tv Washington Journal 03222018 CSPAN March 22, 2018 6:59am-9:00am EDT
eastern, the house at 10:30 a.m. at c-span2. testifiesnegotiator on the steel and aluminum tariffs imposed by the u.s.. he is also expected to give an overview of u.s. trade policy in the trump administration. the senate finance committee starts at 10 a.m. eastern. c-span, where history unfolds daily. in 1979 c-span was created as a public service by america's cable television companies. we continue to bring you unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, supreme court and public policy of thence in washington, d.c. and around the country. c-span is brought to you by your cable or satellite provider. coming up washington journal, louis gilmer on the funding bill deadline and the russian
investigation. jamie raskin talks about legislative efforts to reduce gun violence. this weekend's march for life student rally. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016]] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. isit ncicap.org] host: congress release details of its $1.3 trillion spending bill that must be passed. among the big ticket items, $78 billion for the global war on terror and $10 billion for infrastructure. the bill does not include policy riders on fumbled cities or stabilizing insurance marketplaces under the affordable care act. it's the "washington journal" for march 22. acebook c.e.o. mark zuckerberg apologizes said he's willing to testify before congress on the issue. some legislatures in congress
believe more regulation of facebook and other social media platforms are needed in order to protect privacy and we are wondering if you feel the same. for our first half-hour this morning, your thoughts on if more regulation of facebook, maybe social media overall is needed because of privacy concerns. facebook users, 202-748-8000. all others, 202-748-8001. if you want to post on our social media platforms, twitter is available to you at twitter.com/cspanwj and post on our facebook page at facebook.com/cspan. so the regulatory side of this facebook story which is continued over the last few ays, this is the wear post thwarting legislatures if more regulation is needed. she where is behind the scenes, facebook was in damage control mode. lobbyist made the round on capitol hill. the journalists saying workers
facebook and cambridge analytica must appear in front of congress to take responsibility and explain how this happen and ensure this never happens again and this is karen. i can't decide which is more disturbing the heist of personal information of 50 million facebook users or forecast's cavalier two years delayed public reaction to it. if we want to protect consumers, we need stronger cyber security laws. that's some of the reaction on the regulation of facebook. we want to get your thoughts on if you think if more needs to be done, especially over privacy conference. for you facebook users out there, 202-748-8000, all others, 202-748-8001. the c.e.o. mark zuckerberg interviewed on cnn about a variety of issues on this topic. but first, about the company's reaction to it. mark: this was a major breach of trust and i'm really sorry that this happened. we have a basic responsibility to protect people's data and if we can't do that, then we don't
deserve to have the opportunity to serve people. so our responsibility now is to make sure that this doesn't happen again. and there are a few basic things that i think we need do to ensure that. one is making sure that evelopers like alexander cogan don't get access to as much information going forward. so we are doing a set of things that to restrict the amount of access that developers can get going forward. but the other -- because we need to make sure that there aren't any other cambridge analyticas out there or folks who are improperly access data. we're going to go now and investigate every act that has access to large amount of information from before we lock down our platform and if we detect any suspicious activity, we're going to do a full forensic audit and make sure that no one out there is
improperly using dathes and that's the responsibility that we have to people in our community. host: here is so much that response saying he seems if not outright welcoming regulation or at least accepting of it. there are some really nuanced questions about how to regulate which i think are extremely interesting intellectually since zuckerberg who points the ipartisan honest ad act -- host: let's go of the doing of
more regulation of facebook needed. kevin, facebook user. you're first up. go ahead. caller: yeah. i want to say i don't believe what mark zuckerberg is saying. he doesn't do anything beforehand. he always does it after the fact. and i don't believe any of the aws. i don't believe the laws are ever going to be forced. i don't see really, facebook doing -- this is all something that he needs to say at this time and, you know, when this all kind of fades away into the background again, they'll go -- i think he'll sell information to anybody for the right price. host: and even if more were done from washington, you don't think that will have an affect. why is that? caller: because i don't think they'll ever enforce the laws on facebook. i think the tech lobby is just
too powerful. i mean, they can pass all the laws they want. host: from our line for others, james, pittsburgh, pennsylvania. go ahead. you're on. caller: how are you doing, sir? it's a beautiful thing for c-span and all the callers. you ever heard of abigail, frank an zpwhail he works for the f.b.i. now. basically, zuckerberg came up with a good invention, ok? and he made millions and millions of dollars. now, he's going to have to work for the government now. you started something. now you're going to have to have caller i.d. who is sending these messages? how can we do this? it's open -- it needs to be fixed. and zuckerberg started it and so zuckerberg's going to have to fix it. he's going to have to -- i feel like it's going to have to be enforced.
host: so james, i was going to ask you. should the fixing come from inside the company or is the fixing necessary with more laws coming from washington? caller: whearblings do you mean by that, sir? i'm sorry, but why what do you mean by the laws? host: i'm saying if there are more regulation needed to fix the problem or do you think the company should fix the problem on its own? caller: they got to work with the government. nobody is against you here. too much stuff's going on. people getting shot on facebook and people -- it's just crazy. host: ok. ok. gotcha. eric in atlanta, georgia, a facebook user. hi. caller: yes, hi. pedro, please let me finish and don't cut me off. pedro, i came -- these are the exact words i see on your show. was this.
was paypal, kushner and zuckerberg and these tech companies, they think they're smarter than everyone else. they actually changed the election, steve ban nofpblet all this was into effect before the election ever started. you can't regulate facebook because you actually don't know what information they have and what information is out there. this is what i'm saying. you're not a tech expert. you're not a computer expert, you do not know when you've been acked. they have more information than any government functioning company in the united states. so -- host: we've had -- so eric, we've had a couple of instances that are privacy concerns with facebook. what's the best way to fix it? caller: you can't fix facebook. what you're going to have to do, the military and the government
is going to have to come in and put feelers on different things. votes were changed. host: ok. that's eric giving thoughts this morning. "the washington post" highlights a couple of things saying according to a recent pew research center poll, it was 68% of u.s. adults use facebook. three quarter of them checking the platform daily. when facebook reaches a moment of crisis, there's a wave of users who wonder why they're on there on the first place but the news late last week that the ompany --
host: if you think more regulation of this issue is needed from capitol hill, 202-748-8000 for you facebook users out there. and all others, it's 202-748-8001. david, we'll go to you next in new york. a facebook user. go ahead. caller: yeah. i'm a first-time caller. and i just wanted to make a comment about the consistency that is showing. i don't think the government should get involved because then they can start controlling the -- all kinds of media including newspapers and radio and tv. so i don't agree with that. but i have a friend who was banned for 30 days with telling a salty joke on facebook and yet e had nikolas cruz, murderers, going on, and terrorist groups
using facebook to communicate with each other. know, erberg has to, you somehow be consistent and he's in charge of facebook. he's the president. he owns it. so he has to control the messages and it has to be some kind of overright. but i don't agree the government should, you know, they'll start interfering with all kinds of media and that can't happen in a free society. host: so david, you said you were concerned about the government involved but at the same time, you said some kind of oversight. where is that some kind of oversight coming from, then? caller: well, zuckerberg is facebook is under his control. he owns it. he has to like at least be consistent with like the way he treats the facebook users. he can't ban somebody because they told a salty joke and yet let murderers and terrorists continue to like exchange
