing force when we are disrupting regimes. i am proud to work with roe, and other folks to achieve a bipartisan consensus because if my constituents have to have the courage and bravery to fight these wars and die in these wars, politicians in washington need the courage to vote on them and decide what is worthy of spilling american blood and what is not. host: that was matt gaetz last week on capitol hill. taking your calls, asking whether you think congress should be doing more to assert more power authority amid rising tensions with iran. donald in virginia, you are next . caller: i would like to say thanks for c-span, it is a great institution. senator tim kaine previously in a senate committee identified of united states' occupation

syria was against our national law because it did not have authorization and he thought it was a stretch to try and say the authorization of 2001 could be used to occupy another country in the middle east and it was against international law. tim kaine is once again surfacing as being one of the spokesman going against the current situation. what i want to point out is we are sanctioning this country -- iran and venezuela which in effect is killing civilians and that is a -- an act of war as well and why we don't extend congress to say this is an act of war and this started more than 60 days ago and venezuela and iran and he needs to come in and ask for authorization to continue with those sanctions.

those are my points. one other is trump really needs to drop bolton and pompeo. if he does not, they are going to destroy his presidency. host: you mentioned tim kaine, we showed that clip from senator kaine last week talking about this issue and this need for congress to reassert authority. this was the senator's tweet from late thursday saying last night of the aborted strike was too close of a call, congress needs to do its job and pass my amendment to prevent unnecessary war. we may be the last guardrail against trump starting a catastrophic war in the middle east. john, quincy, illinois. you are next. good morning. caller: yes. this plan to take out iran was 1986.ut in

go in iraq, take out seven countries in the last one would be iran. it is like a wooden clock and look at the damage. we have killed more people all over the middle east and destroyed their homes than iran ever has. it was all directed by neoconservatives. .eath, death, blood, blood those ships, it does look like iran did it, but during the iraq war, we constantly saw those laden in thea bin desert and those will him -- were made right in virginia in the cia. host: how do you know that? i have not heard that one before. caller: if you listen to the television, you will never hear that stuff. it was in the history books

right away. syria to a certain extent was minding its business. in guns fromht financed- libya and isis and israel trained isis in northern israel and southern syria to take out assad. host: we will stay focused on this question of whether congress should reassert -- it's war authority. some comments from twitter and facebook. jeff writing this administration tworying to use the thousand one authorization to engage in combat. it places congress and checkmate. powerss must rein in this and putting aside all the -- the degree to which he can get them to

negotiate a more acceptable nuclear agreement without going to war. just a few of the comments as we have been having this conversation. drew out of new jersey, good morning. good morning. of course i believe congress must exercise its authority. president is, this an economic, moral, and military arsonist who starts fires and calls in the fire department and wants credit for burning down the house and putting out the fire. recall hismp military action? i believe putin called him and told him to knock it off. did you see televised interview? when he said iran should not be attacked? host: you said congress should rein in the president. do you think congress will rein

in the president when it comes to iran? caller: i don't know the answer to that. probably not because they refused to do anything. if people don't think this guy is an arsonist who created all the problems, we had a treaty. everybody else is still in the treaty. iran was meeting all the treaty requirements and there have been -- had been no issues. he is causing a fire and then wants to take credit for calling in the fire department to take out the fire he created. host: winnifred next out of wyoming. good morning. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. caller: hello? host: go ahead, winnifred. caller: i believe president commander-in-chief of this nation has the right to do what needs to be done. withieve he can consult

the people involved such as the generals that know what is going on, the people that are really up on what is going on in foreign countries. buthould consult with them, he has a right to do what he deems is necessary without having to go through a bunch of malarkey. that is my opinion. thank you very much. host: lisa is next out of rhode island, good morning. caller: good morning. i am calling before -- because the gentleman who spoke before that woman is clueless of what is going on in this world. the woman who spoke knows what she is talking about. he has the right to do what he needs to do and he is not like obama and clinton who paid off these countries. we need to be a strong nation and stop paying these countries to let them do what they want to

do. a lot of bad things have been going on and nobody was doing anything about it and now we have a president all the democrats cannot stand because he has some -- excuse my french, paul's. that is too bad if he is doing the right thing and they don't like it. congress should stay where they are supposed to be, in their lane. from rhode island. plenty more to come including up next, we will be joined by a wall street journal congress reporter natalie andrews and john bennett to preview the week ahead both on capitol hill and the white house and in our weekly your money segment, we will look at the fiscal condition of the funds set up by congress to compensate victims of the 9/11 attacks. on this supreme court decision day, we wanted to show you a portion of the hearing last week that focused on judicial ethics,

especially when it comes to the supreme court. here is hank johnson questioning a panel of[video clip] >> what message does this and that the supreme court has refused to adopt a code of ethics, and what are the long-term risks associated with the court's refusal and failure to do so? -- the message it sends is not a great one. part of what i care about is not just the reality of impartial and fair justice, but the public perception of the courts. it is somewhat at risk today, for many reasons, beyond the subjects of this hearing. it is unfortunate that the court has, so far, been reluctant to adopt a code of ethics -- code of conduct for itself. hearings like this are valuable in pushing the agenda of those nine justices to rethink that. there have been suggestions by the court that it is now seriously considering adopting a

code. the message he has sent thus far is unfortunate, but i hope we are at a moment where it is going to adopt a code for itself. >> thank you p we are in an era where the legitimacy of the courts is constantly questioned, and the public faith in the supreme court has eroded. is the kind of legislation we are discussing today appropriate, in this environment , mr. wheeler? is it appropriate that we are discussing this legislation? if you would cut on your microphone. >> by all means, that is what congress is here for, as my colleagues have said. congress has been regulating the federal courts in various ways since the founding. it can only contribute to a better understanding of what the federal courts are all about. that is an obvious proposition. >> do you believe that the

implementation of a code of conduct for the supreme court would change the institution, and if so, how? >> i believe it would change the institution for the better. discussedthing being more and more. it is something people do not really realize, when you talk about the supreme court. you think about certain historic opinions, what they are doing now. but when you tell them they do not have a binding code of conduct, it makes people think why is that? seem likemakes it there is something fishy when there probably is not, it is just that this is something every other court has done, and the supreme court is a court, so it should do it as well. >> "washington journal" continues. week, when congress is in session, we like to take time to take a look at what is happening at both ends of

pennsylvania avenue. to do that, we are joined by ""wall street journal" congress reporter natalie andrews. and we welcome back "roll call" white house reporter john bennett. set tod of new sanctions be announced today on iran from washington. what do we know about these major new sanctions? guest: we do not know yet that i expect the administration will continue what they have already done. they have tried to target iran's energy sector, shipping sector. they are trying to make the pain as acute as they can and targeting the regime. they are trying to really put pressure on the regime. they want to do economic harm to iran to compel them to come back to the negotiating table and strike a broader deal than what the obama administration got, which just focused on iran's nuclear program. to president one -- wants

focus on their behaviors across the region, with their support for hezbollah and other groups, and some of the things they have done in iraq and elsewhere. this is vintage trump. he does not want to do small deals. he wants to do the whole thing. but former flats from the u.s. and europe will have been involved in this say that will be extremely hard. no one really sees, right now, that there is interest from iranian officials to do a big deal or even to come back and negotiate anything. these sanctions today, i would look more at how the iranians respond. i think we will get more the same from the white house. also targeting the regime with cyber strikes that we learned about late last week. what more did you find out over the weekend on that? what more is the administration saying about it? guest: they're not saying a lot. friday was a surreal day at the

white house. the united states almost bombed iran. just think about the gravity of that. the president is getting a lot of credit over the weekend for pulling back that strike -- he says 10 minutes before things were about to get very serious. iran,d a hostile act from shooting down u.s. military aircraft. even if there were no pilot or crew on board, that is an act of war. what the president was tame its away from allowing to happen was a retaliatory active war between these two countries that have been on the brink of something for decades. do not know where this is heading. the administration is not saying what their strategy is. the president is sending john bolton and others to the region to talk to some allies. but these are not exactly objective countries. saudi arabia and others. these are countries -- these

meetings alone will inflame iranian leaders, will further add tensions. they are trying to get some kind of response coordinated, but this is not about reaching out to the iranians. it is about further pressure on iran. this is far from over. host: we spent the first hour of the "washington journal" focusing on the debate in congress over the war powers and what sprung up in the wake of the aborted strike. take us through what we are expecting in the committees and on the house and senate side. guest: we certainly expect it to be a topic of discussion. whether or not they are able to take further steps, that is something different. the 2001 aumf,f, repealing that is part of the appropriations bill that the democrats have had. we expect that to die in the senate.

