brought to you as a public service by your television provider. here is a look at our live coverage, tuesday on c-span, the houses back at noon eastern for general speeches. legislative business at 2:00. in the evening, president trump delivers his state of the union address before a joint session of congress. our coverage starts at 8:00 p.m. eastern. on c-span2, senators are speaking about the impeachment trial before final votes are held wednesday on the two articles of impeachment. the state of the union address will also be live, followed by reaction from members of congress. nd on c-span3, a senate commerce transportation committee holds a >> we talk about projections for

the federal budget deficit with the debt campaign president maya mcguiness. a doctor from the johns hopkins school of public health talks about the response to the coronavirus. host: president trump delivers his state of the union tonight. coverage starts at 8:00 this evening. or can watch it on c-span c-span.org. you can listen to it on our free c-span radio app. this is washington journal. the iowa caucuses have concluded with no declared winner. they have held off on doing so until they figure out recording issues. it is not the result of hacking. many of the candidates declared victory of sorts before heading to new hampshire.

we will hear from democrats about the state of the recording issues when it comes to the caucuses. what you might think it means for the candidates of your choice. democrats only. (202) 748-8000 for eastern time zones. (202) 748-8001 four mountain and specific -- pacific time zones. if you want to talk about what happened in your state, (202) 748-8002. us.can tweet times hasity reporting on the events of last lack ofading up to the t a declared winner. the democratic party had released no official results even though most caucuses were

finished. they have problems with the app designed to report results. they had problems using backup systems. said she was at a union hall in davenport. she was aware of only one precinct chair that had been able to successfully use the app that was put out there for reporting issues. time, they -- there was a response from the democratic chair. he said this.

this gone in response from many, including the biden campaign lawyers who wrote this.

that is the letter from the joe biden campaign. her democrats only, what you think about the iowa caucuses. you can talk about the caucus system, the reporting system and what that means for the candidate of your choice. for eastern and central time zones, (202) 748-8000. mountain and pacific time zones, (202) 748-8001. residents, -- i will residents, (202) 748-8002. i think it's scandalous.

i don't mind not i think it's hs right away. i think that's part of the problem with having instant results for the presidential elections. we can wait two days if we have to. host: it's not going to affect momentum into new hampshire question mark -- new hampshire? who was the candidate of your choice? caller: donald trump is my candidate of choice. host: and you are a democrat. caller: i did not realize this was a democrat only call. host: steve from san jose california. caller: go ahead. good morning. is thing that surprises me they should have had this under control.

runhe democrats can't even and iowa caucus, i'm thinking twice about really voting for them in the presidential election. if they can't get a caucus right, let alone run the country. this is just a shame. when the -- he hung up. we will go to oklahoma. caller: good morning. i think this is the tip of the iceberg. the issue in washington where you have for the most part a lot of older generations that doesn't understand technology. they don't do any research. saying, itadows

started off with shadow. then they said we are going to look at the people who started shadow. saynym comes out and they we are just an investor. twitter,ok through even on the website, they announced that they started shadow. host: you are talking about the tech companies behind the app. what do you think about the result with the lack of a declared winner? i don't know. i'm a democrat. know who i'm voting

for. i think there's something strange with the donations that are sent to these companies. there are supposed to be regulations on this. out, are loopholes in and it's like a slice of cheese with holes all in it. host: that was christopher in oklahoma. he mentioned some of the companies affiliated with the app used yesterday. if you go to buzzfeed, they have a story there.

they talk about the app developer behind it. another aspect of the caucuses with a lack of a clear winner going into new hampshire, that's what we are talking about. how you think about the process? for the eastern and central time zones.

(202) 748-8001 for the mountain and pacific time zones. if you are and iowa resident, (202) 748-8002. there was no clear winner in thed last night reporting. it did not stop candidates for making speeches, declaring themselves winners of sorts. bernie sanders was included in that, making a speech in iowa before leaving for new hampshire. i have a strong feeling at some point the results will be announced. when those results are announced, i have a good feeling we're going to be doing very well. the message that iowa has sent , the message

shared by the american people is that we want a government that us, not justl of wealthy campaign contributors and the 1%. tonight, in this enormously theequential 2020 election, first state in the country has voted. end foroday marks the donald trump. the most dangerous president in modern american history. matter what our political

views may be, the people of america understand we cannot continue to have a president who is a pathological liar, who is corrupt, who does not understand and is tryingon, to divide our people up based on the color of their skin, based on their religion, their sexual orientation, where they were born. host: the president responded to last night's event. he added in his twitter feed, a big win for us tonight in iowa.

that is from the presidents twitter. we will hear next from gail in new york. good morning. willr: i'm a democrat who vote for whoever the democratic nominee is. i am more of a moderate. of biden andfavor amy. i feel so badly for everybody last night. 2008, i went for hillary to iowa. i participated as a volunteer for three weeks in the iowa caucuses. i know how hard it is to do that. the night, i think it's a sad thing.

host: will you take the results at face value? caller: i won't question when they come out. i'm sure the people who are trying to figure this out can't make another big mistake. i will trust what comes out. i feel badly for everybody. what a fiasco. what a way to start the campaign. to stick together. we have to go on from this. host: we will hear from philip in virginia. for taking myyou call. i am a bernie supporter. i think it's entertaining that the tech company is called shadow and it was headed by a hillary clinton supporter.

election, the superdelegates stole the election from bernie. shadow is still hanging over bernie. terrible cloud over the results. they just don't want bernie in. antiestablishment candidate just like trump was for the republicans. i think they are doing this intentionally. existences been in for a year and should have had the bugs ironed out. .hey want biden they want their establishment candidate in. klobuchar or amy pete buttigieg really have a chance. it comes down to biden and

bernie. last year, when the candidates started announcing, you asked which candidate would be best to go against donald trump. i called in at that time and mentioned bernie. when it comes time to actually vote, you've got bernie right up there. host: that is still up in virginia. tim in alberta writes for political. -- politico. been a close calls before, nothing approaches the catastrophe. it was the beginning of the end after a half-century long run kicking off the process.

the death of iowa is the piece. you can find it on the politico website. we will go next to montana. go ahead. caller: good morning. i think they don't like bernie. i agree. there might be something

in the dark corners. certainly the republican party is in the mix. host: what lead you to that conclusion? all the dishonesty in the republican party. they will do anything to get elected. host: james is from tennessee. talking about the results of the iowa caucuses. we are still waiting on those results. hello. caller: hello. it's notnt to mention surprising to me that this delay has occurred. particularly concerned about it.

i am not in that area. i understand this is the start of the season for the election campaign. course, i have contacted my when i got aes response from them, it seemed even though they thanked me theyy outreach to them, told me they were going to vote along the party line of the republicans. host: back to the caucuses, you're not concerned about this lack of reporting so far been the start of the political season? of the it's because influx of information that is brought out to the public. all one message.

it's just like something that scott five or six different heads. it's meandering in one direction. that relate to a lack of a clear winner from yesterday? caller: there's been no decision. one for this time ofil the final announcement who the front runner is. do you think that has a long-term impact on the rest of the campaign? caller: not necessarily. even though it has been a guide for who wins iowa is the one who will eventually we, the nominee. are -- so many candidates

vying for that. host: connecticut is next. linda is in connecticut. go ahead. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i have been, against having caucuses and the stain -- same two states leaving. i think it should rotate and go in alphabetical order. there are no residents in any state that are more tuned in to the issues that another. i think the first in the nation stuff has got to end. change youres that thinking on this? caller: now i definitely think any state that has for years to be the first in the nation,

that's what they do and they are mowed it and marketed and then fail. it proves my point that no one state is any better at this. volunteersy for the in iowa. it confirms what i've always thought. no state should be first in the nation. it should rotate. the other thing i'm concerned is the conspiracy theories brought up by bernie supporters. we are going to each other alive. what are you doing? the object is to be donald trump, it's not for bernie to be biden. this is got to stop. we are going to kill ourselves.

the only one who won last night is donald trump. that's a shame. up amyinda brought klobuchar. in a speech yesterday before heading off to hampshire, this is a portion of that. quacks you heard we don't know the results. i did not want to let another minute go by without thanking all of you. we know there are delays. we are punching above our weight. my heart is full tonight. i have my great chair here. thank you. staffe this fantastic that has been with us. my husband and daughter are here.

i want to thank them. i want to thank our tireless organizers and unstoppable volunteers who would never give up. we are feeling so good tonight. someway i'm getting on a plane to new hampshire. we are bringing this ticket to new hampshire. evenin a crowded field, ,uring the impeachment hearing that cap meet bolted to my desk for the last two weeks. we kept fighting. you kept fighting for me. we have started in a blizzard. a lot of people did not predict i would finish that speech. summer, they kept saying

is she going to make it through the summer? here and say is we are we are strong. with that same grip that we arer that lizard, ready to head to new hampshire. iowa, we havee in beaten the odds every step of the way. we have done it on the merits and ideas. we have done it with hard work. in a democracy, it is not about the loudest voice or the biggest bank account. idea and thee best person that can turn those ideas into action. the breakdown of the delegate counts involved in

iowa. delegates.1 27 art delegated by the state. a in new hampshire, that's a modified version of an open primary. overall.tes 16 of them are allocated by the states to districts. nevada is next on february 22. the state has 36 delegates. 13 are at large. on to south carolina, february 29.

there are 54 delegates overall. if you want more of that, you can find it on business insider on their website. there are still no results due to reporting issues. we are to democrats bout that. daniel is next in california. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call this morning. i watched the caucus last night. i thought it it was perplexing. we are still waiting. i was a prior republican. i voted republican the last 12 years. host: what do you mean by that? results in the organization of how it was designed. host: do you think the system needs to change? caller: old habits die hard.

you have to look at where you are. i don't know what's in iowa. broken, i't understand you want to come into the 20th century. sometimes the old way is the good way. i think they need to think about that more in a sense. iowa't think the people in are motivated to move into the new era. they are not that type of state. it's not that type of area. does it matter that we don't have a declared winner yet? caller: it does matter. i think they need to figure out who did it. i'm a big donor for obama. i raise money. we've done a lot.