messages on facebook. there's no consistency there. host: ok. david from baltimore, maryland, is up next on our line for others. david, hello. caller: hello. host: you're on. go ahead. caller: yes. i'm not a facebook user per se, but as far as facebook is concerned, mostly communicates have been told by the government and if you don't want nobody to know your business, you don't tell it. you keep it to yourself and tell to it the one you need to tell it to. host: so you're saying it's the user in the first place that should be at the center because they offer up this kind of information? caller: yes. host: that's the thought of thomas this morning off of twitter feed this morning. he says facebook gave cambridge analytica access of personal information to anyone that use their app and those that were friends of the end user without the friend's knowledge. twitter, you can make your
thoughts there at twitter.com/cspanwj. put postings on facebook as well as facebook.com/cspan. and in that interview with cnn, one of the things that mr. zuckerberg talked about was the idea of going in front of congress to talk about this issue. here's part after what he had to say. mark: so the short answer is i'm happy too if it's the right thing to do. facebook testifies in congress regularly on a number of topics. some high profile and some not. and our objective is always to pride congress this extremely important job to have the most information that they can. but we see a small slice of activity on facebook. but if congress gets to have access to the information across facebook and the intelligence community and everything so much what we try to do is send the person at facebook who will have the most knowledge about what congress is trying to learn. so if that's me, then i am happy
to go. what i think we found so far, is people's whole job is focused on an area but at some point, i would imagine that there will be a topic where i am the sole authority on and will make sense for me to do it. >> although you are the brand of facebook. people want to hear from you. mark: that's why i'm doing this interview. i think the question in a congressional testimony is what us the goal? that's not a media opportunity, right? or at least it's not supposed to be. the goal there, i think, is to get congress all the information that they need to do their extremely important job and we want to make sure whoever is best informed at doing that. i agree separately that there's an element of accountability where i should be out there doing more interviews. it's uncomfortable as it is for me to do, you know, tv interview, i think this is an important thing. i should be out there and being
asked hard questions by journalists. host: let's go to eric in compton, california, a facebook user. eric, go ahead. caller: good morning, america. facebook is not the problem. it is we, the people. the problem is the operating system that we are choosing to use. it's called -- because we are. until we do immigration i.m. because we are. if the system is not programmed properly, it does not work right. when you put that system into the operating system, this is what we get. and until we reprogram and do i.m. because we are correctly, it is a philosophy of family, of people working together and human kindness. until we do human kindness correctly and reprogram ourselves, this is what we get. host: ok. that's eric in compton. for the next 15 minutes before
our first guest comes on this morning, your thoughts on the need if you believe on more information on facebook, especially over privacy. 202-748-8000 for you facebook users and 202-748-8001 for all others. last night, a text of what is known as an only anybody bows spending bill was released on congress in order to keep the government funding, $1.3 trillion. much of that going for the global war on terror. but business insider breaks down some of the other ticket items for spending last night. some of the parts of the deal include and they lists $1.3 trillion for new border security with serious limitations. the funding cannot be used for a wall, only fencing. and increased funding to protect election systems.
host: that's just some of the major spending which we'll ask our legislatures about on this topic. when it comes to election security, if you go to our website at c-span.org, yesterday, a hearing of the secretary of the department of homeland security, their security, particularly leading up to the november elections, you can watch that hearing at our website at c-span.org. james in georgia on our line for others. good morning. caller: hi.
thank you for the opportunity to speak. i really believe that if we allow the government to get in, we're going to end up paying more money, more taxes to facilitate that. and i think if you look at facebook, these guys that's on there, they don't regulate themselves. so definitely, there's people that do not know how to regulate themselves and put the right things there and exposing so much information not only about themselves, but, you know, that could damage their lives. those people need to be watched. and i think not so much the government, but if those crazies get on there, it should be someone watching them. and facebook doing that digitally enough and then have n oversight committee that exists of people that's not against d to monitor facebook. but i don't want to have to pay
taxes for another organization within our government to watch people and i don't even use the thing simply because it's a nightmare. why would you put your information up there? you know they're using it. you know somebody's looking at it besides you. host: ok. let's go to washington state. a facebook user. this is ken. caller: hey, how are you doing, america? i was calling because i think we're being a little too hard on facebook. and the reason i say that is for years now, as more and more people started using the internet, we have been warned over and over and over again about putting up information out, going to different sites, and we seem to ignore it as people, as a nation. and when something goes wrong, we always look for something to blame and in this case, wow, there's some election fraud going on or something like that. and now we want to blame facebook. host: so you're saying it's the consumer that should be the center of this and how they use the platform?
caller: yeah. i totally agree. i mean, facebook, i would say it's kind of a new technology. it's not really new but it's kind of new. we don't know how to regulate it. i don't know if you can regulate it without it being the format that it is. if we regulate it, then we probably won't be able to do what we're doing with it. but we have people -- we can't just go around blaming facebook for what we did. host: greg off of twitter says politicians ruin everything they touch and they want power over everything. the government needs to leave facebook alone. the free market will fix this. people will stop putting their information on facebook if it keeps getting compromised. from pennsylvania, we'll hear next from adam on our line for others. hello. caller: hey, pedro, thank you for taking my call. i use facebook -- i want to talk about the last two callers there. the consumers do need to take a role and they need to demand some form of internet bill of
rights across all social media platforms. -- that we have third-party rights to our information. i mean, our banks now aren't even maintaining our information. they're selling our information. it's coming down to basically we are not a consumer of social media. we are the product. d that is what big corporations really has done and made internet number two. so we need demand these rights. they're using algorithms to weed out people in certain types of information. not just in certain types of political slant. they're purging certain sites and it's making people run to 4n where basically, we can't have freedoms. right now, you look over in england and there's just -- a
gentleman dresses himself up as hitler and has them saluting. obviously, this is repugnant, whatever. but in a free society, that's the trade-off. and they're looking at putting this person in jail for two years. and in china, they're working with china to put people in jail that are going against the tide. we need to have an amendment. host: ok. let's hear from hamilton, ohio, line for others. jack is next. hello. caller: hello. love your show. i'm a bit confused. i'm not so much a facebook user, but i guess they're battering information to sort of commercials or what have you out there to persuade people to vote one way or another. isn't that sort of a form of just advertisement? and if they're not allowed to do that, isn't that sort of curtailing free speech?
and my question is what's the difference if i pick up my local newspaper and i'm bombarded with a hundred ads versus driving down the street and seeing a hundred billboards? isn't that the consumer's choice at the end of the day? >> that's jack. a couple of stories showing off the 18th district income pennsylvania. you remember that special election that took place with close result. but as of last night and into today, the republican seed anded in a closely watched special election in pennsylvania. that's more than a week after the end of the remarkable race that has shaken g.o.p. conference in the november midterm election. -
host: that's in the "new york times" this morning. brenda, indiana, pennsylvania, talking ne for others, about this idea of more regulation of facebook and if it's needed. go ahead. caller: hey, good morning. as far as talking about this idea of more regulation of congress regulati this, i don't think congress can regulate something they don't even understand and i don't think the american people even understand that once you connect yourself to the internet in any way, not just facebook, but the computer in general, your cell phone, the g.p.s. system in your car, your credit cards, once you've connected yourself to the internet in any way, your personal information is out there for people to collect and gather. so i don't think congress even understands how widespread this is. host: but if you explained it just like that, why don't you think members of congress understand that?