you are talking to viewers about that earlier. i expect tensions. you have seen top republicans who are supportive of the president taking further action. i expect that to wrap up further. democrats are wanting much more .f a level step they want to be briefed before the president does anything. host: we know of specific house hearings on iran or is the debate likely to play out on the floor? itst: we will likely see play out on the floor as a lawmakers discuss what the president's next moves are. the president is changing his mind rapidly, so you will see lawmakers respond in such fashion, as having to move on the fly. host: we are spending this morning talking about the week ahead in washington, from both capitol hill and the white house. taking your calls on phone lines for republicans, (202) 748-8001.

democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. iran, obviously, a main topic of the week. but also on the president's threatened deportation effort that he has put on hold for two weeks, asking for some debate changes to the asylum process. what is the president specifically wanting to see over the next 10 days? guest: this is always the question with the president. what does he want? this is what we wrote saturday afternoon. he has delayed this by two weeks. something is always coming into weeks. the delay is always two weeks. c for theost like a ti president. he did not lay out saturday exactly what he wants congress to bring him. by the way, they will be out for a week, the july 4 recess week.

he did not stop and answer any questions when he came back from camp david. that is one -- the substitute pool had discussed exactly what do you want congress to send you, and why do you think they can do this in a week? because that is what they will have. they will not cancel the july 4 recess. he feels pressure from time to time. we have seen this with the tariffs on the mexican goods. he found a way to get out of that. the iran a strike, he called that off. now he has delayed this. he does this when he feels the pressure. he felt pressure on this and other issues from fox news, some folks did not think any of these things were great clinically. clinically. and the president walked it back. so we really do not know exactly what the president wants. immigration deal.

in 2017, there was a big bipartisan deal, and in the last stages, the president helped torpedo that. they have that 20 point plan, as the white house laid out here -- years ago, that when we ask and pressed, when we are able to ask folks like jared kushner, that is going nowhere on capitol hill. host: what will happen on that front in capitol hill? guest: we know congress will vote on the border supplemental they want to get that done before the july 4 recess. that will provide some level of humanitarian aid, and democrats and republicans are supporting giving this money so that -- every lawmaker i've talked to has a little bit of a different idea on exactly where it is going, but they have enough of a cohesive coalition that looks like it will pass. nancy pelosi is in support of it. --are seeing the far left

alexandria ocasio-cortez -- they do not want any more money for immigrations and customs enforcement. but it looks set to pass. but that is not the kind of immigration reform that donald trump -- host: is that a vehicle for what the president calls asylum loopholes? fixing -- is that a vehicle for fixing what the president calls asylum loopholes? guest: giving them, essentially, a day for a timeline to pass something is not feasible in the general congress timeline of getting something done. host: is there another vehicle moving on this issue that negotiation could attach itself to? or is the border supplemental the best place to do that now? guest: that is something that has momentum. so they will try to tweak it. but the more you tweak it, you

lose the coalition of lawmakers that would pass it. you would lose the necessary 60 lawmakers in this and if you do something. if you do something the president supports, you lose democrats. if you do something democrats having something that the president will not sign during the july 4 recess. we have seen money for humanitarian aid, but they will be hesitant to put any sort of parameters on that. host: iran and border security just two issues happening this week amid a slew of others before congress get out of town for the july 4 recess. we are talking about it in washington. we will take some calls. lou, from rue, -- baltimore. caller: thank you for taking my call.

love your program. i would like to tell you that i've been watching for years what has been happening with nuclear powers. north korea just got done getting an atomic weapon after years of lying to us, and now, we have the iran situation. at the very end of a chain of nuclear powers. russia, china, pakistan, india -- they are practically locking elbows together. now we have iran in the middle of the middle east, and extremely populated area. if we get -- let iran do what they want to and become an atomic weapon power, what is the likelihood, what is the outcome going to be? a nuclear war or something a little less? host: what do you think the outcome will be? caller: i am afraid, because iran -- i am not a religious bigot, but i think they keep

chanting on television "death to america," "annihilate israel." they do not seem to have middle ground. host: we start talking about the negotiations with north korea, and secretary of state mike pompeo was expected to make that more the focus of his overseas trip. now, it will be frontloaded with iranian issues. take us through his week, coming up. guest: a busy week for the secretary of state. a busy week for the president, who will leave sometime wednesday for the g 20 summit in japan. he will also make a stop in south korea to meet with president moon. to the caller's, a lot of experts say if iran -- and they are expected to announce ramping up uranium development -- that of thee a major breach deal that the obama administration and european allies struck with iran.

it is still in place. the u.s. is not part of it. but that would essentially be the exit of iran from that agreement. what a lot of experts see is, then, a nuclear arms race in the region, which is alarming. israelrabia, we suspect has some capability there, and other countries, trying to combat and a rainy and atomic arsenal with their own, raising stakes in the region, which are always high. then, you get into what israel -- think about benjamin netanyahu. he has his own political problems. is he going to allow israel's biggest enemy to acquire nuclear weapons? i believe the "new york times" over the weekend noted that israel has restarted a program that basically looks at how they would strike iranian nuclear targets.

back to gathering intelligence. a lot of these sites are deeply buried. when i covered the pentagon years ago, a very senior u.s. official, about six or seven years ago, doubted if the u.s. had the technology to reach underground and penetrate deep enough to make a difference. it is not about preventing. it is about setting them back and delaying their program. so a nuclear arms race in the region. then, not only washington, the response, but how does israel respond? national president's security advisor, was in israel over the weekend. will he still be there? there will be a lot of focus on him around these tensions. guest: we do not quite know where john bolton will pop up next. he is the ultimate inside player. he knows how to play these games and relationships. i think we will see him eventually by the president's

side in japan. we have mentioned the south korean meeting with president moon, to talk largely about north korea and that nuclear threat. if you know john bolton and have studied him, he will not going -- he will not want to be too far from the president's ear while he is meeting with president moon. host: in an opinion page, he is right in the president's ear. john bolton the devil on the president's shoulder. that was run in today's "usa today." thomas is in aurora, illinois, independent. caller: good morning. have tools that we are not using. other than military and other than diplomacy. the reality of what goes around comes around.

, to healnited states ourselves and to heal other nations in the process, need the biggest tool we have -- to reverse our own corruptions, as aas murdering babies method of birth control or teaching the children that, somehow, homosexuality is a positive and healthy form of lifestyle. we, as the united states, if we reverse our own corruptions, that will call on the great spirit to heal us and shows the way to help the great spirit heal other nations. host: got your point. in terms of tools when it comes to the iran issue that is front and center this week, what tools does congress want to use? what sort of reaction have you seen so far?

of these newent sentients and the cyber attacks. guest: first of all, it is monday, and congress has not quite come back to washington. we will see more as a talk on the floor this afternoon. you have seen, in the past week or so, lawmakers from both parties wanting to restrict arms sales to their region. they are setting up votes for that they see that as a way to limit hostility and aggression in the region, by being able to limit who has what, including saudi arabia, which the president yesterday on "meet the press" defended. it will be interesting to see how those votes continue to carry out. and donald trump does have veto power. host: the president will be at the g 20 later this week. what role is congress playing when the president goes to that key economic summit?