i want to do the same thing for the next democrat here. i'm ready to vote. i'm ready to put fire under my team to make some moves. i'm looking at one of the females. i won't say which. they can bring us out of debt. host: why'd you associate that with a female candidates? caller: they are better with money. my wife handles the house. she is much better at handling the budget with regard to finance. host: that was daniel in long beach, california. t in good to pa sacramento. a one supporter. i'm glad this mix of happened with the electronics and

everything. everybody can get their act together in the states get their equipment up-to-date and make sure everything is working so our elections can be good. host: you say this serves as a warning to everyone else, even though i had to experience it? caller: that's what i think. host: do you think it matters ultimately when the results are reported? will you accept them? does this affect how you think about the results? hopeful thatery everything is above board. get your equipment in order. that's all i want to say. baltimore, maryland, you are up next. caller: thank you for taking my call. shame. it's a

i think it does highlight how this is going to be going forward. it's clearly not a perfect system. there are going to be a lot of issues. onare going to be relying digital and phones and automation. important, it's not going to work perfect every time. it highlights the need to have leaders who are going to understand the technology. when issues crop up, they can speak to it with some level and it's not a conspiracy. host: part of it was technology based. part of it was just reporting based. caller: it's at that interface

of old versus new. leaders who understand technology, it's going to be more and more important. do you think it impacts the candidates either way? and no.honestly, yes i think the optics are terrible. i don't think it's going to affect the caucus results. we will get the correct numbers in the end. i worry about the optics of it. think the candidates who will this is what happened. it's not a big deal. it does highlight that this means integrating the old versus

new into our process. i think the candidates will do that better. they will serve the best. we've got about half an hour of getting your thoughts, democrats only. you can add your thoughts to the mix. you can call us, send tweets and tax. (202) 748-8000 for the eastern and central time zones. (202) 748-8001 for the mountain pacific time zone. iowau are a resident of and you solid happened in your state, (202) 748-8002. another resident of maryland, this is johnny. hello. caller: pedro, this is really an embarrassment. they've taken something that is a very simple process and made

it this complicated caucus thing that they have. many people can't even participate. disabled people have a difficult time with us. , there are only 3000 people who can get to the caucus. they insist on being first. microcosm of a lot of problems with voting in america. you have gerrymandering going on by both parties. you have voter suppression. republicans think that 3 million people that shouldn't vote vote. back in florida, you had hanging chads. you had the supreme court making the final conclusion and

stopping the recap. voting in america is ridiculous. host: when you were talking applications, is this the regular caucus you've seen before? this is how i look at it. you can take a cardboard box to each voting station. you can take blank pieces of paper. people could write their name on the paper, the name of the candidate and put it in a box. candidates could be where each box is located. they could cap these pieces of paper. within an hour, you could have the results. what are they doing with changing different locations in a corner of a room, this is all

unnecessary. person, doing each you feel like when these results come out they will be acceptable? they are not. bernie and hillary were doing this, there was high actuallys that sanders one. hillary one.inute, host: that is johnny in maryland. we have a line for those in iowa, (202) 748-8002. we will hear from phil. good morning. caller: i just wanted to give some feedback on the process. i did this was for ron paul in des moines.

was an odd experience. have your preliminary round , you have toe 15% represent 15% in the room. can't gatherdate 15% of the room, your candidate is no longer viable. we needed 12 people. we had towe pick a second one. i threw mine to elizabeth warren because they were just one person shy. i like andrew yang. we were so close. we worked so hard. it's just a weird process. i'm confident the results will

come into bernie took away. her -- think bernie biden is viable. host: west you think about the new rules in place? this idea about how the results will be reported. app a: i can speak to the little bit. i met our district captain. appwas talking about the before hand. she didn't seem to be struggling with it. me was if we are close to being viable, she is getting her marching orders with how to proceed. it was a lie feedback situation for district captains.

i worked third shift. i just got off work and was catching up to the headlines. i'm not sure what happened. she wasn't having an issue with the app. when it comes time to record the results, that may be a different aspect. there is a rocksolid paper trail. i had to register. i had to put down my driver's license number. they know who i am. they know who might vote was for. they had a solid record on paper. they may have to count it. host: i don't know if you heard some calls. we heard about this experience this year, it might change the idea of a caucus in future years. do you think it changes and is

necessary? what do you think? caller: i'm not new to iowa. i had to reregister. paul backus for ron in the day in iowa. unfortunate if the tradition changes. me why itexplained to is the way it is. i think it's unfortunate. it takes iowa out of its role. i think that would be unfortunate. i would like to see some refinement to the caucus. end,you end up with in the everybody sees that. you are assaulted by everyone else. i had three or four bernie people on me. foreign, they were so enthusiastic.

they were so adamant. they were just one person short. that doesn't seem to be the way the candidate should be chosen. to distribute the delegates. for thest be a way threshold of 15%. shunned by has been the media up until very recently. 15% in iowa, get that would give him more screen time and more recognition and momentum. that was a firsthand account of events from yesterday, including the reporting. if you are an iowa resident and you want to call, (202) 748-8002 . feel free to do so. chicago, hello. that person. we will go to tom in detroit.

you are next up. sayer: i would like to thank you for letting me talk. i think it's not diverse enough. it's in iowa. you see all of these white people making decisions for people of color. it was held in chicago or detroit, none of those you see all of these white peoplecandidates would be inclu. it's not inclusive enough. it's a reflection of america. host: what do you think about the recording process? part, ifhe reporting you are a republican, you're going to say the democrats can't get a small election off the ground. expressedcrats have

concerns about the reporting process as well. caller: let's get back to the inclusive thing. that's the main thing. this is america. 95% is a demographic that's white people making decisions for the country. host: some of gone on to win caucuses but not the general election. caller: they should not have that. that discriminates. host: let's go to sarah in michigan. go ahead. wondering, i've had a lot of faith in the iowa caucus. aver before have we had discrepancy like we're having right now. is there any logical explanation? host: do you have a logical explanation? caller: i do not.

that's why i am calling. host: let's go to indiana. good morning. you are next up. caller: thank you very much for taking my call. i'm very suspicious about the process. i am sick and tired of the corrupt hacks of the d&c. suspicious.s me it's clear they don't like bernie sanders. that's what i think. host: you think that is an issue in this process? caller: i'm very suspicious. russiaspicious about when i see the people behind that story. host: what do you base your suspicions on? want toi think they

delay the winter. i think bernie has a chance. they don't want to have that. you said there are some links with the clinton campaign, people who were involved. linkd that the mayor had a somewhere. i will have to read more about it. it makes me suspicious. that is bridget in indiana. you can add thoughts to the lack of a clear winner. (202) 748-8000 for the eastern and central time zones. (202) 748-8001 for the mountain pacific time zones. if you are an iowa resident, (202) 748-8002. we will continue with calls on this. we will pause for just a second to highlight the latest in the impeachment process.

the senate resumes today. senators will give comments on the acquittal process. lisa murkowski of alaska. >> what started with political initiative that degraded the office of the president, it left the congress wallowing in partisan mud. it threatened to drag the last remaining branch of government down along with it. beforetaken tough votes to uphold the integrity of our courts. that a tieame clear vote here in the senate would down our used to burn third branch of government for partisan purposes, i said

enough. the response is not to nearly 63 million americans and remove them from the ballot. the house could have pursued censure. remedy ofmped to the last resort. i cannot vote to convict. the constitution provides for impeachment. not demand ins all incidents. the first of to remind the president that political virtue is a renunciation of self. continuouses preference of the public interest. beingl from office and barred from ever holding another

office of honor, trust, or profit under the united states is the political death penalty. on president's name is ballots that have already been cast. the voters will pronounce a vote it -- verdict in nine months. we must trust their judgment. host: the idea of censure was introduced by senator joe manchin. it's too late when it comes to the topic of censure. resumes.hen the senate you can download our radio app. you can watch it on c-span 2. we have invited iowa residents

for this conversation. this is jodey. good morning. areer: i realize you looking for a firsthand account from iowa. father and my daughter and my husband and myself, we all attended the precinct caucus last night. i would say the gentleman from muscatine was dead on. it was very similar to what we experienced. there was a paper trail like you mentioned. i think things are coming in slow. i think it will get there. i think it's unfortunate, i listened to the woman talking

about the optics. things will come in. it's unfortunate that it appears to be some type of glitch or hacking. it really does have to do more with the optics. mockeryiowa look like a the caucuses may be something we should forego in the future. then't think that lens to true sense of what democracy is. this gives a chance for the little person to attend something. mean that.does

i believe this should stay in place. we make the point, our family makes a point to have a good opinion. we voice our opinion. we will do so. did you get any sense of apprehension because of the application at this point? caller: i can't speak clearly to that. if there were issues. there would be a paper trail. it's unfortunate. who knows what the actual issue is between having connectivity as far as data and wi-fi or some of these actual devices malfunctioning or if there was

something going on. to a hard boils down copy. at least we have something to fall back on. these candidates looked like they knew how to roll with it. i washough that's not who i don't think it will affect them much. regarding democrats in general, we should have each other's back. like it's a appear

mockery of some type. keep on going. host: could you caucus for? caller: biden. were 32 of us in the biden corner. bernie'se 41 in corner. we were the only viable candidates. there was a corner for amy, yang, they did not become viable. because my husband just had surgery,yang, they did not becoe viable. it was ok. once we became viable for biden, we left. my father daughter stayed. bernie and that taking that precinct.

that was jodey giving us her perspective from iowa. you may have seen some of the actual caucuses. if you want to learn more about the process, you can go to the website c-span.org. you can learn about it at the website. boolean castro gave a tweet. a republican tom mast the -- tom massey.

senator ron johnson. several members of the congress giving tweets yesterday. maryland, go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. i just wanted to say, i tried to call last week. people can listen to you on their phone. that's all he want to say about that. this is a perfect reason for paper ballots and black ink. we will count them. don't think we should use optical readers this point. i see this as a problem. i don't watch tv.

i listened to the radio. if mr. trump has tweeted out, robert mercer was on his team when he ran in 2016. you can read the book. i don't trust these people. if they have a background in tact and they've used it to win already, what happened here? that could get into a big conspiracy. it's not out of the realm possibility. app that was used is connected to several people on the democratic side. caller: i just got my washington post. i don't use the internet anymore either. you have to realize what donald has been doing. he deflects. look at the criminals. he doesn't keep competent people who know how the government and military runs.

he's gotten rid of all of those people. host: do you think the caucus system needs to stay? think it's a't system that is the problem. i think it was to put a glitch in the system so we won't trust our system. it's the reason why it's so important to have an engaged population. we need to be engaged in voting. one person was engaged after the lack of a declared winner in iowa. warren was speaking in iowa. you what ig to tell do know. as the baby daughter of a janitor.

i am so grateful to be on stage tonight. tonight, we are one step closer to defeating the most corrupt president in american history. tomorrow, donald trump makes a speech about the state of union. i have a message for every american. our union is stronger than donald trump. unless -- in less than a year, our unit was stronger than ever byn that one man is replaced one very persistent woman.

donald trump and i see donald trump -- america from the viewpoints. trump grew up in york city in a 23 room mansion. i grew up in oklahoma in a two bedroom house with one bathroom and a converted garage were my brothers slept. donald trump was getting a $200,000 allowance every year from his dad's real estate empire. he got nearly half $1 billion in total from his dad. i took on small jobs to make money. bone spursp claimed to avoid the draft. all three of my older brothers

signed up for military service. years int spent five combat in vietnam. before he became a reality tv host, donald runningy after another into bankruptcy. businesses,ll ripping off workers and scamming students but i spent most of my fighting to make it easier for families to get back on their feet. we've been asking you about the lack of reporting from iowa caucuses due to reporting. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, in eastern000 central time zone. and748-8001 in mountain

pacific time zones. state of the union takes place tonight. our covert starting 8:00. -- joining iphone to us on the phone is a white house correspondent. thanks for joining us. overall what's the strategy of the president tonight? >> it is donald trump so i will say anything could happen before it happens. i will tell you what the white house is saying which is he is probably not going to mention impeachment, if only in passing. this strategy is to probably do what he would've done which is to go out there and read from the teleprompter as he does on these types of speeches and talk about his accomplishments. , forcredit for the economy traded, health care, immigration. what he thinks he is done.

