tv Washington Journal 02092019 CSPAN February 9, 2019 7:00am-10:01am EST
by 500 million dollars in the next decade. and later, time editor haley sweetland edwards looks at the report on global migration. ♪washington journal" good morning and welcome to washington journal. acting attorney general matthew whitaker sparred with democrats on friday over the handling of the investigation of russian meddling into u.s. elections. ag, william barr, close to confirmation. but the present will stay in focus, with robert mueller's investigation still ongoing. we want to know, do you have confidence in the justice department and the fbi to do their job, and do them well? that is our opening question for today, and we are waiting for your calls. if your answer is yes and you do have confidence in the doj and
fbi, we want you to call (202) 748-8000 and tell us why. if you don't have confidence in the justice department and the and call (202) 748-8001 explain your position. reachu can always us on social media at @cspanwj and facebook.com/cspan. val demings spoke yesterday during this hearing on what she believes president trump has done to the reputation of the fbi and justice department. here is what she had to say. >> the great 115,000 men and women who work with the department of justice, because i your words, extremely talented, highly flexible public servants who are dedicated to upholding our great constitutions and the laws of the united states. i am sure you are familiar with this, because you came up at a rally last fall.
is president said, look what being exposed at the department of justice and the fbi. you see what has happened at the fbi, they are all gone, they are all gone, but there is a lingering stench and we are going to get rid of that too. do you agree with the president's characterization of the department of justice and the fbi? as the attorney general, please tell me why you would or would not agree with that statement. >> since i have become the acting attorney general, i have reestablished a positive relationship with the department of justice and the white house. you establishcame that relationship. what was your opinion of the 115,000 men and women who dedicate their lights public service -- their life to public service before you had your current opinion. >> i have a very high estimation of the men and women at the department of justice. they are some of the most exceptional, hard-working people -- >> you disagree with the president's characterization,
because they don't deserve it, mr. whitaker, and you supervise, you manage them. and you don't agree with the president's characterization of them. that correct? >> listen, before, congresswoman, with all the -- all due respect, i feel very strongly that as acting attorney general of the united states, i have to set the tone or the entire department of justice. >> if i worked for you, mr. whitaker him and you thought i was highly principaled and very talented and that was your answer when you were asked how do you view the people who work for you, that is your answer? that is pretty pitiful. ort: let's go to caller from wisconsin. he said he does not have confidence. good morning. caller: anyone with any intelligence or common sense -- i watched the whole hearing -- know that whitaker is there to obstruct.
therethe republicans are to obstruct and the democrats are respectful people trying to get down to the bottom of why this is happening. you know, i have been a teacher for 33 years, i have some sense, and i have been watching this and appalled by the lack of transparency by whitaker. and we all know the reason why he was assigned, because -- to protect trump. more theis it leadership of the justice department or the rank and file that you have concerns about? all,r: well -- first of whitaker should have never been acting attorney general. it should have gone to rosenstein. he should have been doing that, but trump realizes that he has been doing his job, rosenstein, so that is why he assigned whitaker, because whitaker had confusing editorials or whatever -- excuse me -- about
that he would not recuse himself and he would protect trump. host: do you have any more confidence and william barr, who seems to be on his way to becoming that attorney general? caller: no, he wants to redact all of the things out of the final hearing of mueller, and i do not like that. the public should be able to see the injustices that have been going on rather than redact it and change it. barr does not want to release it until it is changed. host: let's go to ron, from ashburn, virginia. ron also does not have confidence in the justice department and fbi. good morning. i just wanted to make my commentary. my situations regarding this is
that i have no confidence, because the people at the top are appointed, and trump is not going to appoint somebody who is not friendly to his political leanings or his process. the rank and file doj people are fine people, but it is the appointees that i have issues with. the hearing yesterday was a clown show, because the guys only going to be there for six more days. -- unfortunately, this is the democrats are using that as an opportunity to show how strong they are going to be. anything trump they are going to be against, and especially the new electees. they are not earning their stripes with stability as far as i am concerned. questions, but they are making speeches and statements in the form of a question. that is what i have issue with. will it make a