what pressure can they put on the president while he is traveling overseas, and are they willing to do that? guest: we know a lot of republicans whisper into the president's ear. some feel as though it is a futile effort. but others feel -- lindsey graham, for one, feels as though he is able to influence the president's thinking by providing a different perspective. i am sure they will be talking to the president, leaning on him, trying to influence how he conducts himself overseas. noty pelosi famously does criticize a president when he is overseas, so we could see de-escalation there as well. host: what does the president want to walk away from the g20 with? guest: he wants progress in the china trade talks. he finally announced that he will sit down with the chinese president. in the president has said, for months and months, it is ok for

bob lighthizer, his lead trade negotiator, and others, to talk to their chinese counterparts. but as he contends, it will always come down to himself and president xi. we have seen these talks stall, as they usually do with the chinese. he is not the first president to think that there is a deal and then the rug is pulled out from under them in the 11th hour. we will see who else is in the room. i expect lighthizer, may be larry kudlow, and maybe john bolton. that is interesting when you have larry kudlow, who is a more gop establishment, and then john bolton, who is a hardliner and expects china to come very far to the american demand. that does not seem very realistic. and how much will the president give, face-to-face with the xi,ident -- with president

and will that hold as they leave whatever room they are in and their staff gets back to the business of trying to implement anything they come up with? these deals are so complicated that the devil is in the implementation. you want to verify certain things. and the chinese are not exactly open when it comes to verifying anything that has to do with their economy. place weat is the one are seeing republicans, especially republicans from rural states, wanting to put pressure on the president in terms of the trade deal. joni ernst, who is up for reelection, has been critical of the president, wanting to see movement, because she says her constituents are really hurting by the tariffs. you have that stretch of republicans in the midwest that are wanting to see some action, one thing to be able to tell their constituents that there will be relief coming soon. upt: you mentioned members

for reelection. there are a bunch of democratic members who want to be up for that -- reelection. and you have the democratic presidential debates wednesday and thursday. will that impact anything on the schedule? guest: it does not appear that mitch mcconnell is wanting to give the presidents running for president any leeway. we may see them missed votes, which they come under criticism when they do. we were trying to calculate how far that flight is from miami and when they will need to leave. lessay see a handful or so democrats on the floor this week as they prepare. coming up on 8:30 on the east coast. taking your phone calls about the stories you are interested in this week on both ends of pennsylvania avenue. our guests this week, john batten -- john bennett from

"roll call" and natalie andrews from "the wall street journal." ray is a democrat. caller: good morning. it amazes me. some of these republican callers calling in and do not have a clue -- like vladimir putin said, they do not hear stuff like this. he should have never pulled out of the iranian deal. as far as him negotiating anything, he cannot negotiate himself out of a paper bag. like the caller in the last segment -- that is ridiculous, what she said. don, a republican out of kalamazoo, michigan. about --ou are talking i will not bore you with my

opinions. i will read you easy to verify facts about the iraq war. thee are excerpts from address president clinton in 1998. earlier today, i ordered american armed forces to strike military and security forces in iraq. husseins ago, saddam announced that he will not -- bring us up to 2019 and what is happening today. caller: this is all part of it. cut offn caught -- before when i brought it up here the real story about iraq is -- these are facts. these are not my opinions. host: how does it apply to what is happening? i assume you want to talk about iran and congressional authors and of force in iran. take us to that -- congressional

authorization of force in iran. take us to that. caller: he said they had to be inspections. there never were. if there had been inspections after that, which would have never had to go to war in iraq, because we would have known what was going on. you can check this out. there is information earlier. there was a man earlier who said that if you bombed somebody, that is an act of war. clinton bombed iraq for four days, and we did not call it an act of war. what the fbi called it when japan bombed pearl harbor. host: don was talking about inspections. we talked about the iran nuclear deal that the president pulled out of. now iran is saying that there develop meant of nuclear material will breach the limits of the deal. is this deal done now?

is anyway to get back into the deal if both sides wanted to pull back and say let's go back to where we were? is that even possible at this point? guest: i do not think the trump administration will reenter the deal. you cannot ignore the fact that barack obama and john kerry were the ones who really drag that deal over the finish line. we have seen, time and again, to undoald trump wants most of obama's legacy. you cannot ignore that. right now, the future of that deal is the europeans. and they are scrambling to find a way to keep that deal in place. and they are working with the trump administration. the united states is not formally in the deal, but there is plenty of back channeling going on on how the iranians may try to hold that thing together. because there are some verification processes in that deal. it allows the west to have some idea what the iranians are up to

. we really do not know what they will announce thursday, as far as how much more uranium they plan to enrich. that will be important, because whatever they say, we can probably guess it is a little bit more. what does it do for the timeline for them building a nuclear weapon? does it speeded up from two years to one year? are they six months away? that will set off the dominoes that decide not only what the trump administration and israel does, it could change the feeling in europe. they do not think the situation is quite as dire as, say, donald trump or benjamin netanyahu, but whatever iran announces thursday, it could change the game, or it could be status quo, and everyone is trying to keep what they have got and prevent a war. kim, aexas is next, democrat. theer: i want to speak to

gentleman before. this topic is too big and weighty topic. it is hard to speak about it in five seconds, but i will try that. i am a german-american. my father immigrated from hitler's. he was a child. he came when he was 55. i was born in 1962. i happened to be -- i never understood what was happening in the world. how do you teach the world that gay people are very real and yet we are not an identity. if you take religion and spirituality in all the different versions that we have and break them apart in segments, you get a fragmented identity. i believe, even in our military, every human being has a fragment and our identity. i wish the gentleman would read and touch his heart. we do not live in a binary

structure where one thing causes another. we have three different religions, one god, one creator, but we have different versions, different realities, and i wish people would quit blaming gay children. no good god put you here and demand to change and no good god put you here and demands you hate yourself. change thed to do is channels and the software's and trust each other. we are all family. host: ray got your point. this is larry out of pennsylvania, independent. go ahead. forer: i have a statement the two journalists. why are you guys not giving iran's side of the situation? theiras denied involvement. can you hear me? host: yes, sir. caller: iran has denied their

involvement with the shipping attacks, and the drone was in iranian space. yet still, you guys come on here and blame iran for an act of war, which they did not commit. america was in their territory. and if you remember, a couple years ago, iran also caught the commandos in the boat who there were supposedly lost in iranian territory. would you please explain that and that the american people know? host: i do not think our journalist roundtable was blaming anybody now. just trying to explain what is happening on capitol hill. but to that point, are there members of congress that are more sympathetic to the iranian side of things now, that are cautioning calling for restraints on the trump administration? guest: there is certainly a concern that these sanctions

could be hurting the iranian people to a point that it would todifficult for them to want change. ityou have been so hurt, changes your perspective on the united states. maybe it makes diplomacy harder. but there seems to be more support for sanctions on the democratic side then military action. it is delicate. to the caller's point, there is a dispute over whether drew -- where the drone was. i cannot necessarily say what voices we are seeing -- people are concerned about the hostility and the ramping up, and that concern is real. guest: there is no question that the iranian leaders -- they are a wounded animal. what do wounded animals do? lash out for survival. that is what the regime is trying to do. there is a lot of pressure

internally bubble up in iran recently. sanctions have been punishing. in one regard, the sanctions have worked. in another regard, the sanctions are probably what led iran shooting down the global hawk last week. the iranians are trying to create space for something. we are not sure what yet. to send also trying signals internally that they are standing up to america. average iranians are feeling the economic pain as well. it is not just the leadership. they are trying to send a message that we are standing up for you, for our people. but this is the tinderbox. this could get out of hand very quickly. host: a lot of focus on iran, but we are talking about the entire week ahead on capitol hill and the white house.

guest: for republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats.000 for (202) 748-8002 for independents. we talked a little about the border funding bill. can you explain where it sits in the overall spending talks in recent days and where those a as congress gets ready to go out of town for the fourth of july recess? guest: this is a supplement all that will add more money to the coffers in order to handle their humanitarian crisis at the border. this is separate from the appropriations process, which is also rolling its way through congress. the house has passed a set of bills and will take up another group this week. the senate is a little behind, but they are also expecting to move forward. this supple mental is different. it is focused on humanitarian aid. tois directly in response

the surge of families and people we have seen seeking asylum at the border. host: at one point, the house was hoping to get out of there annual appropriations bills by the fourth of july recess. is that still the schedule? guest: that is still the schedule. that was steny hoyer's goal. he has been talking about that since january. it seems like they are on track, although the dhs, homeland security, which is always the one that congress struggles with. host: if the house is able to pass all 12 of those, how likely is it that any of those will be taken off -- taken up by the senate or signed by the president? guest: this will not be taken up by the senate. the senate will produce their own set. ath the republican senate and democratic house, we have seen, in the past, a desire to not use spending bills to dictate

policy. -- there is nore as i for a government shutdown. this new class entered congress and the government shutdown. they do not want to do that again. the desire to keep these bills are free from policy writers, in the final version, is there. we cannot quite predict what will happen in september. host: how concerned is the white house about another government shutdown, if these bills do not come together by the end of the fiscal year? guest: i do not think we will see a government shutdown, but that dhs bill is out there. when you bring it up at the white house, you can see, the body language changes. they are prepared for another fight. of course, that is what they like to do. they like to fight. the border wall is again going to be the central part of this. you will not get an immigration bill before then. he will want policy changes as

part of the dhs spending bill. democrats will begin. i expect to see the usual dance. if trump will go along with a stopgap spending bills, maybe one month, three weeks, keep things rolling as i negotiate or say they are negotiating. herill not rule out anot partial shutdown, because when you talk to white house officials and when the president talks about it, it is so important to the base. they want more for the wall. they are already digging in for a fight. host: talking about important to the base, there is a base of democrats where one of their important issues is impeachment of the president. can you talk about where that stands and how that may complicate some of these other spending issues we have been talking about? guest: bottom line, it certainly makes these democrats less inclined to want to work with the president to get something done.