he will be talking the most past the member's of congress to the american people. reelection and he wants to get that out. host: do you think as you say that do you think in one shape or form the topic will appear? guest: i think everyone will feel it in the room because they're sitting there in the room, the house impeached him only a few weeks ago. he is in the middle of this trial. everyone knows it's very likely to end in acquittal and so i know republicans on capitol hill and his advisors are recommending he doesn't mention it they hope he talks right past it and doesn't talk about it. we will see what he tries to do. there are a lot of times most of speech, when he gives a he ad lib.'s some.

he talks on. this is not one of those speeches. in all the speeches he done before congress he has read from the telecom -- teleprompter brain it is -- teleprompter. this is generally the type of thing he won't randomly mention something. if it is not written in the speech it's not clear if he will say it. host: sitting behind him will be nancy pelosi. any expectations or insights on what happens from her perspective. guest: the cameras will be on her. she will you watch closely to see what her expression is. i think she will be polite and cordial as she generally is. the question is will she be able to control her face, will she applaud? it's interesting to see how democrats will be in the chamber. will they applaud generally two that they have applauded

for? will they do that? i've heard a few members of congress democrats will not be coming. ill be protesting. that-- they will be protesting. i don't know if you are by a window or you can get there and repeat that. guest: i hope i'm ok. it will be unclear how they react in the chamber. do they show up first of all and do they applaud for bipartisan topics they have wanted to work andy prescription drugs infrastructure or do they just sit there and not applaud. host: one of the write ups today saying when comes to ms. pelosi's perspective that she's said the democrats are standing to work with him on those types of issues but how would you describe the nature of the relationship directly between the president and the house

speaker? guest: it has been tough from the beginning. never more so than now. even before the democrats took over the house, the first couple of years they had trouble getting along and then last year, every meeting between president trump and senate minority leader chuck schumer and nancy pelosi sort of ended up in a blowup either the president walked out of the speaker walked out, they did not seem to have a can struck to meeting. many times was in front of the cameras where they were actually arguing. it will be unclear if either side can do that. in november they will want to show both gestures showed -- show voters they did something great so they have incentive to get along. it there a sense of president inviting guests. any insight who the president has invited? >> he will definitely be

inviting guests. the first lady will be there with the guest, there are -- we have some hints and you saw in the super bowl ad a hint, the president's campaign had two ads in the super bowl. one was about criminal justice reform ended featured someone who i don't know if he is coming but you can bet one of the people that will be there will probably be someone who has been in prison and gotten out of prison and made something of their life after that and a nod to redemption in the criminal justice reform which was bipartisan, his son-in-law and daughter were very much involved with that. i think you will see that and also the president loves to talk about military service. i'm sure the will be someone there from the military. some smaller causes perhaps he

will mention great he will sprinkle throughout. response totand the the state of the union will be given by a democrat from michigan. any insights as to why she was chosen. they feel like even though she's not a household name, she is someone as an up-and-coming star and they want to feature her. the person to give the response is always generally someone who is coming up in that party, they feel could have a breakout performance and that you might be hearing their name in a few years we might be saying we were middle and she gave that response. that's how they look at this. it chance for someone to be on the national stage to get some attention. usually the president has some type of event on the day of the state of the union where he invites the press to talk but the issues he will discuss. any sense of that and who is attending and who is not

attending? generally he is had and so is it predecessors a lunch on the day of with anchors from various places, c-span even in cbs and nbc, he will be having that lunch today. he didn't have it on his public schedule. but we understand that that is happening today. cnn has reported they were not invited to attend. i think they've been attending for about 20 years now, at least one person from their so they are not attending. the president made them a frequent criticized, the question is what with anchors do. i suspect that will still go on but it will sorta be marred by this issue with cnn not being invited. serves at themar white house correspondent for politico. thanks for your time today. can see our, you coverage of state of the union

starting at 8:00 tonight on c-span. and are free c-span radio app. we return to the topic of a lack of a clear winner being declared in iowa as a result of the caucuses. indiana, you are up next. think for waiting ahead. first i want to say i had a niece who worked at c-span and unfamiliar with you there. today is the last time i will ever look at c-span again. you can put your hand on the button because that's what you normally do especially when someone is saying some thing you don't want to hear. host: we are talking what the caucus results. what do you think of those. caller: you let 10 republican calls in the democratic line. i've been on this for an hour waiting to speak with you. and you just let the people call , steve let a whole hour ago by the other day and he didn't get

but one democratic call. host: our producers tell me you've been on for 24 minutes, you are on now. you have had your say, now you have a chance to talk but the caucus results. my hands are here and not on the button. go ahead. the last time i will even try to call you because like i said i've been on do enjoyand i really the iowa caucus but i think they are out of date. i really think they should just go away and go to new hampshire if they want to but go away. i don't see why you make them so obvious. host: i'm trying to understand why you think the caucuses should go away. caller: i think that because like i just said i think they

are obsolete right now. i know was some type of glitch last night but i've never seen were just a handful of people should be able to tell who they want or choose who they want all the rest of us to vote for. you, i betan assure the person they were going to pick or i'm going to pick is not the person i want them to pick. so i don't see why they would even do that. host: do you think the caucus system has that much influence were one person from that caucus will determine who other people vote for? do you think that caucus system has that much influence were one person gets chosen in iowa and other people will automatically vote for them? caller: that's what they are trying to do. when they pick someone, a lot of people, not everybody want to is the one so we

have to get behind him. so i don't think that's fair. ultimately estate has to start the process so even if it wasn't iowa, would any state have that kind of pressure than if they were the first ones down the line as part of the process is concerned? caller: that is true but i think would be a good idea, why don't they change it around. why can't they may be have new hampshire one and then the next four years have indianapolis in the next four years maybe some other place, alabama. me say this before you hang up because you won't hear my voice again because i'm not can i watch you anymore. host: i think if you watch other networks you want have -- go ahead with your final comment. caller: i didn't say i hadn't

been watching the network. host: you said this is the last time. please make your final statement. caller: today is the last time i'm to call because the last time i'm gonna watch and i don't understand and adjust want you to tell me why people call and tell you all that they get their news from c-span. i know some intelligent people are there when they call and make these great crazy outrageous statements until these lies you sit there and let them go on with it because a lot of people here these people so why can't you all correct them. i know donald trump he likes different people but why do you have to get all the people from the south that are just completely illiterate. host: before i let you go i will say this. you called in and wanted to engage with us and we give you time to engage to talk about the caucus process and you brought some ideas to the table. andpe you will call back keep listening and watching as

far as what we do and how we do it. let's go to bernie in maryland. good morning, go ahead. caller: good morning. that was an entertaining call. i don't know if i can top that. one of the other networks they were talking about the candidates and claire mccaskill mentioned the gun laws or gun violence and she said bernie was involved with the gun issue years ago and something she didn't like. and she felt the other candidates running for president should say something about it and i believe he was taken advantage of like he was four years ago. -- have a great afternoon.

host: paul is next in maryland. paul in maryland, hello. thank you so much for c-span, it is extremely valuable, we really love you all. , obviously say things went wrong last night in the caucuses and not having the results last night. go wrong i don't think we should just go into hysteria. i was not impressed with all the commentators, there is fine line between being frustrated yet still being patient. ,f we get hysterical so quickly we are sowing distrust into the system. know, the reason

they are delayed is because they want to get it right. they should be able to get a write faster but they are delayed because they want to get it right so we should at least feel good about that side of it. storyt like feed into the that the elections are not -- we can't trust and the results because that's what trump wants you to think, that's what putin wants you to think. let's have a little more patience and a little more courage to say the american system, we will get it right. host: so at the end of the day you will trust the results. caller: i think they need to investigate what went wrong. i don't think we know enough what was going on there. and we need to modernize the system, i.t. is key to getting that right. i think the systems are probably we should invest in that and a lot getting up to speed and security. of the old-fashioned way

calls is the way to do it now. let's do that and get it right. let's not panic because we are 12 hours late. host: paul in maryland talking about the results in iowa. he saw the letter in part for the biden campaign about concerns they had about the reporting process. it was joe biden himself talking in iowa about the results they were at the time, here is him from yesterday. >> the iowa democratic party is working to get this result straight. i want to make sure they are very careful with deliberations. the indications are it's going to be close. we will walk out of here with our share of delegates. we don't know what it is yet but we feel good about where we are. so it is onto new hampshire. [applause] nevada, south carolina and well beyond. we are in this for the long haul.

not just to remember tonight but throughout this campaign, thank you. [applause] >> this isn't just another election. this is well beyond, this is of a ending an era bigger thanhis is any of us. it really is. we cannot allow donald trump to be reelected to the united states presidency again. i am ready to give him a nickname, the former president trump. [applause] and folks as i said it's bigger than any candidate, bigger than any party and folks, i said from the outset, we both said we are in a battle for the

soul of the nation and that's not hyperbole. i think it's been demonstrated every single hour he remains as president of the united states. each and every one of us knows deep in our bones that everything this nation stands for is at stake. four more years of donald trump will fundamentally alter the character of this nation. >> those speeches available at c-span.org. ron is in new hampshire. caller: how are you doing. thank you so much c-span, you guys rock. you, i think new hampshire will be ok, i hope so. but it is easy to see how people can lose faith in our elections, the last election was tainted both by the democratic party putting their finger on the scale for hillary clinton and donald trump inviting the russians to turn our national

elections into an international election. so it's easy to understand especially for young people to be -- to lose faith in the process. host: you said you -- you started out with i think new hampshire will be ok. could you expand on those results here might affect your state. caller: it would drive me nuts. i believe the last presidential election was --nted and if this one here there are going to be glitches, we are talking about millions of people trying to get their vote in all at once. there's always going to be some glitches here and there. but there has to be some form of

know, some form of repair because her systems are outdated. there has to be some sort of something that the government can do to make sure that our elections are viable. outdated and our system and a lot of people are out there trying to take advantage of it. and i don't know, i would rather vote for fled -- fred flintstone then see donald trump in office for another four years. host: do you think it changes the tony new hampshire not knowing you winner off the bat? caller: i think it absolutely does. and willife and i have be voting for bernie sanders and that would just drive me absolute nuts not to know bernie sanders is a good viable candidate going forward because

i believe bernie sanders has been consistent throughout and he is the only one that believes we have to make the fundamental changes to be able to serve our general masses instead of constantly letting our money that we generate and all our tax money go to the corporations that put us in a nosedive in 2008. host: let's hear from pat in blue hill, maine. tvler: i was watching my about three months ago with and saidng going on the polls were -- a race to thatt effect. i've known for a while with c-span and he comes back on here later and said the same exact