caller: you know what? i don't know. i want to tell you a real quick story about being connected in ways i didn't understand. i've been a smoker for 40 years. and it was until i started using my debility card to buy cigarettes that i started receiving coupons for the exact brand of great i smoked. and i've been a smoker for 40 years and once i started using my bank debit card to buy cigarettes, i started receiving coupons. caller: i think this all -- this is all caused by mormons. host: ok. let's go to george. clarksville, tennessee. george, you're up. hello. let me push the button first. george, clarksville, tennessee,
good morning. caller: yes, until host: you're on. caller: yeah. the way i look at facebook and i must say i don't use it but everybody else i know does is more of a form of entertainment. nobody that i know takes it seriously as far as how to vote or how not to vote or how to do this or how to do that. it's like reality tv. some of these old shows that you say reality tv about who gets to stay in the house or whatnot. once that camera goes on t not reality anymore. once you get on facebook t not reality anymore. it's entertainment. i don't know anyone that's on it that's exactly takes it seriously. they do it to pass the day or whatnot. host: so what about the idea of concerns about privacy some are expressed, including members of congress? caller: well they should not have any expectation for privacy. i mean, if you get on the
internet, i mean, your privacy's gone. if you get on tv in front of the cameras, there's no more privacy anymore. i mean, if you don't want something known, then don't get on facebook. host: with all of that in mind no, other type of regulatory issue needed as far as facebook or other social media's concerned? caller: well what good is it going to do? who is the government to tell somebody what they can or can't read and can't and can do? the government, they're not the answer. host: ok. that's george from clarksville, tennessee, and he will be the last call on this topic. we have two guests from the congress. first up, we'll hear from louie gohmert, republican of texas, member of the judiciary committee, talk about the russian investigation and this omnibous bill that dropped. and later, we'll talk with jamie raskin of maryland about those topics, democrat of maryland. and those conversations are coming up when "washington
journal" continues. ♪ >> this sunday on 1968, america in turmoil, the presidential election of 1968 began with eight presidential candidates. by the end, the sitting president bowed out. robert kennedy was assassinated. and richard nixon won a decisive victory. former presidential candidate pat buchanon who served under nixon and reagan and the author of the greatest comeback. and barbara perry, director of
presidential studies at the university of virginia. watch "1968 america in turmoil" live sunday at 8:30 a.m. eastern on c-span's "washington journal" and on american history tv on c-span3. sunday on c-span's q&a, yale university law school professor amy chua talks about her book, "political tribes." >> my book calls for overcoming political tribalism. we need to be able to talk to each other as americans again and not just say oh, you're the evil ones. it used to be that people on the other side of the political divide were just meme people that we disagreed with. now it's almost like the people who voted for the other candidates are immoral, they're our enemies. they're not even real americans anymore. and this, because i study really
democracies around the world, places like libya, i mean, libya. what's the difference between libya and the united states? libya is a multi-ethnic country too. 140 different peoples. it's a failed state. it's disintegrated. why? because it doesn't have that overarching strong libyan identity, strong enough to hold the country together. it was a colonel construction, but we do. this is what makes us special. host: q&a, sunday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span. >> "washington journal" continues. host: our first guest of the morning is representative louie gohmert, republican of texas, a member of the judiciary committee and a freedom caucus member. good morning. guest: good morning. host: talk to us if this omnibous bill will gain passage by friday. guest: it's hard to say. won't pass with 219
republican votes. it is a disaster. it's the very thing that we belittled nancy pelosi over when she said we got to pass the bill to see what's in it. you have a 2,200-page bill, of course, obamacare carrie, a.c.a. was 2500 pages. and you got 24 hours, you know, maybe 36. it's just -- it's insane. here's no way to govern. we have 12 appropriations bill and the house did all of that. did all of that last year. and the senate did zero of the appropriations bill and they haven't done it whether it was democrat, republicans since i've been there, they don't do appropriations bill. they wait till the end of the year and then we do an omnibous, a c.r., that is so unfair and
pedro, i really believe it's immoral. i mean, you know, most of our country's history, at every generation, like my parents did. we want our kids to have better than we have. more opportunity than we had. and for our history, you know, the depression set people back. but that was what parents strive for. and now, we are loading down future generations with more debt than they're going to be able to handle. there's no way we can raise taxes enough to pay for the kind of spending we got. picture somebody from congress going into a bank and saying i need a loan. well what kind of collateral? i've got all my children here and they're going to pay it someday. why do you need a loan? because i can't control myself. i just can't stop spending. that's basically where we are and that's why i say it's really
mmoral to the next generation. host: what's the new spending that you're concerned about? guest: it's not new spending but it is vastly increased spending. and we in the republican party, most obviously have been concerned about the military, the huge cuts. hundreds of billons of dollars in cuts. but that was our own fault in july of 2011. we were in the majority, have just gotten back seven months before. and the speaker was baner and he announces this great idea. we're going to have a super committee, house and senate. they're going to reach an agreement. we don't, we're going to gut the military and hundreds of billons and if we don't also, there's 300 billion in cuts to medicare. and i got up to the mic and i
said i had a friend in high school in the little town where i grew up. his dad had a gambling problem and he was gambling with the big dogs in our little town. he had a hand that was unbeatable. out of chips, out of money. so he put his home on the table and somebody had the hand that would beat him that i've known since high school. no matter how you feel about your position, you never put your security on the table in a gammingble and that's what i told the speaker. this is insane. and he said -- and i quote "willy, listen to me. these sequesters will never happen." and i said of course they're going to happen. and he said no. they're never going to happen because the democrats will never allow the $300 billion in cuts to medicare. and i said last year, the a.c.a., they without a single republican vote. they cut medicare $716 billion. so the only way in 2012 they can
run a commercial and blame us for cuts to medicare is if they prevent the super committee from reaching a deal. then they had the massive cuts to the military. they have the $300 billion in cuts to medicare and they can say it's all because republicans wouldn't raise taxes on our rich friends. and he said these sequesters will never happen. well, they did. they gut our military. we've been trying to make it for it ever since and this spending bill goes a long way toward doing that, but the trouble is, you know, $1.3 trillion and this is only for half a year? you can't proper ply appropriate en you do this kind of appropriation and you have one day. the people that are negotiating all said we're not going to be oing this.
host: you can tweet questions or comments on @c-spanwj. guest: let me just finish on that though. the senate, we couldn't get them. well, the thing is and you probably heard because i've seen. we have been together but i notice you do your homework. well, the speaker has appointed. we have a bicameral, bipartisan commission or committee that's going to figure out a new budget in process. it's not going to matter. the only thing that will matter is if whoever the speaker is, whether it's pelosi again or whether it's paul ryan or somebody else, they have to tell the senate in january you guys
are going to have to do your 12 appropriations bills in the budget because if you don't, we are not going to negotiate on another c.r. omnibous. do what the law requires and then we'll work out our 12 appropriations in the conference committee and be serious about it. it's not a bluff. host: before we go to calls, i do want to get your comments on comments you've made earlier. this was quoted in the hill. it was about robert mueller you. made the case that he should be fired. why is that? guest: well, i was saying he should be but i would encourage the president and jeff not to fire him but the president has told me and he's told others i'm not going to fire him. it's much to do about nothing if shakespeare wouldn't mind me using it. but he's not going to fire him. and so, yeah. i think he deserves to be fired. but the reason he can't be fired is because we have some
knuckleheaded republicans that say oh, gee, if the president fired him, then we would need time peach the president. that's insane. host: you saw support from him from paul ryan and from the speaker? guest: yes, and i've brought up a long laundry list of reasons that he is not to be trusted to partial with a fair and prosecution. and and democrats just want rump gone, i get this. they just want trump gone just like the democrats do, b, intentionally staying ignorant of mueller's past. or three, they're thinking someday, i'm going to go before a senate confirmation hearing
and i want the democrats to be gentle with me. so i'm going to stay moral and be fair. that's the only three type of republicans you have that are saying mueller is doing a good job and he'll come out fair. you ask dr. hatfield who's life was ruined when he was not the anthrax killer. ask martha stewart. ask scooter libby. there are so many lives he is ruining. now, the four guys from boston that the f.b.i. got put in prison when they were totally framed by the f.b.i. in boston and they were under the direction of mueller. he was assistant u.s. attorney but in charge of criminal cases. but he kept riding to the parole board. don't let these guys out. they were framed by his people.