difference for you when it changes from matthew whitaker to william barr when he is confirmed? isler: i think that hearing going to be more interesting than the one we saw yesterday, because everybody knows, at least if you are a democrat, that trump is going to appoint somebody who is going to do his bidding. that is the reality of it. i would not have any confidence in the replacement attorney general. host: there were some spirited conversations going on from newhe chairman york and matthew whitaker. here is one that is getting the most attention tween the two. take a look at it. >> in your capacity as acting attorney general, have you ever been asked to approve any request action to be taken by the special counsel? >> mr. chairman, i see you are five -- i see your five minutes is up -- [crowd clamoring] >> i am the or voluntarily, we
have agreed to five-minute rounds. [laughter] -- i will point out we did not enforce the five-minute rule on acting attorney general whitaker. chairman, iand mr. was just saying it might be a good breaking point for you. >> the attorney general was in the middle of saying something. answer the question, please. ast: i will read to you couple of tweets we have gotten already. one says i do not necessarily like have a justice department and fbi is run or its general purpose, but i believe when it comes to investigations, they are competent and clear in their jobs. i just believe the law tends to be systematically discriminatory. evenere is another one -- though trump has weaponize the justice department and the fbi, i mostly still have confidence in them. from carol --more
some of the top of the fbi, like comey, strokes, and page, were biased and wanted to do all they could to destroy trump. let's talk to ron, calling from rondell, california. ron has confidence in the justice department. good morning. caller: good morning. i think you're trying to say robert? host: ok, go ahead. caller: overall, i think the fbi does the job the government expects of them. i think they try to do a fair job most of the time. but every once in a while, you nixon or even somebody from the left who tried to influence what the fbi does. the most important thing, the big cityke any big, police department. number one, self-serve himself protect -- self-serve and self
protect and number two, any shooting by the fbi has been ruled justified. they have never killed anybody illegally. overall, i trust them. host: so when it switches over from matthew whitaker to william barr, if he is confirmed, will that make any difference in your perception of the justice department, if bar becomes attorney general? caller: we will just have to look and see. the president puts the people that i would not put up, but i hope the guy is somewhat professional, or the girl if we are so forward thinking. host: one more question. two years of attorney general jeff sessions running the justice department. what kind of job do you think he did during his time running the justice department? pretty good for a slave state politician. you know, if i was a slave
stater, i would have supported him. go to william, also calling from california. william does not have confidence in the justice department and fbi. good morning. caller: good morning, sir. host: go ahead. caller: i do not have confidence prosecute the crime, not the individual. i disabled veteran for the united states army, and i was court-martialed -- i was told that i could not be excused. a caller from worthington, minnesota, and paul has confidence in the fbi. good morning. caller: good morning. i'm glad we have new people in the justice department and the fbi. i can understand why the justice department is a little more political and its appointments
but the fbi, it, always had confidence in the fbi that j i always had edgar hoover type about law enforcement. they do not care who is in there, who the politician trying to pull their strings. i guess everything is political now. watched somey, i of the hearings and i could just hear the squawking from the swamp being drained. it is a deep state thing and a tough thing trump is going to have to deal with for the rest of his presidency. that is my comment. host: before you go, you said something about deep state. you think the fbi and the justice department are part of a conspiracy against president trump? caller: oh, maybe not so much a conspiracy, but you know, these professional washington people in washington, d.c., audi's out there, they have a different way of thinking in the midwestern
people in the middle of the country, you know? a lot of us are trumpers because he brought up a lot of stuff that we want taken care of, you know? we are not all city dwellers. we are hard-working people in the midwest that want to get ahead, and we see our country kind of you rooting around -- kind of eroding around the edges. host: let's go to kevin in connecticut. he also has confidence in the justice department and fbi. good morning. caller: how are you doing? this is the only system we've got right now. i don't trust the ag right now, but the last two years, the republicans were in charge and they couldn't get one charge up on hillary clinton. i do trustter yes, the government. the system we got. we have to know what russia did, and that is about it. kevin, you brought up
former secretary of state hillary clinton. do you think the justice department was negligent in not being able to find anything to charge against her? all kindo, they have of redundancy in the system. you have to have this, you know? it is the only system we've got in this country and we have to trust it right now, for now, for the time being. do you think it will make a difference when or if william barr is confirmed as attorney general? the new leader of the justice department? caller: only time will tell. that is all i can say about that. only time will tell, you know? let's go to william, calling from imperial, missouri. william does not have confidence in the justice department and fbi. william, good morning. caller: good morning, sir, how are you? host: fine, go ahead. caller: i would only like to comment on this -- i have been paying attention to this way before the election, before president trump was in office.