at last count, more than 70 house democrats have called to impeach the president. and a handful of those running for president have also called to impeach the president. that momentum is building. nancy pelosi said last week that she does not feel pressure. she told reporters that at a breakfast. as morehave to expect, and more democratic lawmakers want to see this happen, some of them also see it as a moral thing. that they do not want to see, say, justin amash, make the point that they want to be making care that they feel the president has done impeach above offenses, and they feel as though they want to carry that out, to look at politics would be harmful to them, especially to their base. host: about 15 minutes or 20 minutes left. talking about a busy week, as usual, here in washington. let us know what topics you are interested in.

in reno, nevada, independent. good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to know why do we keep on saying that the iranians are the terrorists in the middle east when the united states has been bombing all of these countries and we are fighting syria to trys in to overthrow the government of damascus? host: what would you like to see happen when it comes to iran in these escalating tensions? caller: lift the sanctions. we are only hurting the people. iranians are more beneficial to the arab people. -- that the sanctions, can you slain the concept of maximum pressure and what the trump

administration has said they are going for? guest: the idea is put so much economic pressure on iranian leaders that they would come back to the negotiating table for a broader deal than what you obama admits and european allies got the first time around. it is hard to imagine the iranians agreeing to reopen negotiations without some sanctions relief. it would not be everything, but the problem with that is the trump administration has not really shown any interest in lifting any of these sanctions. of course, any minute now, we will learn of what the president said our new, major sanctions. this is part of the standoff. and maybe standing between where we are now and the resumption of talks. we do not even know what that would look like. with this be their president and the vice president, asked yesterday in different interviews, with this be the president negotiating with the

ayatollah, with president rouhani, or would it be mike pompeo and his counterparts at the secretary of state level? we do not even know what the talks would look like. you would think that you would have to get some sanctions relief, and there's just no appetite so far at the white house for that. host: you mentioned the various interviews on the sunday shows. this is the president on "meet the press, talking about the pressure and tensions with -- on "meet the press," talking about the pressure intentions. [video clip] >> do you think you are pushed? >> i have two groups of people. doves and hawks. john bolton is absolutely a hawk. i am on both sides. i was against going into iraq. for years and years. before it ever happened, i was against going to iraq. some people said i do not know -- i was a private citizen and it never made sense to me.

i was against going into the middle east. we spent $7 trillion in the middle east. host: on that comment about john bolton, the president saying he may want to take on the world at one time. guest: that stopped me in my tracks yesterday. i was doing some other things, some weekend things, and not covering it to write a story, which is a luxury, sometimes, where you can get a different perspective. that stopped me in my tracks. and you really see how the president views his own national security adviser. what i to go away -- one thing i took away from the "meet the press" interview is it seems the president does value hearing a lot of friend perspectives from different parts of the spectrum on any given issue. as he made clear yesterday, and his white house aides made clear last week, he decides. he wants to hear things, wants

to talk to his advisers. it may not look like an h.w. bu sh or a barack obama, itiberative process, but seems that there is a process there, and he is hearing a lot of different opinions. it was striking to hear him say what a lot of john bolton's critics say about john bolton. so far -- and it is important to note that the president has not given into john bolton's very hawkish views. other than syria, he has not launched any new military operations. so he is keeping john bolton in check in that regard. host: since we are talking about the president's feelings about his advisors, what did you think about the president being asked about his feelings about his former attorney general, jeff sessions? the president, when he was asked if he could have one do over, what would it be, the president saying it would be personnel.

he said if i had one do over, i would not have appointed jeff sessions as attorney general. that was my biggest mistake -- those were the president's comments. guest: when we think of everything that has happened in the past two and a half years, it is interesting that the president draws on one of his first decisions that he may have made before the inauguration. it was one of his first decisions as president. i immediate a think of republican senators who have ardently defended jeff sessions, who feel as though he may have withmistreated or treated not a lot of respect by the president, and wondering what they thought, to hear that. host: something to ask them this week? guest: exactly. it is interesting to see him point of that moment. guest: jeff sessions chose to recuse himself from bob rodler's investigation, let

rosenstein oversee that investigation. the minute he announced that, the relationship with donald trump was over. various hung on for reasons. a lot of political pressure on the president, who did not fire him before he eventually did. but that shows you where the president's head is at. great job ofd a steering him towards that. he talked a lot about the witchhunt, which he refers to the mueller investigation, and the whole idea that his campaign, in 2016 somehow coordinated or colluded with russians. it shows how that is always at the front of his mind. it paints everything, from border negotiations with congress to anything he does, when he talks to world leaders. he complains that they bring it up. it was a moment where we saw

where he is in any given moment. host: speaking of personnel at the white house, sarah sanders is leaving her post in a couple of days. we know who will replace her or do we have a sense of who is in the running? guest: we have a sense but we do not know when or if we get a replacement. i have mused, on twitter and in the story i wrote, that perhaps donald trump does not replace sarah sanders. maybe he just keeps the press office as it is. the director of strategic mercedestions, schlapp, she is behind everywhere. and donald trump is his own communications director. and a lot of senses, he is his own press secretary. he may not feel the job. the acting --an,

we have heard heather newark, once nominated to be ambassador to the u.n. -- she was the chief spokesperson to the state department for a long while. -- worked with two sectors of state. she is a former fox news personality, so she knows what to do when the cameras are on. it is very important for the president. one reason he likes sarah so much. it is safe to say that sarah is better in front of the camera, especially in that attack mode that the president likes, then her predecessor, sean spicer. the white house has not even said if the president has held formal interviews yet. and he will leave in two days. i would not expect an announcement before he leaves wednesday, on if there is even going to be a new press secretary. host: you are jotting down a few notes. guest: i was thinking about what

would come up as the president's overseas. the senate votes on the ndaa. we will hear more talk on usmca. i was thinking about how busy this week will be as we head towards the july 4 recess, especially with some open vacancies almost all over the administration. host: and an unusual time not to have a press secretary. guest: exactly. stay tuned to the president's twitter feed. we hear from nate in milwaukee, a democrat. caller: thank you for having me. i am keeping an eye on the supreme court this week because of borten cases coming up. especially related to gerrymandering and the possibility of new information from republican gerrymandering expert. it reminds me that, a lot of the time, these political parties say one thing to the public and

then do something totally different behind closed doors, to try to rig their own elections. wisconsin'se of gerrymandering court case, and if anyone wants to check that out, there is an august 1 article from 2012 titled oncuments cast new light redistricting -- reveal partisan motivations." it shows how people got into one honest elections and tried not to phase honest elections after that point. host: natalie andrews, you want to start on that? guest: this is something i've been covering as the oversight committee takes their own path on this. everybody has been watching the supreme court. what they decide to do will impact how congress investigates, how the question got there. it really limits their power, if the supreme court says that the question is ok to be on the

senses, then it puts into debate what happens with the oversight committee's investigation. everyone is watching it for the reason the caller mentioned. that this 2020 senses will determine where district are outlined the next 10 years. if you are looking at citizens, it will change the numbers in certain states, like california, texas. those are states that republicans and democrat cared lee about. they want to know how those numbers are related. host: we have patrick, republican. good morning. caller: thanks. i am curious -- i had not really read anything about it. iran.ople are offending i heard it this morning on your show. happened if that