and mueller leaves boston and the city has to pay out, you know, $100 million or so. but two of the guys died in prison. so he doesn't have a very good track record. so, yeah. i feel very strongly. host: let's get calls from new castle, delaware, republican line. jim, you're up with louie gohmert, republican of texas go. ahead. caller: hey, louie, you're doing a great job. guest: well, thank you. caller: we got to get rid of this ryan and this mcconnell character. they're just poison. i don't understand it. mcconnell was saying oh, we have to return to regular order but that's the same game that he's been pushing for years. what's up with this? why does the senate allow -- why do the republicans allow him to be their leader? and ryan, we might as well have pelosi. he's screwing the president. it's terrible. host: thank you. guest: let me mention about
mcconnell. he makes clear that he does not want to get rid of the 60 vote cloture rule because we will end up back in the minority at some point and we want to be able to have that kind of influence. but if you go back before the election in november 2016, schumer is giving indications, gee, maybe it's time we went back to a majority. he was thinking they were going to get the majority back and he was going to thumb his nose at mcconnell and say hey, buddy, this is -- this is what i think, i got the impression. and the truth is even if they want to keep the 60-vote cloture rule, they should not have it on spending bills and they should not have it on confirmation. i was watching a black and white movie from the early 1960's and it was all about whether or not they could get that 50 vote for a confirmation. so the constitution doesn't require 60 votes.
heavily imposed by the senate itself. it takes 51 votes to get rid of that 60-vote requirement. they need to do that at least on spending bills and on confirmation because like the previous omnibous spending bill we did temporary bill, another trillion dollars in debt. but they were going to have to get 60 votes and they spent several hundred billion dollars that our kids and grandkids will pay because we're not going to be around to pay that. and it was just to get enough democratic senators bought off to get the cloture vote. so we got to get rid of that. it is causing future generations money and it really is immoral. host: let's hear from wayne, little town, pennsylvania. democrats line. caller: pedro, i've got three points for louie. all i hear from republicans,
medicare. let's cut medicare. number one. number two, -- [indiscernible] i don't agree with this stuff. you know, yeah, we got a heck of a deficit but oh, we are going to put all this money into the military and build more missiles. i mean, come on, man. there are people here in this country needs help too, you know? we don't have the pension like you people do. guest: there's so much ignorance. caller: i'm not the only opinion out there. host: we'll respond. guest: yeah, and i know and i get an e-mail from my dad from time to time saying are you sure? because it sounds like you guys have this golden pension. in the 1980's, finally congress did the right thing. congress has the same retirement that every federal worker in america has.
d there is no golden medical insurance. it's what every federal worker in america has. and actually, i haven't had health insurance -- got it last year through my wife's employer, but obamacare, we were not supposed to get a subsidy. it was in the law. if you got it, you got to have the subsidy five of the laws. so i didn't take it. i know people like to talk about you get this huge pension retirement stuff, you know? there's a lot of misinformation about that. and i appreciate you saying all you hear from republicans is let's cut medicare and i deeply regret you weren't listening carefully. i didn't say i was in favor of cutting medicare. i wasn't. i didn't say that. we do need to do something different that will cost scless we could and give our seniors
even more coverage. the pharmaceuticals are making a killing off of obamacare and i aw it. and so did a number of -- if you saw somebody sign on to the a.c.a., they got something out of it. and it all hurt the people. so i'm not advocating cutting medicare. i do want to do something that will give our seniors more coverage, more health care because they're finding out that's $716 billion that you democrats pushed through without a single republican vote. it did more damage to our seniors than anything republicans done in the whole last 100 years. it was devastating to seniors. and so some of us are trying to get that coverage back that the
obamacare took away. we may be more aligned than you ever think about. i wasn't for the $716 billion that the democrats cut medicare. glad that you disagree with your own party. host: were you ok with the bill not ensuring marketplaces? guest: that's tricky because the a.c.a. provides bailouts for insurance companies that had record banner years. the last thing they need is big stabilization bailouts. we've got to have material corrections and we should have done it in the spending bill. i don't think we address that
adequately in this bill either. but i'm not for any more bailouts the insurance company or the a.c.a. provided. host: keith from the republican line. caller: good morning, louie. i got a couple of questions for you. guest: ok. caller: why are they going to put a tunnel through in new york and not build a wall and why are stay they still going to fund planned parenthood? guest: keith, yes can, great questions. and unfortunately, the answer to both of your questions will not make you happy. i feel sure because it makes me very unhappy. the reason there's money for the gateway tunnel under some other name is because they needed to buy off enough democratic senators and particularly the democratic leader in the senate to get them on board to get cloture. and so we're spending billons of dollars for that just to get
enough democratic votes to get to cloture. that's why that tunnel money is there. and what was your other question? host: it was planned parenthood. guest: the reason that's there is because democrats are a lot better at negotiating than we are. i don't know what the deal is and paul ryan is an honest honorable guy. he is. but he's terrible at negotiating. and i know he pushes some of these ideas, but there are other guys because he's so nice. the people that push harder for the democrats in the senate, they always get a better deal than -- and get more of what they want than we do. so we have some great negotiators that were terrific businessmen and businesswomen before they got to congress. and somehow when they get to congress, if they're a republican, they have this idea
of negotiation. ok. here's where we're willing to end up and they start there. and so, at least one of the things about president trump, he knows how to do a deal, unfortunately in this omnibous, he let two people in the house and two people in the senate do the real negotiation and then they come to him and they've got this piece of junk and that's being nice. that's why it's not a better deal. they got better negotiators than we do. host: is this part concerns about the of election? you talked about the speaker if it's pelosi again. are you concerned that the house may lose out? guest: i am very concerned. and i don't think it's going to be because democrats come out in record numbers more than they ever have. they may, but i think it's more about whether or not republicans stay home. and let's face it.
we have not given people a lot to come out and feel good about voting for because we're not delivering. we have the house. we have the senate. we have the white house. and i know people say yeah, but we don't have the 60 in the snavement we got enough to vote out the 60 votes so they can gel done what we need to. and again, pedro, i'll come back to this. it is immoral to be spending like we are when we're not -- our generation's not going to pay for it. but i did hear a comedian, apparently in her 20's and she said have you guys heard that our generation is going to be the first generation that doesn't have it as good, doesn't live as good as our parents? she said isn't that crazy? how could we not live as good as our parents when we're all still living with our parents? she's pretty funny. but that just shouldn't be. we need to leave it better for our kids. host: louie gohmert joining us.
from ohio, independent line, ike, good morning. caller: i'm having a problem with this broken military story, especially after 911 and the axis of evil speech. we doubled the military by double. and recently, mike pence went to jordan and handed out a bunch of helicopters and of course, trump went to saudi arabia and of course there's that military deal there and i'm starting to wonder who did profit from 9/11 and still can't understand why our soldiers is in afghanistan after 18 years guarding heroin crops and then we have this opioid epidemic. and you guys spin this into a disney production wrapped around a twilight zone. can you explain any of this? guest: yeah, i sure can.