thing. and now i'm beginning to wonder if that's what happened the polls last night. i saw the man standing over the table, i don't know any thing --ut caucus, but he's next in paterson, new jersey. i think this is going to cause massive mistrust in the election system in the iowa caucus is completely retrograde at this point. it's just going to cause the entire election to be question from herein on out. especially because prior to the caucus, there were many, i'm

looking at a political article right now. you had the reporter on from the same magazine in the articles headlined his dnc members discuss rules to change to stop sanders at convention. caucus before this there's been headlines of bernie sanders and this thing is going to cause massive derailment in the trust of the electoral process of the country. i think people are asking why it is taking an entire night into today and we still have nothing to show for it. new hampshire is going to have the primary system and i was looking at the articles the parties in the lead there as well. headlineseing some

saying it should just be scrapped and iowa should be voting in an actual primary and do over the caucus altogether. host: that is mike in paterson, new jersey. rush limbaugh with the announcement he is been diagnosed with advanced lung cancer. broadcastr closes with the grim news saying he will be leaving his microphone for treatment, it's been one of us to be just difficult days because i've known this moment was coming. i'm sure you all know now i don't like talking about myself and making things about me. the one thing, there's been an incredible bond between you and me, adding so i have to tell you something i didn't have to tell you -- i wish i didn't have to tell you. i can't help feel on letting everyone down. the upshot is i've been diagnosed --

pennsylvania, about events in iowa yesterday. hello. caller: i'm surprised because all the forecasting trying to keep bernie sanders out of the caucuses in the elections were democrats. it seems like they are playing their hand again with a mixed match tennis match of who's good to be the queen or the king and there's too many factions right now in the democratic party and they are all stating one message or another. but bernie sanders kept to his message the whole time during his campaign so far. that wanther people to jump into the election they are bloomberg just destroying the democratic party as a whole. they have to have a stern, if not one practical message as a

party to at least that the american people can listen to. dividedw they are so and everybody predicted this would happen in iowa. it's been predicted at least three to four months in advance, just not bernie sanders -- to stop bernie sanders from taking the primary. host: one more bit of tape to show you. this is pete buttigieg in iowa from yesterday. >> so we don't know all the know by the, we time it is all said and done, iowa, you have shocked the nation. [applause] >> because by all indications,

we are going on to new hampshire victorious. [applause] [chanting pete] [applause] >> one year ago, it was in the iowa januaryf in what we began this unlikely journey. we weren't well known, but we had a new iowa idea, the idea tt this moment when washington has never felt further from our everyday lives, a middle-class mayor from the american midwest

could carry the voices the american people all the way to the american capital and make sure they are actually heard. [applause] >> we had the belief that in the face of exhaustion and cynicism and division, in spite of every trampled norm and poisonous tweet, that a rising majority of americans was hungry for action and ready for new answers. [applause] >> we could see an american majority learned -- yearning for leadership to rally us together behind ideas to make a difference in our lives. [applause] >> we saw that americans were ready to come together, but our politics were not.

and to seize this moment we needed a new path forward that welcomed people instead of pushing them away. brought them together instead of driving them apart because this is our best and maybe our last shot. although speech is available on our website at c-span.org and everything we've collected is worth the 2020 campaign also available on the site. we will talk about matters of the economy next up the congressional budget office predicts the deficit will hit $1 trillion. we will look at the numbers. later on of the program, dr. tom ingalls be director of the john hopkins school of health and security will discuss the federal response to the coronavirus, that conversation coming up on "washington journal." ♪

not winning for our party, winning dish victory is winning for our country. -- victory is winning for our country. >> president trump delivers a state of the union address from the house chamber live tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern followed by the democratic response with michigan governor gretchen witmer and texas represented veronica escobar. live coverage on c-span. or listen on the free c-span radio app. >> the impeachment trial of president trump is coming to a close. >> today we urge you in the face of overwhelming evidence of the president's guilt and knowing

that if left in office he will continue to seek foreign interference in the next election to vote to convict on both articles of impeachment and to remove from office donald j. trump, the 45th president of the united states. >> protect the integrity of the united states senate, stand firm today and protect the office of the president, stand firm and protect the constitution. stand firm today and protect the will of the american people, stand firm and protect our nation and i ask this partisan impeachment come to an end. >> watch the final vote on the impeachment of president trump live from the senate floor wednesday starting at 4:00 p.m. eastern on c-span two, on at c-span.org/impeachment or listen on the free c-span radio app. >> during this election season,

since you can't be everywhere, there is c-span. our campaign 2020 program differs from all other political coverage for one simple reason. it is c-span. we brought to your unfiltered view of government every since 1979 and this year we are bringing you and unfiltered view of people seeking to steer that government this november. in other wars, your future. this election season to just go deep and direct. see the biggest picture for yourself and make up your own mind. with c-span campaign 2020 brought to you by your television provider. washington journal continues. this is maya mcguiness, the president of committee for responsible federal budget and president of the fix the debt campaign to talk about matters of fiscal issues.

thanks for joining us. ultimately there was an expectation of the federal deficit would hit $1 trillion. when was that supposed to happen and when did it? guest: we been expecting for the last couple of years because it's not a surprise. year it would be just under the trillion dollar mark. unfortunately we are now the year were trillion dollar deficits are officially hitting up. money, but a lot of it's actually the single largest budget deficit we've ever had when the economy was this strong. looking at the numbers, never when the economy was strong have we had a milestone like this. it should be a huge wake-up call the country.

i feel like lawmakers of kind of forgotten. the budget deficit is when the country doesn't to get enough money in taxes to pay for the federal spending and so oftentimes, i run a nonpartisan group that worries about the budget. oftentimes we only care about balancing the budget. there times and's important to borrow when you are in a recession or a big national emergency. you want to borrow money when you need to and then run a smart healthy balance sheet when the economy is strong. you want to borrow or use national debt widely for more economic purposes. politicals tough environment. that's what we've been seeing emerson's the economy recovered. taxes.the

host: to the deficit would look and tripping factors. we are living longer. it means the programs that are built to support people in their old age or merely social security and medicare are underfunded. because they were put in place at a time when the retirement age was 65 but life expectancy was 62. that is changed and many people are living into their 70's and 80's and 90's. we haven't updated the program and the growth of spending the goes out is very significant. number two, health care costs. they are still growing faster than the overall economy. a third one i wouldn't have said so much last year but discretionary spending which we had capped under the sequester, not a very smart policy but it was supposed to push us to think about other areas of saving. we just forgot about it. members said we can't stick to it.

they lifted that spending cap so discretionary spending is back growing. guest: was that last -- host: was that last they did that? guest: last year was a very big one. now the single fastest growing part of a federal budget, interest payments on the national is the single fastest growing thing. you also to point out while the spending is growing more quickly than the economy. we are not putting enough revenue. the biggest things are aging, health care, interest on the debt is growing quickly and under financing all these. host: we heard of most every administration talk about these making promises to resolve these physical -- fiscal issues. why no results so far? guest: in many ways the national debt now example five the big problems in washington terms of governing. let's look at where we are. we have trillion dollar deficits every year as far as the eye can see.

it is the highest it's ever been in the country other than right after world war ii. and then it quickly came down. in order to fix that problem he would have to enact about $6 trillion of savings over 10 years. we haven't had anything close to that. we haven't made any savings. us to fix order for this problem there a couple of things you need. politicians willing to focus on good policy more than good politics. you need politicians were willing to focus on the long-term instead of the immediate political cycle. you need that partisanship because these are difficult and you need to give each other cover making these choices and those are basically the opposite of what you are seeing in this political environment where it's there is notn and much compromising congress going on at all. and the fact we've seen since this president entered office

we've seen the debt -- we signed into law an increase of four $.7 trillion for the national debt. because they are so willing to borrow instead of making those actual our choices which are the center of budgeting. want to ask questions ,hether deficit issues 202-748-8001 for republicans, 202-748-8000 for democrats. 202-748-8002 for independents. where to cuts fall in. guest: that is what leaves us with insufficient revenue. we've spending going faster than the economy and our revenue is it record levels. low as it hass ever gotten. you don't expect to see that during times of african cash economic expansion. the huge tax cuts we had a few years ago were unaffordable.

we should have done what you should do if you are increasing spending, found a way to offset the cost. there was a big discussion about how they would pay for themselves and to be perfectly direct, that was never the case and it was a disingenuous argument. the other didn't understand it wasn't true or didn't tell the truth. tax cuts were not going to pay for themselves. at the time we were not competitive because we had high corporate taxes and there were a lot of improvements we could or should made to the tax code but we did what we always seem to do, the easy part, the huge tax cuts. what we didn't do is combine them with what we did in 1986 when we got rid of a lot of tax breaks. right now there's over trillion dollars in tax breaks and the tax code every year. if you wanted smaller government you could have cut spending along with the tax cuts so people talk about wanting smaller government and want to cut taxes. that's not how you get to smaller government. that's just not paying the bills.

ballooned and we are in a big problem because of that. the taxlso say i found cuts were disappointing in a political environment because leading up to that there's been a lot more bipartisan acknowledgment of huge fiscal challenges we face. all you have to do is read a report from the congressional budget office. there's been bipartisan acknowledgment problems and real efforts to work on it together. once witty huge tax cut the ballooned the deficit, it made the environment a lot more toxic and then that was solved by two huge spending increases where tax cuts other public inside, the spending increases were bipartisan but you have more people making the situation worse wears before we a lot of people working on making it better. host: so in the republican argument of it's not the tax cuts it's the spending and the democrat saying it's not the -- it's the tax cut themselves,

what do you think about both of those arguments when it comes to resolving these? guest: both of them are true. it's basic math. you can't spend a lot of money and not taken anything to pay for and be surprised of a huge deficit. basically what it is as you spend a lot of money and refused to pay for. legitimate differences of preference about what the size of government should be. generally conservatives want smaller government. nothing wrong with those differences. nobody's right or wrong there. wrong, becomes issue of it becomes this is what i want and i refuse to pay for it. because that's not what this country is based on. it's based on a diverse set of views, we will work them out and compromise and no one will get everything they want but we will steer it in a smart direction with smart economic policy and it becomes better off for the generation than the one we inherited. we are doing the opposite of

that by saying we want all these things and we don't want to pay for them. you pay for them and that's just not right. it is a spending problem at a revenue problem. when people make promises like never raise taxes, those same people talk about not cutting spending. but if you really did given is ars, congressional great place to get those numbers. there is no way to fix the big glaring deficits we have unless we look at both sides of the budget on the tax side and spending side. we will have to look at the entire budget when we are finally willing to confront this. the budget office talked about the legend of sustainable -- the ledge of sustainable. interest rates remain low in the united states, they have the ability to undertake this policy today.