drone had not been -- when they shot the drone down. a commerciald been airline? what kind of conversation would we be having now? with that people still be defending iran? host: your thoughts on the president calling off that e last, the aborted strik week. since then, we have heard about cyber attacks against iran and now we sanction set to be announced today. do you think the president is taking the right path? caller: i do not know. that is a big decision to make. sleep trying to figure that one out. carolina. in south guest: if any country shot down a commercial airliner, no matter who was aboard, i think if iran

shut down a u.s. airliner or an airliner in the region that had a americans on board, there is no question that the president would have reacted strongly. this morning, i believe he would be sitting here talking about a war with iran, and a regional war. we could've already seen iran greenlight sleeper cells with its many proxy organizations, from riyadh to jerusalem to paris, to london, maybe even u.s. soil, for smaller bomb attacks or at least start that. i do not think there's any question that the president would have done what any american president would do in that situation, and that would be to respond very strongly and very militarily. host: in california, melanie is next, democrat. caller: good morning. i am a little concerned. why does he have all the power? why is he not addressing

congress for military instruction,? to be able to do this? i am not sleeping at night anymore. i know a lot of people are so concerned about our nation and it falling in the wrong hands. he is so egotistical, to start all of these issues, then backs -- we are going to get in trouble here. the world knows it. host: our question the first hour the program was should congress be doing more to reassert their war power authority? i imagine you foll -- fall on the "yes" side. caller: absolutely. host: do you think congress will do that? we saw tim kaine lead that, barbara lee -- do you think congress will do something to reassert their war power authority? caller: we could try, but it

seems he is the king. i do not think we can stop him. host: did you want to jump in on that debate? guest: there are certainly growing interest, in both parties. you mentioned last week on doing something to limit future whatdent's powers on actions they are allowed to take or limit the current president's powers. mike lee, republican from utah, he is a constitutional scholar, said he/so he says let's discuss this. he would like to see it done and a legislative, methodical way. other lawmakers, such as barbara lee, want to repeal the aumf that they are acting under and start over. the issue we always face in congress is what -- will enough people on both eyes of the aisle agree on in order to get something done? right now, that does not exist.

guest: and it would have to be vetoproof. this is an executive powers issue. who gives up power? i do not think donald trump not give up power. barack obama would have considered vetoing peer there was a bipartisan effort a couple of years ago to write and aumf just for syria -- that broke down. there were so many factions involved. i was covering that on capitol hill. they wanted to put limitations on what a ground operation the u.s. could perform. they couldn't agree on what the definition of a ground operation was. that is just one example. host: and not a new example. we were talking about the war powers resolution that was passed over a veto by then president nixon. certainly something that continues. seen democrats support limited actions, such as when trump took action in syria

two years ago. acceptability from both sides, that they do want the president to be able to have that element of surprise and be able to take action. they just do not want to see that escalate into some sort of long-term conflict without having permission. but that is a fine line. saying, small actions lead to bigger ones. host: we promise to take the president's twitter page. he has been tweeting since we have been having our conversation. we were talking that the president's criticism of his own cabinet. he/she is good to sizing the federal reserve. "despite a federal reserve that does not know what it is doing, raised rates far too fast, very low inflation, the part of the world slowing, lowering, and reasoning, and did large-scale tightening, 50 dollars per month, we are on course to one of the best months of june in u.s. history." the president thinking think about what would have been if

the fed had gotten it right. now they are like a stubborn child when they need rate cuts and easing to make up for what other countries are doing against us -- blew it. that is what the president said about the federal reserve. guest: consistent with what he has been saying. jerome powell, the president -- the president has been outspoken about criticizing chairman powell. larry kudlow and others will insist that the fed is independent. democrats in congress especially will say those tweets, and the president says these things when he comes out to the south lawn to leave and has a 20 minute conference over the loud hum of marine one's engines about once a week -- he is trying to influence the fed. you can say that safely. he wants a rate cut and he wants it today. he thinks it will further juice

the economy as he ramped up his reelection campaign, and he needs the economy to stay strong. he things a rate cut will unlock more growth. host: glenn, thanks for waiting and then castor, california. good morning. good morning paid you talked about gerrymandering. the question that needs to be on the census is if you are an american citizen or not, so we have a correct electoral college. plus, here's something for a true journalist. how come we do not talk about bernie sanders' wife embezzling how much money she has embezzled? or biting getting special treatment. how could these two corrupt politicians the running without -- or biden getting special treatment. how could these two corrupt

politicians to running without criticism? talk about what american citizens need, and our economy would be so much better off if you guys did real journalism instead of just attacking a political opponent. host: can i ask where you go for your news? what news organizations do you trust? caller: i get it off of youtube and all over. all over the news. except for msnbc. takeyou, you say you everything -- you guys sit together and pick everything -- how to attack trump. host: that is not how this segment came together. we are talking about the week ahead in washington, a busy week in washington, both at the white house and on capitol hill. just a minute or two left. what have we not talked about that you will cover? guest: we are looking at the

ndaa and how that comes together. the senate will start voting on that tonight. if they want to put an amendment there that has something to do with iran, that is something we are watching. sounds like the viewers are watching that as well. we will be reporting on that, it is just uncertain as to how that will come together. host: what have we not cover that you will cover? guest: i want to see how these china trade talks start to set up and what issues the president brings up or maybe president xi from china brings up. is there some kind of agreement they can walk out of the room with this weekend? is there something that can do to get the talkback on the table? that is unclear at this point. host: john bennett, white house correspondent roll call. natalie andrews, wall street

journal correspondent. up next, it is our weekly your money segment. he will be talking about the fun fund congress set up after 9/11 for the victim compensation. we will be talking about that with michael mcauliffe of the new york daily news. we will be right back. >> the reviews are in for c-span's the presidents book. it recently topped the new york times new and noteworthy column. from the new york journal of books, the presidents makes a fast engrossing read. notedbout how

presidential historians rank the best and worst chief historians from george washington to barack obama. executives, from george washington to barack obama. it is available today at c-span.org or wherever books are sold. communicators,he we continue our visit to ces on the hill to hear about samsung's to improveuse stem communities. lock thatted a door would go on the outside of the door. t that, there would be one bracket on the door and what on the door frame. the door frame.

ontonight at 8:00 eastern c-span2. >> the house will be in order. >> for 40 years, c-span has been providing america unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, and supreme court in public policy events. -- and public policy events. created in 1979, c-span is brought to you by your local cable or satellite provider. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. "washington journal" continues. host: each week in the segment of the "washington journal," we take a look at how your money is at work in a different federal program. we are taking a look at the 9/11 victim compensation fund. we are talking with michael

mcauliffe with the new york daily news. how long after 9/11 was it established? what is the criteria to qualify? guest: there was a fund that started right after 9/11 and lasted for a couple of years. that lapsed. it did not take into account people getting sick after 9/11. , 2010, it wasars the last thing that passed congress. that renewed the victim compensation fund for a couple of billion dollars. that expired in 2015. they had to come back and do it all over again. a lot of folks saw jon stewart coming down then. it sort of made a popular impression on the country. they ultimately passed it near the end of the year. it seems to linger each time it happens.