and i know you want to blame republicans, but it took a lot of help from both parties to do some of the worst damage that we have. as far as profiting, you know, eisenhower, a good republican, warned about, you know, about the military establishment because they're always good. they're always happy to spend more on the military. military has not been getting raises the way they so you have. there were a lot of issues. bit on afghanistan, i hope i don't scare you that we agree on that. we shouldn't have all these troops in afghanistan that we did. and that was a mistake under george w. bush whom i like a lot. but all we should have done was gotten rid of the taliban. and i pointed out, i've studied
history my whole life. and, you know, occupiers in that area we call afghanistan now, have never done well. some people say oh, but don't forget alexander the great. he died leaving the area. i don't call that a big win. occupiers do not do well there. and we should not have been. what gets me, we were the big heroes. we help them and we -- by the way, we got rid of the taliban by helping those in afghanistan that wanted to get rid of the taliban. they were muslims. they were our friends. they did not want radical islamists controlling the country. if you go see the movie "12 strong," great movie, it's not 100% accurate. the book's more accurate. but we didn't lose a single american. we had about 300 embedded special forces, special ops guys
and we helped the northern alliance defeat the taliban within six months, there was no organized taliban. and then we did a terrible thing in my opinion. we ended up eventually over 100,000 american troops in taliban-some i mean, when i think about if some terrible radicals tock over america, we would welcome somebody helping us get rid of them. and then we wouldn't want them to stay. we have stayed. and we didn't start losing americans until after the taliban was gone. we added occupiers. and there was no sense in that. and i agree with you on that. it's been a mistake by the obama administration and before that, it was a mistake by the bush administration and the bush administration and i love condoleezza rice. she's brilliant. but that is a perfect area for a federalist style government, where the states the regions are the strong part. because, i mean, it doesn't lend
itself to a good assistant liesed government and we gave them a formula for all kinds of orruption. and i've got a lot of friends, muslim leaders over there and they said look, if you could just help us amend our constitution that the united states basically gave them. and there's an amendment in there that says we can finally elect our governors, elect our mayors, select our own police chiefs. it is under the constitution we gave them. it's why we are there to answer your question. the president of the country gets to pick the governors, the mayors, the police chiefs. trying are it's frallingt with corruption. it was a huge mistake. host: we will hear from dee in florida, a republican line. guest: hi, dee. caller: well, louie, i am so
glad i'm watching you. you are my favorite person. you're on the floor for your five-minute speeches. you are the only one there, actually, who talks to people and don't give your talking points that everybody seems to have. i really enjoy you. guest: you're very kind. thank you. caller: but i like to know why the republicans keep hiding? they're like cockroaches. any time something comes up, they crawl see the little holes on the walls they can find. the democrats are out there. and they're right there at the microphone and the media, ok? the republicans are hiding in corners and they're like cockroaches. something happens and boy, they run away. we're supposed to be in charge, ok? host: ok. guest: i agree with you. [laughter] cockroaches. the scary part about that, they say if the world comes to end, the only thing that's going to live is the cockroaches. so that's a little scary.
but de's making a good point, you are. and actually, i'll give you a frame of reference. my first term was 2005 and 2006. and republicans were in the majority. and debbie wasserman schultz and tim ryan, there were a number -- a lot of nights, there are were eight. usually, there were at least eight democrats. most of them were in their 30's. so they call themselves the 30-something. but each party gets two hours to speak on the house floor. and i would be with veteran republicans and we would be just about everywhere you go, there's c-span. and it's showing activity on the floor and i would be reading the scroll lines and they were blaming us for everything under the sun.
i mean, we were just horrendous murderers, you name it. we were just horrible. and i would say to some of the veteran republicans. guys, they're saying some terrible things about and what i was told over and again is that they are hurting their own credibility. making themselves look stupid. us, but overfor two years time, i watched them taking that time every night to play must, they moved opinion. and i thought about a comment -- do you remember tony snow? one of the first on fox news after they got started? foras the spokesperson george h.w. bush and i was talking to him about the issue.
george h.w.he loved bush and respected him and admired him greatly. but as clinton was throwing bush, thes at response was, we will not dignify these allegations with a response. i kept seeing our numbers go down. 91% at one point and just going down and down. that eachally said with the president, mr. president. i love and respect you. but when somebody keeps attacking your honor and you don't defend it? eventually they assume that you have no honor. and i think that goes to what you are saying. we are to be out there. we should be responding and defending our honor because we
have some. host: the house judiciary committee is set to hear from representatives of facebook over data privacy. how much do you know about the hearing? whom would you like to see? mark zuckerberg? from: i would like to hear mark zuckerberg. i am getting concerned. the incredible entity it is without government intervention and control. concerned if we start regulating facebook, we interject ourselves -- the internet is the most extraordinary thing and there seems to be a lot more democrats who become millionaires and billionaires than republicans but i don't care. it is a free market with a
beautiful idea and a chance for people to come up with good ideas and get rich but i am concerned about congress jumping in the middle of that and starting to regulate. adequatelycan be -- i don't think they will police themselves. i think the way it works is that if people get mad and turn to other platforms then you see others spring. all of these different ones. some were popular at one point that then they start losing users. andwas on the ground floor people are always looking for a better platform and venue. and whenever people provide it, that is where people streamed to. and i think we let the users make the decision.
i would like to hear about what happened. i got the impression that the obama campaign basically was doing the same things that the trump campaign was and some are concerned that we shouldn't have republicans do what democrats do. so i would like to hear about that. be very interested to hear what is going on behind there. facebook is, if starting to censor republicans or conservatives, if they are going to do that and they need protection from liability taken away. they need to be like a newspaper that can't be held accountable for the things they publish. to make ak needs
decision. mark zuckerberg and company. to continue down the road of censoring what is on facebook? expose yourself to liability when you are wrong in what you censor? or would you rather let this be the free access? that it was? material, child pornography, anything that is a crime -- obviously. we have to -- the government needs to make their no crimes be committed. but other than that, i like the way the free market has worked. even though it has made a lot more democrats rich than republicans. was representative louie gohmert. thank you. up, we hear from another member of
raskin. that conversation is next. ♪ >> monday on landmark cases, join us for gideon v. wainwright , a petty thief who spent his time in jail, studying the law. he challenge the state of florida which denied him access to an attorney. >> are you ready for trial? ask the state is ready. >> what says the defendant? i am not ready. >> did you plead guilty to this charge by reason of insanity? >> i
i have no counsel. examined this case and the high school -- and the high court ruling with the general of the u.s. who served under the george w. bush of ministration and a partner at a law firm and a professor of law and political science at yale and a visiting professor at the university of pennsylvania law school. live on c-span, c-span.org or listen with the c-span mobile we have resources for background on each case including the landmark companion book. the interactive constitution and download the podcast at c-span.org and from your podcast subscriber. >> for nearly 10 years, in depth
on book tv has featured the best known nonfiction writers for live conversations about their books. this year, we feature best-selling fiction writers for our book. join us with walter mosley. his most recent book was down the river into the sea. plus, over 40 critically acclaimed books and mystery series. during the program we will take your tweets. our special series with author walter mosley on sunday, april 1 live from noon-3:00 p.m. on .-span 2 >> washington journal continues. host: our guest is representative jamie raskin,
good morning. haven't had au chance to look over the full details but overall, what you think about the price tag and potential of the passage to get the government funded? guest: it is thousands of pages so i wasn't able to wage by way through the entire thing but i saw some things with a proposed andof 30% to the nih medical research, that is essential to my constituents and people across the country. i also noticed there were increases in the epa budget. i was afraid of that. , they basically wanted to cut scientific research. job the pleased at the democrats did to fight for our priorities.