stimulus, infrastructure, whatever the congress decides to do. challenge is not immediate, but as you said we know it's rising and the challenge is what the -- what is the endpoint. on the tipping point of not being sustainable, there is not an answer and at one point they said maybe at 70% gdp. we see that, we see her numbers and we are going above that without a problem. so i don't know, that's a challenge. the worry i have is when we get there moment reach the end of fiscal spending it will happen quickly and market purchase vence will lose her confidence and it will be too late. guest: i agreed with his point

completely. we don't know when the tipping point is. they are going into this. there are concerns about future growth rates because of the society. is the fact people want to lend of the u.s. money because it really has to do with whether global opportunities are and people still feel this country is a more secure place to park your money. usually people will buy u.s. bonds and so interest rates stay low which kind of covers up the problem until it doesn't appear to be a problem until suddenly it is a problem. one of the biggest concerns is a becomes too late to fix it anyway that is very painful. highest payments aren't as , if they go up by single percentage point, one percentage point could lead to about $200 billion a year in interest payments. that's more than the entire tax cut right there.

look, ratesaying are low, borrow more. but that doesn't work. once it becomes a problem. if you start to see changes in the market where people lose confidence, those rates could go up quickly. that becomes a huge problem for the u.s.. i should say we will not default. we borrow in our own currency so it's not around the world. it will have dramatically affects our economy in a which is written fraying and really needs help. it is basically like we are going into the unknown. which is fraying and really needsthe wor. we are going into that situation already over indebted not knowing when it will punch us in the face and it's not a place you want to be. host: this is maya mcguiness. from call for you comes hot springs national park,

arkansas. democrats line. go ahead. i have heard the federal , i've heard 60 billion, 80 billion a month into the economy. i don't know if that's true or not but what's the reason for that is so good come why they finding it necessary to pump it up with more borrowed money, can you comment on that please. toolsre are two major you're going to use to affect the overall economy and its monetary policy with the federal reserve system does and it's fiscal policy which is how much your taxing and spending. when the economy is turning down , both monetary policy and fiscal policy can be available to fight that recession. when we go into the next recession our national debt levels will be twice as high as

a share of the overall economy. that is one of the major concerns right now which is our monetary andse fiscal policy have been tapped out. what you are seeing is the fed is still playing a role in keeping the economy rolling. that's what you want to expect. have is challenge they to know how much to keep growth strong at a moment like this and we see that with fiscal policy. deficits are larger and that helps growth in the short term. but how much will that compromise their ability to fight economic downturns in the future. it is not an easy task with the federal reserve has to do because monetary policy sees where the economy is now. and --

economy,e loop in the have to figure out a protected against big disruptions like that. that's what they are dealing with. host: this is tony from florida saying how can we curtail spending when anything is insidered slashing and used political campaign. guest: anything that's a hard choice and anything on the tax increases, it certainly hits -- the moment someone start talking about any of those things which are responsible in terms fiscal perspective, basically opposing politicians have written the ad against them and so i think how do we geth -- our politicians to care enough about this issue to make hard choices. on this it comes down to us, it is voters who don't actually tell politicians they care about the budget deficit. thank them when they make the hard choices.

we put out a list of fiscal heroes would says thank you to the people who made hard choices. most importantly for our not willing to vote in a way that supports this responsys ability. will vote for some it cuts their taxes or increases spending. voters will have to say i won't support someone who's willing -- i'm going to support someone who's willing to make those hard choices on the spending side, we deftly need to dust as a whole lot of areas of the budget that are growing faster than the economy and that's unsustainable. i think we need lawmakers and it starts at the top. we need a president and members of congress or talk to the -- talk about the threat to our economy and national security of running these deficits. level of the american people about what's gonna happen and start talking about choices. ago,dea i saw many years they were talking about social

security reform and they said we will work together on social security reform and we promise not to attack each other when we propose solutions. will fight the politicians and everything else but on social security, we know it is so hard to talk about without having other people demagogue. we will tell the truth about the challenges, talk about some of the options and not point fingers at each other. i wish we could have a cease fire where anybody who's willing to talk about anything that makes the deficit worse that instead of being attacked by the other side, the other side could say i don't like that idea but what about this one. i wish we saw more of that and i agree with the caller's sentiment. the gentleman before me stole my thunder but you didn't

really explain the quantitative easing too much because most people don't understand what it is. i do. you are propping up the stock market falsely by pumping in, they just did days ago. and if the market is supposed to be so great and so independent, the fed shouldn't have to pump anything in. because they can't keep their balance sheets? so no one wants to buy our treasury bonds so we will artificially prop it up and then everybody says how the market is doing so great. that's like me going to vegas and i have somebody bankroll me no matter how much i lose i can constant we say i'm winning even though i am not because i'm using someone else's money and that gets added to the deficit. ,he military has got to be cut we don't fight wars the same way. but i think you ought to explain a little bit better on quantitative easing because pumping into the market is wrong. host: thank you. guest: i thought you did a

pretty good job explaining it. what happens with quantitative easing which we started, the huge downturn of 2008 but in havehas lasted and now we where the fed is actually a lot of the borrowing so it makes it much easier. it intervenes and keeps interest rates lower than they otherwise would be and a really important point you bring up is this drives the stock market higher. one of the concerns many of us have is how do we get out of the situation, it's awful like a -- awful lot like a bubble. we won't be able to keep these policies in place indefinitely. and when you pull the band-aid off, what's going to happen. we don't assemble happen if and when it stops absorbing that deficit and start to put those

treasuries back in the economy and certainly likely to have an effect on the stock market. i think we are in a vulnerable position, i think quantitative easing has contributed to an unprecedented moment but we don't know what could happen written the tipping point could come and we don't know when but it will be very unpleasant to find out. i share those concerns and the concerns about how all of this affects the stock market. and what will happen when those changes occur. talking by the trillion dollar deficit and goes up to 2030 at 1.7 trillion. guest: that's a continuation of the trend. so if you look back there's only been one time where the debt right around world war ii, he came down really quickly. if you look at our deficit or

debt and the debt is basically accumulated deficit. they are projected to go up forever and the same trend with a long-term growth. more people moving into retirement, that is incredible costly and fewer people are contributed to the growth. at the same time with the aging leasing decline in economic growth and growing health care cost. moves on how to control welfare cost. controlling aging is more difficult because we've -- but i think we need to think about at productive aging. finding ways to have more finding ways to have more flexible working environment so we can keep people in the economy as long as possible.

those projections of the fact that most of our deficit spending now is structural in nature. we have made big programs and we don't have the way to pay for them. and those will get worse every single year and we will borrow more and that means there's more interest and i will go up with a huge part of that going quickly. host: just cost associated with the affordable care act factor into these numbers? guest: we don't make our own assumptions, we take the congressional budget office because for us being there partisan is so important for the nonpartisan credibility to stay there. but our projections are based on assuming affordable care act stays in place and that has done some things to tamper down on health care cost and growth. much faster than the overall economy. one of the things women talk is weealth care programs spend a lot more time talking about coverage, expanding coverage, the cost bringing you down for individuals but we

don't talk abut how to bring the cost down for the entire economy and either you pay for it as an individual or somebody else is paying or the federal government is paying. but our health care costs are growing much faster than the economy, faster than we see elsewhere around the world. structural changes would do an awful lot not just to bring the deficit down but you tamp down on that trajectory. host: lee, good morning. caller: i'm not an economist and everything seems so highbrow. my comments are very basic. for many years i've heard when around thecame agency said we need more money, no one said we have enough money. subsequently the first thing they would do is hire more staff to give them more power or they would redecorate their offices or go on extravagant junkets. and we have a lot of waste

pork and discretionary spending to satisfy constituents to get into keep in politics and i remember way back in bridge to many things that are similar to this that are occurring now. when obama took somethingeficit was like $11 trillion and in a years we spent another $8 trillion. nobody complained about that. we wouldn't be this high fit wasn't for that, thank you. guest: let me start with your last pardon go to your first part because you covered a lot of things. it's true under president obama the deficit went up significantly as did the national debt. but what was going on was a huge economic downturn. that's the time when you do want to increase borrowing increases

on its own. we were out there complaining about it not in the moment. the deficits we were running at we needed to worry about long-term structural changes and how to bring them down. i wish that during that time when we were coming out of the recession, we had been able to do more to improve the long-term health, physical health of the country. and i will say that that shortcoming came up on both sides, both sides were working hard to get this done, but in the end both sides failed to address the problems. but deficits during a recession troubling than those during an expansion, because you want a surplus or close to balance at a time like this to prepare us for the next recession. you made a lot of great points. absoluteour

frustration when you hear these stories of waste in government and other programs that are out there that are preposterous, the thousand dollar toilet seats and all those things. i will say they are not a big part of government. they are the stories that make headlines and we should keep a check on them because when the government spends money, it is our money and we expect them to do it carefully. but the vast majority of what is done in government is not about waste. i wish i could say we could fix the problem by getting rid of waste, that would be great, we would get ahead and it would be a win-win. the real issues is health care programs, the money in retirement programs and national defense, and the fact we are not paying for those programs. will lose trustbuse is we in the government's ability to spend our money responsibly, even though that is the vast majority of the time how it is done. but you lose trust. the other thing i will point out

-- i agree there is a problem, we should always have scrutiny -- but i should point out that there are plenty of times when agencies say they want a certain amount of money and congress goes and does one of these "bipartisan deals" were basically what both sides a is this is what i want, but i do not want to pay for it, the other side thisays this is what i want, i do not want to pay for it. so often times they say, let's plus it up. so they will give the department of defense more money than it asks for. we see that with these bipartisan deals, which are frustrating because they blow massive holes in the debt. so the bureaucracy that you are talking about is there, it exists, but it is not the driving force behind a trillion dollar deficits at that are growing every year as far as the eye could see. those are really structural programs like health care, retirement, national security.

the fact that federal government is going to spend a lot of money because that is what we ask it to do, and at the same time we do not want to pay for it. host: there is a headline about the fourth-quarter gross twostic product rising to point 1% and of the full year of 2019 was at 2.3%. put those numbers into perspective, particularly with this administration and the previous one. guest: this president talked a lot about how he would get gdp growth much higher. there were numbers he actually promised, about 10% a year, but that will not happen. he was talking about 3% or 4%, which sounds more reasonable because we have had those in the past, but unfortunately excellent-- barring news on productivity or accounting for not anticipating, that will not happen either into has nothing to do with the blame on any of our policymakers. it is back to the growth rate. the gdp improvements every year

will be much slower going forward and then they have been in the past because now the baby boomers commodes first came into the workforce, women coming into the workforce, they were in their prime working years, than they were quite productive, they are all retiring. and as they retire, that means the gdp will be much slower than it has been in the past, so likely to be growth will be below 2% for the next decade, that is what most experts are expecting as opposed to what we wish we could see in the 2% or 3% range. so when you hear people promising economic growth is going to be -- we need to be doing everything possible to grow the economy, but we should be be pertaining t -- pretending that they will be something they will not be. host: he does talk about the economy. guest: i think he gets credit for the economy in that a lot of these policies, we have talked about the stock market before, a

lot of these things came from a boost of confidence that came along with his talk. what i worry about is many of his policies on spending and taxes have helped stem light growth in the short term. it it is not exceptional growth my but it is good and a solid growth. but damaging in the long term. i believe the president said, i will be gone when this happens. you will pay the price for borrowing now and having a sugar high that is pushing the economy along, that can be good now but when the debt becomes too high and it becomes problematic and cannot do the things that you need to do, make the investments you need, that is when you pay the price. so this is a long-term and short-term thing. i think the short-term growth the president should take credit for, the long-term growth has real challenges. and we need to turn her attention to how to do with those. host: maya macguineas is joining us for the conversation. a republican from kentucky.