it seems to be to me that the liberals on the left -- and again, i don't swing either way. i try to stay basically in the middle and i think that is what president trump is trying to do for the people of the united states, trying to be the president for the people, not the democrats or republicans, but i do not think he has been given a fair share. due to the fact that there is so much bias against him from the democrats, the house of congress, and anywhere else, whether it the fbi, doj, or anywhere else, anybody who don't like trump is trying to bring him down. that is what i have been seeing for two years now and i'm very, very displeased with it. host: do you think it will make a difference with william barr if you becomes test if you becomes confirmed as attorney general? -- if he becomes confirmed as attorney general? caller: i do, and that is because the democrats on the left and the trump haters -- trump is one of the first presidents i have seen in years, in the past three decades who
has come in and done everything that he has promised, and tried to serve to the best of his ability. i know everybody does that on the democrat again the republican side, and that is fine and dandy, but the bottom line is the man is making our country better, our employment better, he is trying to get the border better and protect our country. with all of these people standing in the way, how can you get things done when you have guys like strozk and page saying they are going to take this man down? if the country can't see it, if the people of the united states cannot see what has been going on for two plus years now, there is something wrong with the public of our country. i hope everybody stands up for their own individual rights and does what is right as american citizens. ben, callingo to from south carolina, and then does not have confidence in the justice department and fbi. good morning. caller: morning. me reallyn front of had it eloquently.
people there are so many not just infice, the fbi and justice department, that are trying to sink trump. i wish he had come in and fired all the upper personnel. even -- well, i know he couldn't do it, but disbanded the fbi and put that function under somebody else. it has just got so politicized -- really under obama, really, and i completely agree with a previous caller. you don't think the leadership of the justice department and fbi is the problem -- you think the leadership of the justice department and fbi of the justice department and fbi is the problem, but not the rank-and-file? caller: correct, correct. i do not know if one person coming in is going to be enough, just like that special counsel
investigator. it's like, a dozen people, all big democrat donors to hillary -- i'd just don't see how that's fair. host: let's go look at more tweets that up and coming in from our viewers. ,ere is one from david roth saying the fbi is our last hope to stop this radical croak in the administration before crook inhis criminal the administration before they destroy our democracy. fbi when they stormed roger stone's home reminded me of nazi tactics. we have a clip from acting attorney general matt whitaker, having an exchange with republican tom mcclintock over the fbi for the tactics over the arrest of roger stone. here's what he had to say. >> let me talk about the apparent double stander and disproportionate show of force
in cases like the rest of roger stone. 's i understand it, attorneys were in constant -- his attorneys were in constant , he doesith the fbi not own any firearms, but he was the subject of an early-morning raid by officers. cnn was obviously tipped off and they had cameras there, and they arrived to set up before the raid began. they were allowed to stay to film the entire spectacle, despite the public being told to keep away because the fbi was so afraid of violence by the 66-year-old unarmed man. compare that to bob menendez, who was allowed to quietly turned himself in. the obvious exultation, this was a political act's purpose was to terrify anyone thinking of working in the trump campaign in the future and harkens back to the conduct of the irs terrifying rank-and-file tea party members with tax audits because of their political
views. how can you explain this and what are you doing about it? >> congressmen, this is a very serious situation that you raised, but the fbi makes arestin a manner to ensure the safety of its agents and people being arrested. >> how do you explain the discrepancy between the way roger stone was treated and the way bob menendez was treated? >> numerous factors are considered -- >> you understand the appearance of impropriety that projects to the country and undermines the faith that the american people have in the justice system and its detachment from politics. congressman, i cannot provide the details in this open hearing without revealing what factors the fbi considers in those decisions, and that information could be used to but other fbi agents conducting other operations in harms way. what i can assure you, congressman, is that the fbi is
prepared to brief this matter on the decisions that were made in that particular arrest in a closed session of this committee. host: judith, calling from austin, texas. judas has -- judith has confidence in the fbi and justice department. good morning. caller: hi, how are you? let me make a few comments. newt gingrich is the one i believe started the theory about the deep state on fox, then fox ran with it. of course, trump ran with it. as far as mr. stone -- as i understand it, the fbi comes in because they don't want people destroying evidence. i think he had a bunch of .omputers but we never had this problem with the fbi until trump came in, and once he picks a target that is all he talks about.