there was an increase in infrastructure spending and a big increase for child care development block grants, which is great because we finally are getting focused on that. and a lot of the elections around the country from virginia, new jersey, alabama -- they have shaken the republicans. and have emboldened our negotiators to hang tough and the providence have been backing down on a number of things. it doesn't give us everything we want and the dream act is not our of it which has been on agenda ever since we thought we had a deal with trump last june when nancy pelosi and chuck went to the white house. we are frustrated we haven't been able to deal with that. for: and no provisions marketplaces under the affordable care act? thing i noticed that
was good is that we have clarified the center for disease control can actually follow gunfire lengths as a public health epidemic to follow mass shootings. an effortere has been by the nra forces to ban scientific research into gun violence but we have gotten over that. again, this is largely attributable to the student movements that have broken out ever sincecountry the parkland massacre took place on valentine's day. host: what do you think these types of rallies do for swaying capitol hill? guest: it is making all the difference. the florida legislature which was a bastian of nra control has adopted modest gun safety measures. nothing like what we need but they have raised the age of the
purchase of nra -- the purchase of ar-15's. there is no reason for anybody and civil society to be carrying one but they did increase the age which is a tribute to these young people who are speaking in a fresh, authentic language about what a terrifying experience it is to go to school in a society where we don't have universal background checks. have a say, look, we common sense gun safety agenda. 95% of americans say we need background checks and we have a tiny faction led by the nra and their servants in congress who even have aus to hearing on it or much less a vote. but i think politicians are running scared now because we have had hundreds of thousands of young people across the country standing up as a new generation that has awoken,
essentially telling us that the basic principles of social contract -- you give up a state safer isn't make it being honored. we are not delivering on the fundamental promise of a social contract which is that people can go out in public without being slain and shot down. and that is especially true for candidates because they have to go to school. we compel them to go to school been schoolve shootings, including one in my state of maryland this week. so what is the young people who are putting this foremost in the mind of congress know. universal background checks, a ban on magazines. althoughe been upheld it up to the supreme court and the supreme court is very clear in the case from 2010 that you
can't take away people's handguns for self-defense and their right to recreation but nobody has a right to machine guns or to carry weapons of war they deftly don't have one to pass by the regulatory screens of government. host: we have set up phone lines. (202) 748-8000, democrats. (202) 748-8001, republicans. (202) 748-8002, independent callers. call comes from wanda. good morning. caller: i have a question and a comment. my first comment is that the previous guest did nothing but lie. aca,you think about the obama created a way where could have the doughnut
hole closed for pharmaceuticals. bush made a deal with pharmaceuticals which gave them billions of dollars and obama tried to close that so it wouldn't hurt seniors as much. he said that obama and the democrats were making seniors pay more and giving all of this cushion to pharmaceuticals. host: what question would you like to address to our current guest? guest: i got her point. i am totally with you. the commanding majority of american people say the government should be able to negotiate for lower drug prices with take pharma in medicare. get lobbyists to slip in a special interest provision saying the government could not negotiate lower drug
prices which is why everybody's drug prices grew across the $25try and it is costing us billion a year for the taxpayers. the government could negotiate in the via a and it could in medicaid but it can't do it in medicare because of this special interest legislation. and we need to get tough on pharmaceutical companies which is a majority agenda and a wish that is something we would do. trump has twice said this is something he wants congress to and to speaker ryan and the republicans in washington barry at and won't even have a hearing on it and won't but as the. they don't have to vote for it. but give the people a vote. caller: good morning. tell youto call and how i feel about the spending bill.
because this is all democratic. paul and we want century cities do not get any money. or planned parenthood to not get any money. because they have millions of dollars they will spend on democrats to win in 2018. we don't want obamacare. we didn't want it then and don't want it now. we won't paul ryan to stand up for us and mitch mcconnell to stand up for us. they can pass decent bills. guest: thank you for calling. billpose your alarm at the mirrors my pleasant surprise when i was able to read through it early this morning.
planned parenthood, i'm afraid we disagree about. more than 2 million women and men access those services every year for general health services and for reproductive health care and i'm glad we were able to defeat what was in the original budget to defund planned parenthood. as for the wall, i don't know what to say. ast people recognize this is 14th century solution to a 21st-century problem. the president campaigned on the wall and equally on the idea that mexico would pay for it. so if you get mexico to pay for it then i suppose that is something you have a better argument for. but it is a bait and switch to say that we need a wall and mexico will pay for it and everybody jumps and yells and screams at a rally and then to say no, the american people have to put up 35 billion dollars to build the wall when we have
pressing needs in terms of medicare and social security and security in schools and the opioid crisis. i'm glad democratic negotiators hung tough and were able to uncover the real leads of the american people. sorry we disagree but that is the great thing about america. caller: how are you today? i have done thing to say about guns. the second amendment reads the and forit was written the business of interpretation, it drives me nuts. because it is being taught as it was written. and you have to pass tests to get through school and it hasn't it leavesed and everything open to interpretation just to please a few. you could point your finger and itang and
won't kill anybody. why do we need weapons? assault weapons? military weapons? our soldiers come back all screwed up. there is the ability to take so many lives. you for your excellent point. the language of the second amendment does remain the same as it did in the original bill of rights. peoples the right of the to bear arms shall not be infringed and there has been a debate about whether or not that meant the right as an individual right or a collective right tethered to national guard service and militia service but nine supreme court justices say the second amendment right is conditioned on reasonable public regulation, the same regulations that we have with respect to the
first amendment. a right to protest in front of the white house but not at 2:00 in the morning to wake up the president and his family. just like there are reasonable restrictions for the second amendment, reasonable public safety regulations, including background checks and the illumination -- the elimination of guns in public laces. inhave become an outlier terms of industrialized countries around the world. gun ares of homicide by through the roof. you can't compare canada or japan or the united kingdom, fewer than a hundred people a year are killed every year by homicides but we have tens of thousands of people that we are losing every year to not just gun homicide but also gun suicide. we could have reasonable common sense legislation at the same
time we respect the rights under the second amendment. host: we have heard this house the majority leader talk about robert mueller and give assurances that he will not be removed from his job. how much faith do you place in that? the trendlines are not excellent. this administration has removed more top officials been any presidential administration since woodrow wilson. or he may have just broken all the records. obviously, going back to james comey and mccain and tillerson, it is like we are living in a tabloid reality show. where people are fired every day. the thing that somebody needs to convince the president of is that you cannot get rid of an as aendent special counsel
federal prosecutor whose investigation goes to your own administration. james madison said it is a cardinal principle of our rule of law that no man should be a judge in his own case. people across the political spectrum now understand this would be a classic example of obstruction and justice when you have the president going into try to micromanage what is happening in an investigation that goes directly to the administration. doesn't fall under the powers of the presidency to remove robert mueller? guest: it does not. he is not the statutory power to do it. and constitutionally, both parties have recognized through impeachment resolutions through richard nixon and bill clinton that obstruction of justice is the cardinal sin of the president. as the chief law enforcement officer you have to respect the
law and not undermine law enforcement which is precisely what is going on with the firing of james comey and the repeated threats made against the department of justice and special prosecutor mueller. and i'm glad that my colleagues on the other side of the i/o realize that the president needs to act like an innocent person and an innocent person doesn't .ttack law enforcement an innocent person goes about his or her business. this president seems obsessed with what is going on which is want thee administration to know that congress is watching even though we are going into a recess for a couple of weeks. we will not rollover if there is an attempt to destroy the special counsel administration. >> you have heard for a second special counsel are -- counsel.