a republican from kentucky. caller: several comments you made really reflect my question, but my primary question was -- where does this all go in the end? obviously from the comments that were made, i will not get an answer so i guess i will say what i am thinking and let maya make comments about that. you cannot just keep spending. eventually -- i and mode enough to know that eventually, like in south america when they overspend, will happen is the dollar will not be worth anything. yes, the government can keep printing dollars to cover the bonds, and -- but eventually those bonds are worthless. i think the system has a way of taking care of itself, whether it is the stock market

or the economy. or the economy. when the dollar is worthless, you g cannot do much. i have seen in venezuela and i have seen it in russia. i worked in russia and i was told by people there that their parents worked with their whole lives and they had enough money to buy a coat. it is a sad thing. ultimately we get to that. so all the benefits being given away now, the free cell phones, the free health care, it will go away. and at the system will clear itself. host: thank you. we appreciate that. guest: i thought that was a great point. when you started, none of us know how this will play out. but the reason that this is the work i work on and i feel so passionately about it is because it does not seem possible that borrowing so much and not spending it on smart investments or things about the future, but spending it on our own consumption, it does not seem possible that can play out well for the country. and i think it is concerning that we have a fiscal situation right now where our politicians are continuing to borrow,

pretending it is ok, and sort of pushing the problem off for the next cohort of politicians or the next generation. i think that, again, we have profoundly different views about whether government should be doing and what the budget should look like. that is ok, but we should have a system where we are not allowed to be fiscally reckless. in the budget right now, i should point out many times we run the country without a budget, which is just crazy. there is no other entity that will be permitted to run without a budget. this is the biggest economy and the world and we run it without a budget sometimes. when we do have a budget, we do not have fiscal constraints, meaning our politicians can pass budgets at borrow whatever they want. we should change that. should put in place something, it does not need to be about the balanced budget, because at that might be constraining, you want to change where you are in the business cycle, but there should be a plan to have debt targets were every year the budget would

aspire to bring the debt as a shared economy down on a gradual pace, something like that should be put in place. these changes will happen. think that is your point. but they will either come out of leadership or they will come because we are hit with a crisis. and this economy and this country is too smart, too special in so many ways to let ourselves get really harmed, because we bring a crisis on because we are so busy fighting we cannot service reasonable --. so i would urge people to let your politicians, let your representatives know you care about the issue, because if they do not hear from us that we understand that there are hard sochoices involved, they will continue borrowing. you cannot borrow your way to prosperity. it does not work. if something sounds too good to be true, it is too good to be true. spending money and not paying for it is not a recipe for

economic strength and national security and all the things we want for ourselves, our families and our kids. host: mary off of twitter talks about the federal government, saying the size of the government and its cable is a big problem. guest: i do not think that that is not right or right, but a lot of our federal government goes to paying for government employees. that say, the federal government is a huge share of our economy and it is a lot of things. are there places where they could be saving? absolutely. but what i worry about is when we see that getting turned against all government workers, were so many are getting critical, and there are areas we should be expanded like new kinds of national security as we enter into a whole new frontier of where the risks are, more infrastructure, things like that. so thinking about how to do that. a better understanding of what technology means to the economy. we need expertise in government. and i think that there is

savings to be had, but just like waste, fraud and abuse, i want to refocus people away from what seems easy into the real challenges which is we are aging, health care costs are too expensive, we are unwilling to pay for these things, that leaves growing interest payments. we need to make choices about the budget as we think about the savings in other areas. host: we have a democrat from texas. andrew, hello. caller: thank you for taking my call. my question is when president trump ran, he had this big agenda of promises made, promises kept. he did promise to all of us, the american people, that if he was given eight years in office he would eliminate the deficit. so being -- if we give him four more years, can you tell me how we are going to have to hit the brakes to eliminate the deficit

or was that just kind of a fishtale. guest: eliminating the deficit in four years, in reality it is impossible. the deficit is much too large right now if you wanted to try to get rid of it. if you tried to get rid of it, it would be so disruptive to the economy it would put us in a recession and things would get worse. so that promise, bringing the deficit down over eight years closer to zero was completely at odds with the policy proposals we have seen. the president, here are the promises he made, he said i will give you a big tax cut. he did that. i will increase spending for defense and veterans. we have seen that. and i will not fix social security or medicare. and we have seen that. basically, that is impossible to have a deficit go down under that scenario, that is a scenario that brings it up. that is what we have seen. he signed into law $4.7 trillion in new borrowing and they

deficit has basically more than doubled in terms of this year's deficit or, more than 50% of it is policies we have passed since he has been in office. i think one thing we have seen about fiscale talk responsibility, we know it is the right thing to do, and a lot of people are not willing to back it up with policy choices. we are seeing that right now. i think that you need presidential leadership to turn the fiscal situation around and i hope we will talk about in the 2020 election. we are not. i will point out in the democrat primary so far in the debates and there have been 571 questions, and you know how many were about the national debt? zero. this is not a topic of discussion. and i think it is important not to keep this in the national discussion it is talked about during a presidential race. we run u.s. budget watch, where if you check it out over the coming months we will put out all of the scores for all the

candidates' proposals on how much they would save or not save in terms of national debt. i think it is important that thee numbers be part of discussion. we will look at whoever the democratic nominee is versus what the president promises, but back to the original question, what we have seen so far since the president has been in office is he has signed into law huge tax cuts and massive spending increases, much more than he was galking about bein willing to do. host: one more call from new york. joe on the independent line. caller: good morning. i have a bottom up approach question. i believe we have a huge underground economy in the country, but as welcome as people honestly paid their ifes, not talking -- well, people honestly paid their taxes, not talking about

deductions, what would happen to the budget deficit? guest: there is a massive tax cap, hundreds of billions -- gap, hundreds of billions not paid every year in taxes. it is not what i would imagine be fraudulent people in the underground economy or people who have really smart tax accountants, it is people who get it wrong and it might be not understanding the tax code. it is complicated. but if we were able to get rid of the tax gap, they deficit situation would be much better, pretty much under control. but we do not know how. we do not know how. it would take an incredibly investment and more spending for the irs, just an investment that would pay off to do more enforcement. and the underground economy is hard to track. what i worry about is spending -- or promising huge results of something we do not know how to fix. we should work on that gap aggressively every single year,

but it is not going to be in the end generating enough money to fix the problem. people have tried every year. guest, talk about the efforts. guest: responsible federal budgets is a think tank, anybody interested in fiscal policy and learning more should sign up for that. we have an outside effort that gets people engaged because politicians do not hear from us, that we care about the issue and so they will keep borrowing and not paying for things. there is a final new product we started, which really comes from the realization that you cannot fix the fiscal challenges in this country while we are so divided and dysfunctional and not trusting each other. so until we fix what is going wrong in the country, where we are fighting so much and it is so partisan we cannot solve problems, we will not be able to fix this difficult challenge of the debt. so fix us is a new thing we are looking at and i am excited to

bring people together who want to get things done. host: ok, thank you for your time. we are going to switch gears and talk with dr. tom inglesby, director of johns hopkins school of public health, talking about the federal response to the coronavirus. that conversation is coming up on "washington journal." ♪ >> victory is not winning for our party, victory is winning for our country. [applause] announcer: president trump delivers a state of the union address from the house chamber, live tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern, followed by the democratic response with the michigan governor. and texas representative veronica escobar. live coverage on c-span, on demand at c-span.org or listen

on the free c-span radio app. announcer: the impeachment trial is coming to a close. >> today we urge you in the face of overwhelming evidence of the president's guilt, and knowing that if left in office he will continue to seek foreign interference in the next election, to vote to convict and remove from office donald j. trump, the president of the united states. therotect the integrity of senate, stand firm today and protect office of the president, stand firm today and protect the constitution, and stand firm today and protect the will of the american people, stand firm and protect our nation. and i ask that this partisan impeachment come to an end. announcer: watch the final vote on the impeachment of president trump, live from the senate on

wednesday starting at 4:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2. on demand at c-span.org/impeachment. or listen on the free c-span radio app. during this election season, the candidates beyond the talking points are only revealed overtime. but since you cannot be everywhere, there is c-span. our campaign 2020 programming differs from all other political coverage for one simple reason, it is c-span. we have brought you your unfiltered view of government every day since 1979. and this year we are bringing you an unfiltered view of coverage this november. in other words, your future. so this election season go deep, direct and unfiltered. see the biggest pitcher for yourself, and make up your own mind. with c-span's campaign 2020 my brought to you as a public

service by your cable provider. journal": "washington continues. host: this is dr. tom inglesby with the school of public health at johns hopkins, he is the director of health security and he will discuss with us the federal response to the coronavirus. what is the perception of the coronavirus here and what is the reality of what is happening? guest: i think this is all public health experts at this point green that this is a serious -- at this pointguest: n that this is a serious epidemic. and we are learning a lot every day. but what we have seen so far is worrisome. mostly because of the rate of spread, and because it has been more serious in terms of causing illness and death than we have seen from milder coronavirus es. host: what is the impact of this

compared to other viruses like the flu and otherwise? guest: if we compare it to the bookends of the coronavirus is, we have the one that came out in 2003, sars, which had a case fatality rate of about 10%, 10 out of 100 people who had the illness died from the illness. but we also have coronaviruses circulating around the country now that cause mild cold symptoms and no serious illness, or very rare serious illness. so this virus is in between them. and with more information, we hope it will gradually drift towards that milder virus. at right now, we only have moderate amount of information that we have gotten from china about the virus, so we are learning more all the time. time, that theer fatality rate will go down as we learn about the mild cases in china. host: how many cases in the

u.s.? guest: as of today, 11, and they have all been isolated. have all been isolated. they have been identified to self identification, they knew that they had traveled to china, they knew the symptoms and they called her doctor or public health agency and got help, got diagnosed and got isolated. host: there is a headline about the u.s. efforts, saying when it comes to the patients they are prepared to quarantine, can you explain how that works? guest: yes, the terms isolation and quarantine can be used interchangeably, but they really have a different meaning in medicine. isolation is when somebody has the diagnosis, you know they you putiagnosis and cod them in isolation at a hospital or at home. quarantine typically means taking people who are healthy, but may have been exposed, and keeping them out of circulation for a couple weeks, waiting until the incubation of the disease goes by. so those are different interventions. and we already have people in