$7.4bumped it up to billion. the way the congressional budget office crunched the numbers, they assumed even though it was only a five year program, if it lasted until 2025, they would have enough money to there would be something like that money. ther -- enough money. there were be something like 10,000 people who got cancer. what happened is a lot more people got sick. a lot more people found out about it. last year they found they had to cut the payouts 50% for the people who work in the system but had not gotten an award and 70% for the people who had not started the process. they were running about $5 billion short your host: you mentioned -- short. host: you mentioned jon stewart

back on capitol hill talking about this issue. here is that clip. [video clip] >> i am sorry if i sound angry and undiplomatic. i am angry. they have every justification to be that way. there is not a person here, not an empty chair on that stage ut never not tweet o forget the heroes of 9/11. never forget their bravery. , whatforget what they did they gave to this country. well, here they are. and where are they? thing ifuld be one their callous indifference and rank hypocrisy were benign, but it is not. cost theseerence

men and women their most valuable commodity, time! the one thing they are running out of. host: michael mcauliffe, talk about why he was on capitol hill and the status of the bill was pushing for. guest: he was on capitol hill because people do tend to forget. it is a painful thing. .e is a celebrity he really cares about this issue. he lived through it. he lived near ground zero. it had a personal impact on him. that is why in. -- him. running out of money, there is a new bill that would make it until 2090. watching that clip, it reminded

me of the fellow who was sitting next to mr. stewart, a detective lverez, he was supposed to get chemotherapy for that. left to doy, he that, and the doctors were unable to do that because his liver is failing. he is in hospice care now. he had to take time to come down to washington to show himself to the lawmakers rather than being at home and getting one more round of chemotherapy. the house would have to pass it, probably in july. that is what steny hoyer would has talked about. mcconnell initch the senate. host: we are talking about the 9/11 victim compensation fund. the special phone line in this segment, (202) 748-8000 if you

live in the central or eastern time zones. if you live in the mountain or pacific time zones (202) 748-8001. special phone line for family (202)s of 9/11 victims, 748-8002. michael mcauliffe is joining us, reporter for the new york daily news. you have been covering this issue from the beginning cannot even from the aftermath -- beginning, even from the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. guest: i go back to the day it happened. i lived in new york at the time. i lived in brooklyn. when a traffic reporter said a small plane had flown into the world trade center, i went down there. i happened to be there talking to people leaving the

towers as they were still standing. i had the misfortune of being there when they collapsed. host: how long did you stay there covering the aftermath and cleanup?\ guest: i stayed for a few more hours that day. i was an editor at abc news. i was a national editor. i sat at my desk until they let us go to a hotel all covered in dust. host: you wrote a story for the huffington post about concerns about whether you have been exposed to some of these chemicals and particles in the air that have killed so many people. can you talk about that experience and what you found out and how you did that? guest: the 10th anniversary was coming up when i was working at huffington post. it was a situation where a lot of folks were not remembering

exactly what happened and what the impacts were. i took some of the dust that had collected in my pockets. it was so dense, it filled half my pockets. i took some of that dust and said it to a lab to have it analyzed. they found it had just what they expected, silica, pulverized concrete, all sorts of trace elements that can have in impact on the people who briefed it. -- an impact on the people who breathed it. down, ise towers came had the presence of mind to breathe through my shirt. i told the people around me to breathe through their shirt. i seem to have been spared from the impact. the folks who were down there who were inhaling all that stuff in who did not -- stuff, who did not have the equipment, there day after day, you are not sure

what the effect is going to be. it is a very slow process that is emerging now. host: in terms of the victim compensation fund, how many people have been compensated over the years? guest: in the current fund, it is almost 2200 who have been compensated so far. that may include some amended claims. there are another 21,000 or so pending. that is why we are in this tough situation. i don't remember the specific payouts for most of them. ,f you have stage four cancer it is worth $250,000. old-fashioned wrongful death suit, you would imagine you would get a lot more than that. host: who decides what different diseases are worth?

guest: it is a long process that goes back to the original program. there are existing standards. you should try to find ken feinberg. he ran the original victim compensation fund. it is not an easy thing to come up with these numbers. they have ground through them. it is a public program. it is not meant to be like a windfall for folks. it is meant to replace losses. if you have a life insurance policy, that would be subtracted from any award you get. it is meant to replace what people lost because of the attacks. host: taking your questions and comments on phone lines. mountain live in the and pacific time zone, and a special line for families of 9/11 victims. (202) 748-8002 is the number.

norma is up first from kansas. caller: good morning. my name is normal. i'm 75. i remember 9/11. they were heroes. for the first time in years, i saw our country come together. everybody was nice to everybody else. everybody volunteered. people were to church, and they prayed. these people, the 9/11 firefighters and stuff like that , the slaves have been dead 150 years or more. our firefighters and the rest of the people who saved our country and people by going into buildings where it is not safe, you know, they deserve compensation. host: can you talk about the

obstacles this latest bill faces? you talk about whether it is likely to pass? guest: steny hoyer has said he is planning to bring this to the floor. i would expect that in july before the august recess. if you go to regular order in the senate, lindsey graham and the judiciary committee would market up. mitch mcconnell would have to put it on the floor. it does have majority support in the senate. it comes down to the leadership and then deciding we need to move this fairly quickly. the way it has worked in the past to the dismay of 9/11 responders is it has been attached to other legislative measures and has to go through the sausage making process that is rather unpleasant. they would like to see it on the .loor to pass on its own

whether or not that will happen, i don't know. askedmitch mcconnell was about jon stewart's testimony. here is what he had to say. [video clip] >> we have never failed to address this issue. we will address it again. i don't know why he is all bent out of shape. we will take care of the 9/11 victims compensation fund. whenthink he was shocked he was appearing before that committee and the house so few members showed up that day. >> that frequently happens. members frequently have a lot going on at the same time. it seems to me he is looking to take offense. >> it will be fully funded? >> yes. host: that was the senate majority leader on fox news. we're taking your calls this morning. michael mcauliffe is our guest.

inol is waiting for you connecticut. good morning. caller: good morning. i remember 9/11. i dragged my daughter from high school down to the site. i said to her, i want you to remember this forever. she is older now. is why do they have to do this process when a president can fly to mar-a-lago and spend millions on golf? we have money for golf, but we don't have money for people? that is all i have. guest: i guess that is sort of where we are at. the senate is probably going to pass this, it is just a question of when and whether or not they do it in a fashion that makes

the 9/11 community feel whole. i am sure the country will come up with this program. host: when it comes to a set of not money for this program can some folks on twitter are asking why is there a limit? towards theho ran twin towers should b have all of their health care needs met, no ifs, ands, or buts. guest: right after 9/11, it sort of faded. in some ways it is understandable. people don't want to keep something painful like that on the forefront. when the legislation started advancing, it was very regional. it was a bit partisan where people were casting it as a new york issue. it was not going to pass at all. tom coburn, who was then in the u.s. senate, and mike enzi were

objecting to the price tag. kirsten gillibrand saved the bill. they had to cut it in half and put in all sorts of restrictions to make sure there was no fraud or abuse. it is that legacy of partisanship and regionalism and fiscal prudence that started the cap. it has gone on in five-year increments. host: do we know if there has been fraud and abuse? guest: there has not been. it has been remarkable. all the audits have come back clean. program.the health in order to get into the health program, you have to prove you were there and that you were there for a certain amount of time. that puts you in a line for the compensation program. you still have to go through another approval and verification process before you

can be admitted into the compensation program. there is a lot of checking that goes on. host: are the firefighters and police officers bumped to the head of the line past the regular citizens? no, but by the fact of the jobs they did, they have documentation. they have people that can testify they were there. i have medical systems in place already. it is easier for them to get through the process. is of the reasons the fund running out of money is the survivors, people in the neighborhoods are realizing this money is there for them as well. caller: good morning. it is good to talk to you. problem with this 9/11 fund. it is just another government program that they promise. i'm a veteran.

they can't even take care of the veterans right now. now, -- if -- i love the people of kentucky. i go there all the time. i live in tennessee. these people are wonderful. electinghey keep mcconnell? i will never know. that is why our government is at a standstill. my question about this 9/11 know, they say i have an agent orange problem, and it has not been recognized yet. i was an infantryman on the ground. i was virtually spray.

exceptno real effects ulcers, prostate cancer, and breathing problems. the people that live around this, did they get away from the 9/11 site enough to not be r do theyby that, o still live in that area in manhattan? guest: i am sorry for your own problems. i'm sorry you are not able to get that dealt with. if you will remember back to rudy giuliani, at the time they told people the air was fine. a lot of folks who might have stayed away, they went back and went back to work. they went back to the places where they lived. there are probably many more who suffered longer exposure than might have otherwise to him and that is another part of why there are more people coming forward now. host: michael is next out of

brooklyn. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. timederstanding is at that christy todd whitman, the former governor of new jersey, was in she andf the epa, and members of that organization determined the area was safe. obviously, it was not. whether any consequences that happened to her in the epa as a result of that? her name disappeared pretty quickly. it seems she is responsible for that. thank you. guest: she has not face any particular consequences except that as the effects became more apparent, they did have a hearing several years after the fact that was rather uncomfortable for her. she was gone from the epa by then and long since not a governor. host: washington, rose, good morning. caller: good morning.