they say in part "with respect to potential and actual conflict tointerest, it has led legitimate questions and concerns from people we all serve. towards thosebias cases and there is evidence of opposition research using court filings. it goes on. >> most people do realize it is ludicrous. robert mueller is a well-respected law enforcement official. was the head of the fbi. a u.s. attorney in massachusetts and california. a republicanted by and an attorney general and if there is any partisanship it is on the republican side. let law enforcement do their job. stop interfering with their ability to investigate facts. try to determine what happened. i learned when i was in law
school that if the facts are against you you pound the table the law isaw and if against to do pound the facts. an attempt to discredit mueller just because of the job he was appointed to do. host: mccabe, you offered him a job, what made you do so? guest: i thought it was effective lawt an enforcement individual who was fought against terrorism and attacks on the government would way, thatd in this they would pull his pension and fire him a day before his pension benefits? i offered him a job for selfish reasons. he is a brilliant guy with the appearedgrity who has
before the committee and i found him impressive. i wasn't the only person to offer him a job. us haveknow if any of heard from him. i do want them to know that i'm serious because we need somebody of his kind of integrity and intelligence to help us deal with this. host: this is freddie from indiana. you are on with representative jamie raskin. diehard democrat. i believe in the democratic party and i believe we are the ones who will wind up in heaven likeay but what i would for you to try and explain to me is, how can we continue to do what we are doing? or what we want the american people to have and also bring down the deficit? i am somewhat concerned about the deficit.
on the work that they do for behalf of the american people, i love what we're doing and i know it costs money to do the things which we are attempting to do for the american people but how can we do that and also keep the deficit low? guest: what an excellent question. your opening statement reminded me of something that thomas jefferson said. to heavend only go with a political party, i would not do so." [laughter] we have to remember that the us the wordgives party. we fight like cats and dogs in the election but we do speak for the common good. when you sayis that we have to deal with the
problem of the deficit. one reason i'm so vehemently opposed to the tax giveaway. benefits of the recent tax bill went to 1% of the people. if it were a middle-class tax it would drive a much bigger hole into the deficit. we always have enough money for the things we don't need like trillion dollar wars in iraq. nobody said we needed to spend in i rock. it has gone on for 18 years now and it is an extraordinary terrain on the resources of the country and we can't be getting involved in the wars all over the world that drain our budget when we have needs at home to attend to.
we need to build to the budget planning. this is about the future of our children. thatun violence problem leads to the scene episodes with people bearing ar-15's and shooting our children as they run down a hallway. just like climate change -- we have to get serious about investing in the socioeconomic investment our children will inherit. host: canada, this is richard from montreal. millions of americans saw the lisa page messages concerning the insurance -- how -- not you or one democrat
guest: the first thing to remark is that the moment the intimate and politically charged texts or mccabemr. mueller removed -- from the investigation. he was immediately detached from the investigation. the second thing is that i encourage you to read all of the text because he was not just trashing trump, and he trashed governor o'malley, bernie sanders and he was an equal opportunity and sold her. he didn't like politicians across the board and undoubtedly he a lot of americans there. but the deep state conspiracy to after trump is ridiculous. same commentsthe about trump as millions of americans were. andng he is foolish
ridiculous. just like he trashed bernie sanders and hillary clinton and all the others. effort. has been an host: this is richard in tennessee. caller: yes sir. thank you for taking my call. my question was about the deficit and the answer you gave the previous call about $20 trillion deficit, you did what a good democrat does and you spun the hamster. so i guess i need you to say that your way to get out of the deficit is to tax our way out and not cut programs? is that what you are saying? guest: but is actually not what i'm saying. i appreciate your call.
if you look at the cost of programs they are low, proportionately. but we get less from the government, we don't have universal health care. which is something that most americans agree we should have. we should every right to health care in the richest country in the world. a lot of our military spending is bloated and ridiculous. hearing with $150 billion that was lost in waste, fraud, abuse and in the apartment of defense. there was an independent consultant who did a report five and it was hidden and we had a hearing. and republicans were as equally outraged as the democrats that hundreds of billions of dollars
were lost. i do appreciate the attempt to politicize the issue but this is something that upsets us all as a people and we have to get on top of it and reduce the deficit. host: the daily news of new york reported earlier this month that the trump organization donated one hundred $51,000 of profits to the department of treasury which comes from people staying at the hotel, an issue of yours? guest: yes, i have introduced the hotel act which for a visit -- which forbids the use of federal agency funds at trump hotel properties. the federal government cannot be giving money to the trump hotel and trump golf courses and yet we know that hundreds of thousands of dollars and may be millions of dollars have been flowing into trump enterprises.
no president can receive a present while he is in office from foreign governments or domestically saying the president is limited to his salary and he cannot correct -- he cannot collect other money. we have to cut this off at the source and say that no federal agency can spend money in this way. he would give $150,000 back to the treasury to take care of it is ridiculous. you can't embezzle $1 million from a bank and say you give $200,000 to the u.s. treasury. you didn't have the right to embezzle from the can with. host: several legal cases have been heard on this issue. do you think the court system is the best way to adjudicate this?
guest: that is the only way we can adjudicate this. we have not had a president has gone anywhere near violating this clause but our friends on the other side of the aisle don't want to deal with it. courts have set up a don't have the standing to raise it because the constitution says he cannot collect the monuments without permission of congress. congress has to be the first one to deal with it but the majority will deal with it. we will keep it on the agenda. was representative jamie raskin. we go to open phones until the end of the program at 9:00. (202) 748-8000, democrats. (202) 748-8001, republicans, , independent2
callers. we will be right back. c-span, where history unfolds daily. 1979, c-span was created as a public service by american television companies. today we bring you unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court and public policy events in washington, d.c. and around the country. c-span is brought to you by your provider.satellite sunday, the presidential election of 1958 began with eight presidential candidates but at the end, kennedy was assassinated, television was dominated by violent clashes and richard nixon won a decisive
victory. joining us on the program is pat buchanan who served under author ofixon and "the greatest comeback." -- presidential oral history program. watch 1968 america in turmoil live on sunday at 8:30 a.m. eastern on c-span and on c-span3. journal"ngton continues. social media you can post on our twitter feed and facebook is available to you. story inthe topic of a the wall street journal, taking a look at exemptions provided by the trump administration, saying that betrayed administrative official said that the u.s. argentina, theh
european union and will begin communicating with brazil. the negotiations with those nations. the tariffs on steel and aluminum take affect on friday but these talks are likely to continue into next month. i took in that hearing yesterday and you can go live to our website at c-span.org. we go to the first call in open phones. caller: good morning, how are you? host: well, thank you. talk to thented to congressman but i didn't get the chance. it is a shame that in my opinion, greedy rich people have opinions about taking away things from the poor.
it is somewhat godless. and it hurts. people who make $400,000 or less a year are struggling. i don't even make that. i don't think there is anyway you could say that we have to get out of this debt crisis by cutting social programs. i remember a gentleman walking up to george bush and saying, we have a problem. we have no money. so it goes way back. we created a deficit. , larryre the geniuses kudlow, what are we going to do with the president like we have who is dirty, to get out of this mess? host: we go to al. good morning. ask theyes, i wanted to
last person on your show, in what state can you buy a machine gun? you can't. they are illegal. and they keep misrepresenting the gun used as an ar-15. it isn't an automatic weapon and it isn't a military weapon. style lookingry weapon. but you could do the same -- i have a 22 and it has 14 shots. i could chew them off as fast as i can pull the trigger. you just can't. and another quick point. what law can you pass that will take guns out of the arms of bad guys. the bad guys will never give up their guns. they live in philadelphia and i have seen illegal gun purchases
with guys out there flashing the gun, how much do you want for it. host: how did you observe that? caller: i was riding my bike on the bike trail there. a small parking lot near downtown. there were several guys standing around the trunk of the car and had a open and one fellow silver revolver in his hands and i overheard him say, how much do you want for it? story.hink you for the we go to judy in california. i don't know what the problem is with the trump hotels. they are books three or four years ahead of time. i don't know what the deal is with that. and trump is not taking a salary as president. president to get rich. he is already rich.