isolation, that is already happening, and it is happening in china of course. the idea of quarantine, that was announced last week, is the concept of taking people in china, who are well but having them go to either to a facility, perhaps a military base for the first plane load that came home last week, and having them stay for two weeks to make sure they do not develop the disease. those are different concepts. host: our guest will be here until the end of the program. if you want to ask questions, (202) 748-8000 for the eastern and central time zones. (202) 748-8001 for the mountain time zones. what is the responsibly for those coming into the u.s. and carrying the virus? what can we do? guest: efforts to try to identify the disease on the way in are basically aimed at screening people as they get on planes. some people are given a fever

screen and they get a questionnaire about the symptoms that they have that could be the disease. if the flight crew notices people are sick on the way in, they will let the people know at those airports. and then people are given education about where to call if they are sick. and how to follow up and get an early diagnosis. those things have been happening since the beginning of the illness. in addition, some new measures were announced on friday, including it sounds like a temporary ban on non-us residents coming from china. who have been in china for the last two weeks, whatever the nationality. and if you have been in the part of china where there is a lot of disease transmission going on, in that province, then those homee are directed to quarantine or isolation, even though they do not have the disease, they may have been exposed so they are directed to stay at home for two weeks to

make sure they do not develop the disease. that is the guidance now. host: we see people walking around with masks, is that effective? guest: there is no evidence that we have from prior outbreaks that wearing masks in public makes a difference for individual safety. that is not the same people are it.doing it is a relatively common practice in some parts of asia. but we do not have scientific evidence of something that prevents the disease from spreading any community. if somebody was sick and on their way to a doctor's appointment, it would make sense to cover their mouth, cover a cough. but other than that, there is no evidence it works. and the downside of it is everybody began to adopt that practice, even without evidence, and it could create a drain on mask use in hospitals, which is where we need the masks if there disease becomes a critical problem in the united states. host: we will take calls.

andy from brooklyn. go ahead. caller: good morning. talkingu for c-span for about the health problems and the problems with national debt. it is so sad, the coronavirus. there should be more to targetnal funding and be able to locate where this is coming from and how to solve the problem. it seems like it is spreading 2000, one week it is than 5000 and 12,000. i think that we should invest more in fighting this and i hope that we do the right thing and i hope our elected leaders do the right thing. guest: the point about international cooperation is really important. iit is -- i completely agree wih that. yesterday, an example of that,

the ministers of health from the countries and spent time together to talk about travel issues and guidance and sharing of information. and the u.s. is working closely with the world health organization, which is the international health body in geneva, which provides information on how to react to these epidemics. havingr point also about a resource to respond to this, the government having enough money to respond to something like this i also completely agree with. yesterday, there was an announcement that the administered was asking congress for another $136 million for emergency response, to deal with the virus. i imagine that the price will go spreadhere is a serious of disease in this country. in past epidemics of smaller size, the government has had to allocate much larger sums of money to help hospitals and

public health agencies deal with the rise in illness. and the variety of equipment purchases and medicines or vaccines needed. so i agree and i do think that of issue there is typically broad bipartisan support, fortunately, and very little disagreement. or very little contention around the issues. so of issue i think the adminisn has asked for something in response. there is usually a good response. ist: you said $136 million, medicine,taffing, where is the primary expenditure? guest: i have not seen the details of the request, but i believe it will be around preparing the health care system to better handle the numbers of patients that might get this illness as time goes by. host: we have mary sue from new jersey. caller: hello, it is mary lou and thank you for c-span. host: i am sorry. caller: that is ok. good morning.

i want to talk about the origins of the virus. initially, the public was told it was generated from somebody having eaten an infected species, like a bat or snake. then there was another story going around about the fact that the city of wuhan has a biological laboratory in it, and there may have been an issue with the biogerm warfare having escaped from the laboratory. so i would like you to comment on that. my final question is, if they are able to develop a vaccine, is that something that would be made mandatory, if you could comment. my final question is, if they are able toi appreciate it. guest: the riskless and was about the origins of the virus. and at this point we do not have complete information from china about their investigations of this so far. very similar to the --

similar to the sars virus discovered in 2003. which did come from bats. cats, andas infecting then in turn people. so that was the progression with the sars virus. and it is deemed most likely that that is the progression for this virus, that it was either bats directly to people, or bats infecting an intermediate animal that then infected people, perhaps in a market or another setting. that is the most likely explanation. there have been discussions about the laboratory in china, but so far i have not seen evidence that is compelling that supports at that theory. i do not think we will know everything about this until we learn more about the chinese investigation. i know the world health organization has a team working

with china. so we will eventually know, we think, the source of the virus. but for now the working hypothesis is it did come from bats, either directly to people or via an intermediate animal source. the second question was about a vaccine. there is a lot of effort going on now to develop a vaccine, and the u.s. and in other parts of the world, including china. in operates before policyever has been a around mandatory vaccinations, at least not since quite some time ago. and i do not envision that there would be a policy around mandatory mandatory polit i do believe if there was a vaccine that was effective, and was disease circulating in the united states, that there would be a very strong interest by many or most in getting the vaccine, but i do not think it would ever be imposed on people

to get it. host: was disease off of twittee coronavirus has been sequenced by now. how does that help with the screening, treatment and vaccine? guest: the sequence of the virus is very helpful in comparing it to existing coronaviruses, and to the work that has gone on before to look for vaccines and medicines for the existing viruses, so it is helpful along those lines. necessarilyelp us speed up the process dramatically, that requires a lot of laboratory testing in animals and in test tubes and eventually in people. so most estimates at this point are that a vaccine to get into people would be something on the order of a year or more, and that would be very fast compared to other programs. so it is very helpful and important to get that genome information and more and more are getting sequenced. as of yesterday they were up to something like 50 genomes from

patients that have been sequenced and there is important information there, about the origin and about how it may interact with either vaccine or. medicines. but it is only one beginning part of the process. host: another viewer staying antiviral's works for those who get the coronavirus. guest: the antivirals we have for influenza will not be effective for the coronavirus, they work by a different pathway. there are some investigational antivirals, which were tried successla, without the we were hoping for, but they may be useful here. it is too soon to say, but they are being studied. sars, also saw that with that there were antibodies there that were developed that seemed to have effectiveness. those will be studied intensely

now as well. they would need to be new antibodies, but that approach to technology in medicine could be useful here as well. host: dixie from florida, go ahead. is aboutes, this manufacturing in china. all the american companies manufacturing in china, they need to come back to the united states. china has proven over the years that they are not going to address these viruses. if you bring manufacturing back to this country may the chinese will wake up. guest: the point about manufacturing in china is a really good one. ofdo rely on a lot importation around either components of medicines, or medicines themselves, coming from china, as well as other medical equipment. and we want to be careful that in work to contain

the virus, that we do not bring in issues of trade interruptions of important equipment or medicines, because we do rely on a number of those things. themselves, the supply chain may be disrupted because of decisions in china right now, but i think it is important we do whatever we can inadvertently disrupt supply chains of the critical medicines now. but for the long run i do agree that we need to take a look at what kinds of things should be manufactured here, so that in crises we do not have to rely on other countries for certain critically important medicines. so i think that is a good point. but we cannot do it for all products. we need to rely on the rest of the world for many things, we cannot make everything here, but there are things we should be thinking about making here so we

do not have disruptions in a crisis. host: from georgia maryland, hello. caller: how is it going? i heard someplace that the has elements of hiv in it, and people have been trying hiv drugs against it. is that true, does that work? has elements of hiv inhow does it take on those aspects of hiv? guest: there was a paper published over this past weekend hade scientists from india identified where they believed were segments of the hiv genome that were now part of the coronavirus genome. that paper has been withdrawn. and the scientists have taken back that claim after there was a very broader scientific criticism of that from many parts of the world. so that -- i think that you are right, that that was circulating over the weekend, but there

really isn't any evidence of that being the case. also true thats hiv medications have been tried in china, and may be tried elsewhere in the world, which makes sense. we like to try any existing antiviral medications that could have any kind of plausible possibility of working against the virus. i do not think that there is a , a lot ofentific, um speculation that hiv medications will work for this virus, but no harm in trying. they are safe, they are broadly available in the world, it would be fantastic if one or more of those medications were effective, but at this point we do not have a lot of evidence that will be the case. host: this is the headline on the coronavirus, looking increasingly like a pandemic. do you agree with that? guest: yes, it does look like

that. it is a very transmissible virus. and it is now in more than 20 countries. and mostly the reason for that judgment is china is having a a lot of difficulty, despite a very serious effort, a a lot of difficulty controlling it. and there are a number of models that say the virus is spreading not only in the province where it started, but also in other parts of china that have not been -- other parts of china. that has not been documented officially, but there is some report of it going on in other parts of china. and china has flights around the world and many of those places that they fly to, or there are land crossings, do not even have testing in place yet. so i think it would be most prudent to believe that that virus has now moved to many

places in the world. we have identified it in 20 places officially, but i think that we do not know where it is otherwise command we do not have a way of testing for it. so a pandemic means that the epidemic is spreading in multiple parts of the world more potentially around the world. and i think that the u.s. should be preparing for the possibility that it may spread here widely, and organize ourselves, prepare hospitals to take care of people in the way that we do what have do when we- that we have a serious flu problem. so getting health care ready is the most prudent thing to do. host: we are talking with dr. tom inglesby, the director for the center of health security at the johns hopkins school of public health. what is that? guest: it is a group in the bloomberg school of public health, a group of medical people and public health economists, legal, and what we

do is we study the impact of academics. -- of epidemics, how to respond to them, what programs are working and how to evaluate them. with the world health organization is doing and how they work with other countries. our interest is epidemics and how to make them less severe. host: i suppose you have been asked how do i prevent myself from getting the coronavirus? guest: yes, an individual level it is the same advice we give during flu season, which is these are viruses spread by respiratory droplets. coughs and it sneezes at close distance, at about six feet, they can live on surfaces after somebody might cough on a surface. and it is a living virus picked up off the surface. and you are basically picking up the virus off the surface, then touching your mouth, nose and eyes. that is how it affects people.

in general, what we see during flu season is wash your hands, cough into your sleeve, and stay home if you are sick. it is when you have symptoms that you are far more likely to spread the disease. sick., staying home while go to feel sick enough, the hospital. but do not walk around, do not go to work when you are sick during flu season. we do not have any evidence the virus is spreading in the u.s., so i do not have -- that is not the concern today, but if it comes to pass and we have a virus that is in the u.s. and in our communities, then we would basically advise at the same thing we do to prevent the flu. is particularly intense in a given community, there may be recommendations to have a temporary school closure. there couldintense, be recommendations of why don't we cancel a concert this weekend. those are the things we have

used in the past. probably,mportantly, other than simple measures we take around influenza and prevention, it is to make sure that our hospitals are well-equipped and organized and ready to take care of sick people. takeey need to care of coronavirus patients, like we have seen with sars and in the middle east there was a past coronavirus epidemic for a virus called mers, that these kinds of infections can spread within hospitals if health-care workers do not have the right equipment or are not respecting the disease. so i think it is important in our hospitals for people to be vigilant for it. once they are directed to be looking for it by the cdc or public health agencies. and to be really well-prepared to not spread the infection. host:host: from clinton, iowa, ruth is next.