fox runs with it and half the people believe it, and have to not. do not. mary in philadelphia, pennsylvania, who does not have confidence in the justice department and fbi. mary, good morning. caller: yes, good morning, c-span. i will say i have limited confidence in the justice department and the fbi, because i have seen major changes over the past -- i would say couple of decades now where it has become more politicized. can gain and regain our trust again because it should not be where they are selective and enforcing the laws. they have limited ability where the state has placed a lot of burden and section about their
jobs to our police departments. where had strict criteria drug enforcement, gun enforcement are solely supposed to be handled by the fbi, but yet in several cities and states, they have issued this to the city police departments, and they questioned their jurisdiction. just like in philadelphia. you know, we are going through a thing now where they want to --e open-air injection sites this is not under the jurisdiction of the police. it is solely under the fbi and they need to do their jobs. you know, we do not have the legal drugs in this country, and we should not have it here. over 300 recovery centers in
that section where they want to place this open-air injection site. everything, spent billions of dollars for treatment for people. care, ando not want the fbi do not want to arrest them and to do their jobs, then everyone is at risk. host: let's go to our caller from athens, georgia. fbi have confidence in the and justice department. good morning. caller: good morning, how are you, sir? i love that time. -- that tie. host: thank you, go ahead. caller: first of all, how much do i love c-span? i love c-span. thank you. is that new studio going to be permanent or are you going to go back to the other studio? host: he will have to keep watching to find out. caller: you got it. what we are seeing and what i saw in that hearing with internal general whitaker --
attorney general whitaker was busy masculine of the american man. there is a concerted effort to neutralize men in the united states. do i have confidence? yes, i've got confidence. if we don't have confidence in the department of justice and , thebi and the rule of law united states is going to fail. thank you, but keep calling. call with some critical thinking and some informed opinions, and keep up the great work, c-span. talk to you later. callingt's go to cecil, from north carolina. cecil does not have confidence in the justice department. good morning. caller: hi. i think we are on the wrong track. we are not morally driven. where ripping children out of the arms of the
women -- i don't know -- i dissatisfiedly am -- really -- i really am dissatisfied with the people in charge of the white house. host: did you have more confidence in the justice department when it was being run by president obama's picks than you do now? caller: yes. about takingthing children from the arms of women is really a not morally driven thing. en,t's go to b calling from springfield, massachusetts. that has confidence in the -- ben has confidence in the justice department. caller: think you were taking my call. i want to remind the listeners that the obama administration had referred information to the
and theministration, united states government had talked about the issue that andia had been engaged in trying to destabilize the united states government. we only talk about the fbi and the cia, but there were 15 other agencies, including the military organizations. the other thing i want to remind people of, obama had approached government with a bipartisan attitude. he appointed republicans to his administration and left a republican in charge of defense, he left with a republican in charge of the fbi. appointed that she had offered jobs to five republicans and four accepted.