thank you for taking my phone call. i want to make a quick comment. i am a health care worker. i'm a registered nurse. on that particular day when 9/11 occurred, my younger sister was traveling from louisiana to visit. just being in the health care system, i agree with the soldierscaller, the are not being properly taken care. care of. running in to save people's lives, they should be compensated. that to ca senator like mitch mcconnell, who has tax breakshe largest for the 1% of the population. these firemen who work every day to say people, they deserve --

save people, they deserve to be compensated. i think mitch mcconnell, who calls himself the grip reaper, which is appalling to me, he should stand back and determine if he is really a statesman or just interested in taking a big tax break and forget about the hard-working people every day who do not get to stand up in front of the congress and abuse power? host: we heard the majority leader in the senate say this will get a vote, this will get taken care of. are there members in the senate who have come out against this getting a vote, who have called for cuts were attaching into another vehicle? guest: no one has come out against it. i don't know which specific senator has been asking some questions about details.

as far as i know, there is no one opposing it. it seems to have a clear line of sight to getting on the floor. we will see where that goes. you say you have heard of a senator asking around , this is the scrutiny behind the scenes? meeting's the 9/11 responders are having with people on the hill. they have been coming down since october. there is an advocate coming tomorrow to meet with mitch mcconnell in his office. to have to some of these things out. before mitchne mcconnell or anyone makes a public statement. host: do they seem optimistic? guest: they are optimistic. what they want to see is that level of commitment they feel the rest of the country shows them. they want to see that out of

washington and out of the majority leader and speaker pelosi's office. caller: good morning. i cannot believe what is going regarding 911. it.s involved in why? i was on the 12th floor. i had binoculars in my office. as i was getting off the turnpike, i saw the first plane hit the building. i thought it was a mistake from teterboro airport. by the time i got to my office, i realized what was going on. over the next hour and a half, the fbi and the police showed up. why? the south towers were down. the only phones that work were because they had radio dispatch. management stayed for almost two days programming phones.

every hour on the hour, the fbi or the police came to pick them up to give them to first responders. why am i upset? because i saw people jump out of the building. i saw the plane hit the second building. why? because mitch mcconnell and everyone else should be limited to two terms. then they cannot get their claws in. congress took money out of social security. have they ever paid it back? do you know how much somebody earns starting as a congressman? $174,000. every year, they get a raise. are they all the same medical plan we are? no. are they on the same social security? no. do they have the same drug and medical coverage? no. host: was there anything you wanted to comment on?

guest: people talk about first responders, but they don't necessarily know all the first responders. the man coming down tomorrow to meet with mcconnell was a construction worker who lost half of his foot. the verizon workers had to go through tunnels for days and weeks to replace fiber so wall street could get back up and running again. those guys had a really tough job. a lot of them get really sick from it. host: carol is calling from ohio. caller: good morning. i have a comment. i hear all about the first responders. thank goodness for them. watching television from florida the day that this happened. i saw hundreds and hundreds of construction workers, artifacts, iron workers -- hard hats, iron

workers rush in to do everything they could to help the people in these buildings. i don't hear much about these people, who probably some of them have since given their lives to the damage that happened to their health. i wonder what this man has to say about these people and what the government has done for them and their families? host: we were just talking about that. guest: this goes to what i was talking about. there was another construction worker i wrote a lot of stories about the daily news. picuro, he was an ironworker. he got sick and died shortly after the first program was her new. those folks are out there -- was renewed. those folks are out there. there were corrections officers involved in the cleanup. you don't think of them as first

responders. there were a lot of them at the landfill at staten island where they took to bury where they were sorting. host: you talked about your experience down there. are there reporters who have qualified for the victims compensation fund? guest: i actually don't know who they all are. i know there are at least a dozen reporters who are at least in the health program. i don't know of any compensation funds. there were folks that were there day in and day out. ironically, the reporters are in the same program with some of the firefighters and police officers. host: michael mcauliffe has covered it for years as a reporter with various organizations. you can see his work at nydail ynews.com. guest: thank you.

host: up next, in our final 30 minutes, we will be talking about senator bernie sanders' proposal we are expecting today to cancel one $6 trillion in student debt. trilliono hear -- $1.6 in student debt. we want to hear your thoughts. you can start calling in now. we will be right back. >> purkes reviews calls it a milepost. from the new york journal of books, the presidents makes a fast, engrossing read. rankabout how historians the best and worst chief executives.

explore the life events that shape our leaders, the challenges they faced. the presidents is now available as a hardcover or ebook today at ents ororg/thepresid wherever books are sold. >> tonight, on the communicators, we continue our hill.to ces on the towardsevice is geared school shootings and school intruders. we have a door lock that would be on the outside of the door. it can be put in place. bracket on be one the door itself and one on the door frame. what happens when there is an intruder in the building, that lock will slide in.

tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span2. >> the house will be in order. >> for 40 years, c-span has been providing america unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, and the supreme court. you can make up your own mind. created by cable in 1979, c-span is brought to you by your local cable and satellite provider. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. "washington journal" continues. host: about 25 minutes left in our program today. asking you a question this morning based on what we expect to hear from senator bernie sanders this afternoon. this is the headline from today's washington post, senator sanders will propose canceling the entire $1.6 trillion in

student loan debt. that proposal is expected to come monday. the story noting it is a significant escalation of the policy fight in the 2020 democratic presidential primary two days before the first debate in miami. by 45udent debt held million americans including all private and graduate school debt. he would also make public universities, community colleges, and trade schools tuition free. he is proposing to pay for this wall street tax on that would raise $2 trillion over 10 years. that is the story this morning. this was bernie sanders from a campaign event over the weekend talking about student debt. [video clip] >> we are going to be saying it is a little bit crazy for people

to do what they have to do, which is to get a quality education and then find themselves in the absurd position of having to pay that debt off for decades. some of those people, they cannot afford to get married, have kids, buy their own home. we are going to change that. [cheers and applause] some of you may remember that 10 voted to bailress out the crooks on wall street. do you remove that? [booing] they provided $700 billion in federal loans and in addition

trillions of dollars in zero interest or low interest loans. i think the time is now for wall street to repay that obligation to the american people. [cheers and applause] if we could bail out wall street, we sure as hell can reduce student debt in this country. host: senator bernie sanders over the weekend. we are expecting a formal announcement today by the senator. the washington post reporting he is expected to be joined by senator ilhan omar as well as jayapal, who is championing legislation to make

universities tuition free. your thoughts this morning i'm making colleges tuition free. -- on making colleges tuition free. (202) 748-8000is if you are a recent college graduate. all others (202) 748-8001. first from florida. good morning. caller: good morning. i have a problem with the government picking up the slack for the benefit of the are enjoyingthat the tax cuts. these are the companies that are going to be hiring these whouates and these people are in college.

the company i worked for when i was younger will help pay for college education, and i saw a lot of college kids come through this business. why are these companies -- a ren't these companies who benefit from all of this wealth giving back to the college kids who are making them even richer? bernie, if you are listening, can you put that on your agenda? thank you. host: we expect to hear from senator sanders today. we want to hear from you before hand as we talk about his proposal to eliminate u.s. student loan debt, costing an estimated $1.6 trillion. this is according to the vox

story that focuses on the plan, currently 45 million americans have student loans. this plan would cancel debt for all of them regardless of income or asset level. that is a notable difference from senator elizabeth warren's free college proposal, which would also provide broad debt it forbut caps households with incomes over $250,000. caller: good morning. the cost of going to college is too high. peopleson is because the that instruct in the colleges or run the colleges get paid weights you much money -- way too much money.

half of the people that are going to college are wasting their time because when they get out nothing they went to college their own dayd in to make a living. i think bernie sanders is way out of line with paying off these college loans. i think the college cost should go way down. the people that work at the college's as professors and there wages should probably be cut in half. host: you think the people that benefit most from this plan is the college industry as opposed to the students holding that debt? guest: -- caller: sure because they will raise their prices again if the government is going to pay it off. caller: good morning. i think this is the most ridiculous thing i have heard

about. this is like bribing people for their votes. if i said i was going to give everyone who votes for me to hundred thousand dollars, i would be in prison. how is this fair? people who don't go to college, how are they going to make this fair? it is impossible to be fair? it is bribery. i cannot believe people are not screaming at this. i understand people who go to college, but they made the commitment to do that, and they are going to benefit supposedly by their jobs. why are they complaining? that is all i have to say. i think it is the most ridiculous thing. about $1.6uld cost trillion to eliminate all student loan debt in the u.s. we are expecting to hear how he will pay for that. he is proposing to pay for the

legislation with a new tax on ascal transactions, including 0.5% tax on stock transactions and a 0.1% tax on bonds. such a levy would curb wall street speculation while reducing income inequality according to the century foundation, a left-leaning think tank. john from virginia. what do you think of the plan we are expecting to hear today? i think bernie sanders is getting to the point -- maybe don't have children going to the college. wors thatnt loan is child supporte the kids that go to college, they cannot even pay this debt. if they don't pay, they will have bad credit the rest of their life. that is the reality.