caller: thank you for taking my phone call. you mentioned that for the quarantine you were taking buses of people to the military bases. and my question is, because when i spoke to my dad's caregiver in california, she said that there was buses at the hospital where he usually goes to the hospital. and the name of the hospital has liken changed to something international world crisis hospital, or global crisis hospital. they had changed the name. and it concerned me a little bit. she will not be able to take him to that hospital, she will look for another one now, but are we preparing our hospitals for an epidemic? and purposefully for those people who may be infected or

infected?ve been guest: early preparing our hospitals? government ande at the department of health and human services are sending mission to hospitals about what to look for and how to prepare themselves, so that work has begun. range of is a wide hospitals across the country, about 5000 hospitals around the country, so there will be different activities depending on the size of the hospital, the kinds of patients they care for. i'm not sure about the hospital you mentioned, i have not heard anything about that. at this point, as far as i understand, there have not been many changes in the purposes of hospitals or designated places for people to be cared for. every day,ed states

people every day, people are cared for in airborne isolation rooms for other diseases like tb, influenza, or chickenpox. so doctors and nurses already care for people on a regular basis with respiratory spread diseases. and those beds would be the same kinds of beds people would get if they are very sick with the coronavirus. in terms of the quarantine question you asked about, at this point the only quarantine at a military base was the plane returning government employees in wuhan, u.s. persons. that, justepared because it was an existing place where they could care for people and make sure that they had enough to eat and they headquarters. in -- had quarters. in general the government's role is to provide a place. we do not know whether there will be additional plane loads of people coming from china that

will need that kind of quarantine. i have not heard. and whether there is the capacity -- they announced yesterday the capacity to be able to house up to 1000 people at different paces, who would stay there for two weeks while they were getting back from china. i do not think that that on a larger scale will -- i think if the program got much larger, it may be difficult to carry forward because of intense, an intense program to have to care for people like that for a couple of weeks. my hope is we do not need to expand the program. on from alexandria, virginia. caller: good morning, i have a couple of questions, so feel free to take them at any order. you mentioned the transmission otherars from bats to animals and then humans. just trying to get a better sense of what you meant by

infection, like the ingestion of other animals? what is the number of cases that need to be seen in the u.s. to consider it an actual problem in the united states? and what are any lessons learned that have been taken from this? it sounds like a lot of these diseases are coming from the asia area, and i was wondering if there is a socioeconomic part of that. guest: in the case of the -- of route is believed through animal ingestion or possibly through exposure to animal x-unit -- animal excrement. so basically close human contact with an animal that is affected, either through ingestion or exposure to droplets. animal.t

and in this case, we do not know yet, but presumably could be from the same route. it could be animal. ingestion or droplets from mucous membranes, like the nose, mouth or eyes. an excretion from an animal. we do not know for sure, but that is the route that the prior coronavirus has taken and it could have been taken in this case. the second question was about, i which wee threshold at would consider the coronavirus to be transmitting in our own country. there is not an official definition, but kind of a working idea or a working definition of that would be the finding of transmission between people who are not travelers. the ongoing transmission of the virus in the community that was not just a traveler returning from china. diseaserson a got the and gave it to b, then gave it

to c, that would be evidence it would be circulating in a community and we would need to act on the and test more broadly. at this point, the only cases we have seen in our country have been in returning travelers, or in very close family members into cases. so, so far it has been limited, but if it got to the point where we were finding cases in the community, we would have a different approach and we would have the assumption it was spreading and we would need to treat it like the seasonal flu. host: we will hear from susan in fort myers, florida. caller: good morning. i'm 76 and a retired rn. first of all, i really do believe in erring on the side of caution. secondly, i was around when the aids epidemic popped up in lakewood, ohio. gowned, nobody

knew how it was transmitted. but the doctor said, it is ok, just go on and. but the doctors would not go into the rooms to even touch the patients. and i remember that very vividly. and, um, it spread. you know, it went astronomical. now, the other thing i would like to correct you on, because you are a lot younger than me, is the united states did not allow, after world war i, people coming into the country without being quarantined. i know because i was there. everybody was quarantined. ellis island was closed already, f germany and we were all quarantined. we we all had to line up and got injected with everything.

i think it was like tetanus, diphtheria and other things, without question. moving off to the polio situation, i grew up in a very poor neighborhood. no questions asked, one day we were lined up and we all got injected without parental permission or anything else. host: ok, thank you. guest: a number of points there. memory andas the analysis of hiv coming into your community. i think that you raised a really good point around sometimes the fear and uncertainty,good pointw diseases -- uncertainty, it could be many things, but the uncertainty around new diseases. we did not know a lot when it was discovered. but in these cases we know much

more about new diseases much more quickly than in the old days. andave better communication new tools. there is a default presumption that information needs to be delivered to the public as quickly as it is known by the and new tools. government. it is not always perfect, but it does flow more rapidly. so i think that we do know about the transmission of this virus and we understand it is a respiratory droplet transmission and it is quite transmissible at this point. but we know how it is transmissible. so within our hospitals, we know how to prevent that pretty effectively. and that is how we would pursue it in the u.s., using the strategies people have used for other diseases. and thank you for your point about mandatory vaccinations in the old days, that is the wrong term, but back some time ago around immigration or other periods in our history. you are absolutely right. it is the case that the quarantine order that came out

on friday to quarantine this plane load returning from china, is the first quarantine order i believe in 50 years. so it has been some time, but before that time, you are waslutely right, there different interventions made in public health and there was more mandatory evacuations. -- mandatory vaccinations. now they are required for schools, for kids, the expectation, but we could have a long discussion about people's choices not to get vaccines. in most places that is lawful and i do not see that changing in this outbreak, even if we are looking up to have a vaccine. but thank you for your point. viewer from milwaukee said, "what is the origin of the name corona?" guest: the coronavirus, the name of it comes from what looks like a crown around the virus.

it is like a series of small -- if you look at it under an electron microscope, you can see the virus with the small circles around it, looking like a crown. believe it is "crown" in latin. that is the name of the various family, which many viruses fall into. the human viruses and animal viruses. in terms of naming conventions, that is a work in progress. in the past, a number of viruses have emerged that have taken on geographic names from where they were first found. but the problem with that is sometimes the place where you first find it is not the place where it started, so it may be inappropriately named. and even if it is, or we know where it began, i think that countries are sensitive to that. and would rather that we take a

more scientific name than labeling something with a geographic nomenclature. so i think that discussion about what the virus will be called in the long run is ongoing, so for now it is called the novel coronavirus. host: here is ian in oceanside. caller: good morning. i have a couple things. they say it is two weeks, but we really do not know, maybe they should be quarantined for four weeks. when that time is done, can they carry it? t?n you read get -- re-get i another point, the doctors and nurses are always using hand sanitizer because there are some new bad things in hospitals. the last thing we should be introducing in each state is this, so maybe we should be having the cdc, the doctors there take care of this so it does not spread in our hospitals, because it will come into the hospitals first. but the first response should maybe be putting them over to a

mass unit somewhere, a dedicated hospital, something, because we cannot afford a pandemic. this went from animal to human, now.uld go back to animals we do not want to worry americans. and a woman called earlier about the international, that hospital that changed its name. now. listen, we want to help all americans and we would love to help the world, but you have to put your oxygen on first to be able to help other people when the airplane is going down. so we need to shore up america, keep americans safe, then we can maybe help the world. but we should not be bringing people back here. host: ok, thank you. would bethink it useful also to talk a little bit virus is,serious this so people can put it in perspective. and then i will get to these points. so as of today come in terms of the overall numbers of patients

diagnosed, about 2% of those patients have died in china. so what we know from past outbreaks is that over time we have discovered a large number of patients that have no disease at all, or very mild disease. so that case fatality rate that we see now is likely going to drop, and it may drop substantially. we do not know for sure, we will get information and study that over time. so our hope is it will go down as we learn more and more. but to your point about quarantine facilities or setting up special hospitals, we do not -- in the u.s., the concept of responding to this really depends on what the virus is going to look like. if it looks like the seasonal flu, it does not arrive in one place. it arrives in places like popcorn, it pops up here or there. so it is not possible to plan for a single hospital in one

place that would care for all of the patients that may get the disease. first of all, if it becomes an epidemic, the numbers will probably quite exceed that and they will need to be cared for in our usual hospitals around the country by our doctors and nurses. the cdc in federal government, they have some doctors and nurses, but a very small number as compared to the private sector workforce of doctors and nurses in hospitals. the cdc is not really a clinical care delivery organization, they are really a public health risk assessment scientific, academia knology, communication and technical guidance kind of organization, but they do not have doctors and nurses to go out around the country. we have one of the best workforces in the world of doctors and nurses, technical people and demonstrate of staff in our hospitals and one of the best health care systems in the world, and that is the plan for caring for people. for people who have this

illness. and in places where they go already, they will be cared for in those facilities. host: one more call from michael in trenton, new jersey. what iti was wondering would look like if a pandemic actually broke? and i was wondering also, i guess because you were talking about the risk analysis and whatnot, and the one thing i am trying to figure out is if the coronavirus becomes too, like such an extreme state, obviously we would have to implement different things around here, i guess. i'm also just wondering, yeah. host: we will leave it there. guest: i guess what he was trying to say was -- of what he was

saying is how far do you go if it turns out to be a bigger issue than what we are seeing now, what is the outreach, what can the federal government do to prevent the coronavirus from spreading? that is what i was gathering. guest: ok. yeah, so there is basically two things going on at the same time, there is an attempt to prevent it from getting into the country or contain it where it is now in china. at the same time, there is an effort to prepare the system to care for patients, should it become -- should it spread in our communities. if the latter happens, we have responded to big outbreaks before in the u.s., including for example in 2009 we had a new influenza pandemic with a lot of uncertainty and a lot of concern. and then ultimately patients were cared for in their hospitals around the country, over the course of about nine months.

as a kind of spread from place to place and people dealt with it in their communities and in their hospitals. so there are standards for doing this kind of work and preparation before. and i think the government plans would be centered around health care facilities, reparations, communication with the public about how to try to minimize the risk of spread, where to go if you need to be diagnosed with this illness or cared for, >> our guest has been the director for health security here to talk about the coronavirus. that is it for our program. do not forget the state of the union, coverage at eight :00 this evening. we will talk about those things tomorrow plus the latest coming

out of iowa. that is it for our program. have a good day. we will see you tomorrow. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2020] ♪ >> victory is not winning for our party. it is winning for our country. [applause] >> live tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern, the state of the union address. followed by the democratic ,esponse, and veronica escobar

live coverage on c-span. you can listen on the free radio app. this morning the results of the first in the nation caucuses are still not known. the mechanic party used a new app for reporting results that did not work in some precincts. results are expected later today. resultselayed continued, candidates started giving speeches. we will show all of them now starting with minnesota senator amy klobuchar. [chanting] >> amy! amy! amy!