i know when j edgar hoover was in charge of the fbi, and at that time a did not have confidence in the fbi. the senate with through some hearings and tried to clean up the fbi years ago, and i thought they did a good job in doing that. people who don't have confidence in the fbi, they have a problem because it is similar to what exists in urban communities between the black community and the local police. seldom does the black community have confidence in the local police to do their jobs in an objective, nonbiased fa shion. prefer theyple who except obama -- excuse me, trump's opinion of discrediting
fbi,ying to discredit the that is very unfortunate, it causes the situation that exists where people don't respect the fbi or the justice department, because if you don't respect the fbi you don't respect the justice department as well. jeffrey,'s go to calling from warren, michigan, and jeffrey does not have confidence in the fbi. good morning. how are you doing? i have confidence in the rank and file. they are doing their job, taking orders, but there is total hypocrisy in the upper echelon when they send 29 guys in, fully armed to roger stone's office just to protect evidence, and then when hillary clinton
destroys government property and subpoenaed evidence, nothing happens to her. not even a charge. ast: so jeffrey, was there point where you did have confidence in the justice department? it sounds like not have confidence in them right now under a republican administration. did you have confidence in them under the democratic administration? caller: well, most of the stuff under the democratic administration, so no. and i did back in the day, but i did not know all of this stuff was going on and i am sure that it happens -- robert mueller was brought up on 72 times that he violated the fisa court, and now he is doing it again. host: i think specifically they hearingm about -- the you are talking about, they asked him about fisa violations that happened before he was head of the fbi. i do not think any of that
happened under his term as part of the fbi. caller: no. right. but they weren't even asking about his term as the fbi. they were asking him about what he was doing before he even common to public office at the first place that he worked at. what does that have to do with what he was doing at the fbi? host: let's go to don, calling from sumter, south carolina. don has confidence in the justice department. good morning. caller: good morning, jesse. i would say trump is running disinformation campaign putin style against the justice department, because he knows that they are coming to prosecute him. he has to discredit them at all costs. like the guy from michigan. did you hear the information that he was coming back with, claiming that it was fact?
it is crazy. the guy from north carolina is talking about ripping children from their parents -- that is all going on. how about the washington reporter that was dismembered in the saudi arabian embassy? just think who this guy is hanging out with. one last point, especially to ask military people, why is it has both hisrump sons, his daughter, his wife, his son-in-law -- none of them can pass a security clearance check to be approved to view confidential only, let alone secret or top secret or even further than that. think -- they are not being approved for any of it. doesn't that tell you something, or are you willing to believe that the entire justice department is corrupt?
give me a break. thank you. host: let's go to scott, calling from kirkwood, delaware. scott does not have confidence in the justice department. good morning. caller: good morning. simply put, i don't have confidence now, simply because of the way it is all one-sided. i would be happy to see all of this go to its full conclusion. only ife end, if and the exact amount of time and resources are spent on hillary. then i would be ok with all of it. but because it is so one-sided and has been for so long, and if i could dogleg into the last commentor, he was stating about separating the children -- that went on under obama. ridiculously, a lot of people said hey, come look at this, and the media wouldn't touch it. there is such a smear campaign. it is so hard, it is all wrapped in together. for me, i have no confidence as it stands now, but i am
optimistic that it will change in the future. rank and file, i've got no problem with, but it is the people in charge. for youat would it take to gain confidence in the justice department and fbi? what would it take for them to do? give hillary and all the people on the left the exact same treatment they have given all the people on the right, democrat, republican, however you want to split it. as long as it's fair and equal. 100% across the board. 29you are going to send people to a 65-year-old, send that many to hillary. if you are going to send nobody to hillary and let her turn himself in -- herself in, do that on the other side. as long as one-sided as heavy-handed, it is not fair and you can't trust that. that is not the way decent people live. host: how do you get to that, scott, considering that the