people need to say that he is in that job to get rich. he is not. he already has money and he doesn't need that hotel cash. that is just peanuts. washington post this morning taking a look at efforts by companies wanting to hire foreign workers. accordingted to do so to the story, saying this is according to a report from the american immigration lawyers organizations say that there has screwed me over non-immigrant petitions for skilled workers and management and others. it identified a slew of new barriers for foreign workers, including a dramatic increase in requests for additional evidence and new interview requirements in processing visa petitions. the dismantling of obama era
rules to encourage immigrant aunt mineral and proposals to a limited work authorization for spouses of high skilled workers -- this admits that people who are skilled and want to work will contribute to our society but the white house has not responded to our request for comment. john in pennsylvania. on the democrats line. good morning. i listened to an expose on dateline or frontline about the miami mama's. russian women coming to america s owned byg at hotel the trump administration and $50,000, $150,000. having children here and becoming american citizens and sometimes they come back more than one time. i'm surprised. i was going to ask the congressman about that. that is something that hasn't been mentioned on any of the shows i have been watched so
they are staying at trump hotels, by the way. organization is making money off these women and i thought this was something that was illegal. so i would like to hear your comment on that. host: we will continue on in the open phones. that is until 9:00 when the house of representatives comes in. one of the things facing congress this week is the passage of a spending bill in order to keep the government open. here to update us on what the like isis going to be sarah ferriss from politico. a budget and appropriations reporter. good morning. has beenthe text released of the spending bill, $1.3 trillion, what has been the response from congress? night gotmakers last the text we had been waiting for -- we have been waiting for this since september but lawmakers had been told to expect the text
imminently since friday so it has been a frustrating week for a lot of members. and the text that came out, over 2200 pages. lawmakers in the house have 12 hours to really digest and process that, going through all of it for the individual appropriations bills before they vote on that. 1:30 p.m.oats at which is earlier than what many of us had been expecting. the house will vote for this in the afternoon and there should be no problems. they think they have enough republicans and democratic votes to get this approved. we don't quite know what to accept. know what to expect. only one senator needs to object in order to prevent the bill from being fast tracked which upld cause us to bump
against the deadline tomorrow night which would trigger a government shutdown. host: is very senator interested in putting a halt in the works? it isn't clear. senator rand paul has been peppered by questions all week after last month. he took the floor and he decided to protest over last month pass stopgap spending bill. senator rand paul has tweeted that he doesn't like what is in it and he says there is not enough conservative victories in this given full republican control of washington but he ben't said that he will doing the same one-man crusade to hold back the funding bill. senator mike lee has also that this bill dropped 48 hours before the deadline. whor conservative groups
are influential hearsay to give congress an extra week. they are about to go on recess for the easter holiday and some lawmakers say they should give more time to read this and just take one week away from recess. democrats ared not interested in doing this. i think it is likely they will get this done at the wire. i do think they will be able to avoid a real showdown. >> you said on the house side there would be support. would you say that comes from members of the house freedom caucus? or others who are concerned about spending, overall? the freedom caucus was a very quick to oppose this. they only took a few minutes before they took a formal position to oppose the bill. there's too much spending in this for them to support this and there were other priorities that they are not fans of. votes in plenty of
here among the republican caucus because of the intense pressure from the defense secretary jim mattis and republican leaders who have been hammering for weeks about the funding corp. -- the funding for the pentagon. this has a pay increase for the troops of 10.4%. these are strong selling point of the republican party's that have been hearing from trump about his focus on the military. i think we will see a have to vote. a healthy vote for republicans. outlining these positions all year long and no matter what was in the spending bill, they never vote for spending bills. ferrithat is sarah joining us -- sarah ferris joining us.
thank you for your time. northa joins us from carolina, on the democrat line. good morning. i would like to have c-span call more -- c-span talk more about how ivanka and jared trump would be a detriment to our country. ivanka was snuck in there when she didn't have security and the remark about her father saying it was inappropriate for anybody to ask was involved. her fort infrastructure. what does he know -- what does she know about them for stricter? with c-span make that a topic? it is a year later and we now see reports.
they can't be all wrong and all fake. the whitedn't be in house. they are scrambling and doing things that we can't stop them because it will be too late by the time we have any say. please bring up the subject again. host: from sam on the independent line. i have a question when it comes to the threat to our democracy from russia and i think i were threat to the democracy from russia is less threatening than the threat to democracy from -- hello? host: go ahead. caller: the threat to democracy within america. the reason i say that is that anda brazil was a delegate she came out with a book titled "hacks." and she said the clinton
campaign, with the help of the dnc, colluded to break the elections against bernie sanders. i didn't read the book but elizabeth warren, i saw on tv make a comment about that, saying it was rigged. my question is this. i would like to make an analogy to find out if this is correct. if the owners of the patriot team rigs the game so they could win it with the help of or the owners of the philadelphia eagles rigs the game with the help of a foreign power like russia, isn't the game fake? is there a difference from one crime or the other? are they equal? donna brazilioned who has appeared on these issues to talk about those issues. if you go to our website at
those.org, you can see conversations. you can also find the hearing that took place yesterday with jerome powell announcing an interest rate hike highlighted in the financial times this morning saying they raise the target range by 1.5%. up to 1.75%. is more from the hearing with jerome powell announcing that hike. remains stronget and the economy continues to expand and inflation continues to appear to be moving to the 2% longer run goal. we decided today to raise the target rate for the federal funds rate i .25%, bringing it up to 1.75%. this marks another step in the ongoing process of scaling back monetary policy accommodation.
averaged 240 thousand per month over the last three months which is above the pace needed to absorb new entrants into the labor force. the employment rate remained low in february while the labor force participation rate moved higher. over the past four years, participation rate has remained largely on rate -- largely unchanged. we do expect that the job market will remain strong. again, c-span.org is where you could see that hearing. louise, hello. caller: think you for taking my call. i tried to look at the core issue of what is driving both parties. it seems to me that over and with then it is profit republicans. with trump, it is his own
profit, i don't think he cares if it is one party or the other. by free guns all over the place and people being killed and the way they are? gun manufacturers. the nra. far as trump, what is going on with russia? why can't he leave it be? they've got something on him. i would say it is probably monetary because i don't think his dalliances with women are news because everybody knows that. it is a fact. and evangelicals are perfectly fine with it so let that be. host: we go to break, hello. caller: yes, good morning. i want to know why the black reduce ays that they
that is according to the profile done by the new york times. he oversees care at the is a dude that provides hiv treatments to more than 6000 patients in the baltimore, washington area. the institute has an annual budget of $105 million also studies viral illnesses and cancer but he came under fire for advocating broad aids testing. his research led to a military investigation. it is -- his record has prompted to opposetty murray his appointment although some advocates for aids patients say i support him for his job. thank you for taking my call. the nra and some of your callers often reference a good guy with
a gun and a bad guy with a gun. how do you tell the good guys from the bad guy? committed theas most heinous of crimes has not been apprehended and convicted would have a clean record and would be able to pass a background check. with that make this guy a good guy? from charlottesville, virginia. on the democrats line. i had a quick question and there was a comment between erris aboutah f they have hours to review it? is that standard operating procedure? bills being proposed with
senators getting less than a day to review the material? understand it, usually there is some type of framework for legislation to be and sifted through. caller: good morning, c-span. i want to let you know that i love you guys. cans remarkable how trump stay in this role. i pray people will open up their look -- theyock are reluctant to believe that he has no type of relationship with russia. if they would look at the news, they would see that trump has a lot to do with a lot of things going wron