they graduate, they come here from the best job they can get while our children are paying for the most expensive college they can never pay back. imagine if you have a child who wants to become a doctor. the first 10 years of his life, he will pay that debt. imagine if you have some of the graduates in i.t. the reality is this student loan, we are destroying our futures. if we don't do something about it. if we say pay half of it, and we will give you some discount or government work, we cannot do that. we're saying you have $100,000 in debt, you either pay it, or you cannot even get a $1000 credit card. this is disgraceful.

thank you for taking my call. host: sarah is in texas. good morning. caller: good morning. i was calling because people atn't seem to understand whha the background was that led to these student loans. 1950's orin the late early 1960's, congress added legislation to foreign aid that require countries receiving foreign aid to spend a certain percentage of that money on populace.their we started having students coming to our universities on our tax dollars. the colleges were able to charge really high tuition for these students because they were not paying for it themselves. tuition rates were going up so

congress finally decided to pass the student loan bill that made us so american citizen students had to take out these loans in order to get a college education. meanwhile all these foreign students were getting their education on the american taxpayer dollar. host: that is certain texas. this is peter in new york city. caller: good morning. thank you to c-span. regarding the student loan situation, i totally agree with canceling the existing debt. several years ago, my son graduated from college. he was offered a free postgraduate education. that is what is called foreign

policy. it is a tremendous international security to have people coming to your country who are educated from elsewhere. that is the best way to do it. it is cheap. it creates goodwill all over the world. we could do it. it is something about time we start investing in the future. you. i think we lost point. your first mark writes in, if only these students knew the democrats were going to forgive their lonesome they would have decided on harvard or yale. make the schools as possible for the problems they cause. mj saying senator

sanders is buying votes with other people's money. caller: may 1992, the loan was supposed to be given through congress. congress had a dream, and so did i. spidering dream was to graduate from college. the government came in and compensated the school. i never was able to receive my dream. my dream was to be a medical assistant. this was in 1988. i went to school and went as far as to get my clinical, never received my clinical because it was taken away from me. this report from consumer reports in 1992 tells us the government was supposed to back these loans. loansave us these bogus and never backed this up.

host: the you think canceling student loan debt would help students today achieve their dreams? caller: i think if it was to be canceled, give us a one-year limit. i took out a $4000 loan. now that is $27,000. not $2700. look at the people trying to pay off these loans. don't take it all. let these students go to school and learn what they need to learn. let the government get what they can get from them. they can't get it from me. i don't have $27,000. host: that was janet. this is jim, oregon. caller: how are you doing? host: i'm doing well. inler: i am disappointed

burnie. sounds like he is getting a little desperate by warren doing what she has done. i was quite frankly a bernie gu y. the other issue is one of these things that needs to be looked at, the percentage of interest you are charging on these loans. as 7.6%ad loans as high interest. that is way out of whack. i think warren's is a better issue. one of your callers complained about the professors making too much money. i just googled it, and it says 168,000.er pay is $ down thent to dumb education, why even bother having colleges? we have this right wing approach that if i don't get it, nobody else should get it.

quite frankly, i am tired of paying for the road running in front of their house. that is taxes. that is what this country is made of. as theernie sanders story about his impending announcement on student loan debt notes is the person who helped normalize precollege in democratic political circles from his 2016 campaign. in the current field, warren and sanders have similar proposals, with one main difference, warren's plan is means tested. it offers substantial debt cancellation to every person with household income between $250,000.nd those making about $250,000 would not qualify.

notes the more centrist democrats in the race like joe biden and amy klobuchar are proposing free two-year college tuition. story about this proposal from senator sanders. we are expecting it today. we expect an announcement in which the senator will be joined by congresswoman ilhan omar and congresswoman jayapal. sheila from florida. caller: nice to talk to you this morning. and thebernie sanders democrats are grabbing at any straw to get elected. i have a daughter that will be 39. masters and had a going for a phd.

we helped on part of the loan. we got a loan. she is paying the majority. she works full-time. she has an apartment. she has a car. she makes those payments. yes, it is money she could use, but somehow we need to quit giving everything so people don't have to pay. i am proud of my daughter that shecan go to school and makes less than $100,000. let's say that for someone who might think she makes a lot. but theser interest, kids knew when they went to college that they had this debt. ar,is like buying a home, a c or anything else. when you sign up, you need to think it over, do i want this

debt for this education? host: this is kevin in massachusetts. good morning. caller: yes, the lady from florida took a little bit of my thunder. she also refer to them as children. 17 who have are someone who will guide them. the rest of them are 18 and above. they are adults. fieldy cannot go into a that they can afford to go through the program and get a job and pay for it, why should i pay for their first big mistake as an adult? it is that simple. host: do you have children? caller: i do. just graduated from high school two weeks ago. he is taking a year off. he is getting a job. if he doesn't work for somebody else them he will be working for me until he figures out what he wants to do.

my first semester of school, i dropped out. had straight f's. went into the military. went back to the same school. got straight a's. i was motivated. they are adults. treat them as such. out: if your child took student loan debts, is that something you would consider signing on to with them and the idea of parents being responsible for these debts as well as children? it would depend on what he was going to go for. if i thought it was something worth going into. if i knew he wanted to work on airplanes and wanted to go through a school that was going to teach him to do that, getting certified, and he was putting forth the effort, yes. if he wants to go to study language or politics or art or

whatever, there is good jobs in that, but the chances of making it and having a real career path are slim. in some cases i would. in others i would not. i'm a big believer in trade schools. that's what i went to. got a two-year degree. did well. [indiscernible] from a technician job into a physics lab and had a very good career. host: thank you for sharing your family story with us. julia from louisiana. good morning. caller: the second caller from new jersey today knocking it out of the park. he is talking about how the government is making all these loans, but it is being filed to the colleges. the colleges don't care what the kids have to pay the money. bernie sanders saying you've got a right. it is not a right.

gohave got a right to to montana, but you pay for the ticket. i don't pay for it. luxury ofpay for the whatever you want to purchase. some kid is going to take out a , and they are going to take up basket weaving and think they are going to get a job. they are not going to get a job. they're going to flip burgers for the rest of their life. host: do you think education through grade 12 should be a right? we lost julian. next. your norbie, are you with us this morning? caller: yes. caller:on his bernie sanders ,eal, canceling student loan that is the stupidest thing i have ever heard of in my life.

every one of the promissory notes was signed by two consenting adults that said they would repay these loans. what do you say to that? thank you. dot is next out of maryland. caller: good morning. listeners,c-span will i pay taxes. my husband pays taxes. my grandparents pay taxes. my children are paying taxes. we pay taxes. if our children the money to get an education which best need money -- if our children need money to get an education, the money we have been paying -- all children going to colleges, parents are paying taxes and

students too. that is our money. we want to educate our children. i don't see anything wrong with our tax money being spent on our children to educate them. host: from baltimore. to maryland, alex. i don't see the point of us writing all the students who have these debts. when i was of age going to college, i started getting a job to pay for some of these expenses i had. i realized i could make more versusetting a job collecting debt for all of these who haslike my sister now caused family separation problems because of the loans that were signed off in her name. host: the mind talking more about that and how it

>> out of the family doesn't speak to her part of the family. she never fulfilled her for your education. she was is in leicestershire graduation, and now her family does not speak to the other half because of issues when they passed away and it role for best and the road of his debt. host: do you mind if i ask to the tune of how much money was the debt? caller: he had signed on for about 50k. and she still owes on other things, because a semester k?rage is want, 25 when the government is backing and all the, people are just taking the