justice department is being run by a republican administration by an the past it was run democratic administration. it is being run by the party you are talking about. how do you get to that, if the republicans are running the justice department now? remember, there's a lot of people on the republican side that hate trump as well. andrew member, trump was a democrat for 90% of his life. he claimed the republican banner because he thought he had a shot at the white house. the had -- he was in opportunities. i have no skin in this particular game, but in fairness, where most of obama's an upstanding individual, i respect him as a man and he was my president, but his policies are horrible. you look at trump, he is a evenble man who cannot be faithful to his wife, he lies out of both sides of his face all the time, and yet the stuff he does helps this country. we have gotten much further along because of the fact that
he is rough and tolerable and ands it -- rough and tumble gives the people what they want. and the democrats shot them selfs in the foot. but they have just done nothing to poke -- but poke the bear, is hitting them. hammer looking for a nail. it does not matter if he hits of nail or a baby, he is going to hit something. host: maxine does not have confidence in the justice department, good morning. caller: good morning, and thank you for taking my calls. i have no confidence in the fbi whatsoever. you have to go back to j edgar hoover, when he kept his papers and investigations on people
that he didn't like. it was personal. come up to modern day, now, look mistress andh his the things they tried to do with trump. now last week, i see that 17 fbi agents at 6:00 in the morning arrestfbi vehicles to one man and they did not even handcuff him. i am not blind. i can see the politics in it. they had to contact cnn so that cnn can have their cameras out there. fbi,e no confidence in the none whatsoever. they just proved themselves over and over again that they are political and they are corrupt. we want to bring to you in
exchange that happened during that hearing yesterday between acting attorney general matthew whitaker and representative have teamed jefferies about the mueller investigation. here is what they said. >> despite all of the evidence of criminal wrongdoing that has been uncovered, do you still believe that the mueller investigation is a lynch mob? congressman, can you tell me specifically where i said that? >> i would be happy to -- in a on august you issued 6, 2017, you made a note to trump's lawyer, do not cooperate with mueller's lynch mob. do you recall that? >> i recall that i retweeted an article that was titled that. i did not necessarily agree with that position, but my point was that it was an interesting read for those who want to understand the situation. ok, medford, gaetz, flynn,
pop and obelisk, and stone all in deep trouble. all of the president's men are going down in flames. it is often said where there is smoke, there is fire. there is a lot of smoke emanating from 1600 pennsylvania avenue right now. yet, you decided not to recuse yourself, is that right? congressman, the decision to recuse was my decision to make. i look at the information and consulted with many people that i have discussed today, and i determined that it was not necessary for me to recuse. and donald trump considered jeff sessions' recusal to be of a trail, is that right? >> i have no knowledge of what he considered jeff sessions' recusal. hunt,it is not a witch not a fishing expedition, not a hoax, lynch mob, it is a
national security imperative. that people suggest otherwise comes dangerously close to providing aid and cover to the enemy. in your final week, keep your hands off the mueller investigation. i yield back. host: let's go to joe, calling florida. not it -- good morning. caller: yes, i have confidence in the rank and file, like many other callers. but not in the people who are running the fbi and the justice department. a number of things have happened -- i will try to think of a couple. one, president clinton meeting with attorney general lynch on the tarmac in arizona. the explanation of what they were there for or what they said just doesn't make sense. then, a number of people
guyioned the arrest of the in fort lauderdale, i forget his name right now. host: roger stone? caller: sir? host: roger stone, is that who you're trying to remember? caller: yes. i think that was political. they didn't need that. said, he wasave cooperating, if they called him he would have come in, but they were trying to make a statement, trying to intimidate him. i think there have been about eight people that have lost their jobs so far, have resigned or been fired. at the upper levels. when mr. william barr gets in, i have great hopes, based on interviews i have seen in the past, that he will ask the right questions of many, many people
under oath. only then -- put them under oath, only then is when you will get the answers and try to get the whole thing cleared up. yes, i believe that both departments have been politicized. so did you have confidence in the work that attorney general jeff sessions was doing, since he was president trump's first pick to run the justice department? caller: in my opinion, mr. sessions was not the attorney general. he was the attorney general in name only. i hardly ever heard of him after he was appointed because he recused himself. so -- the other guy, rosenstein, i think it was, has been running everything, and that is the way the job description worked out and was supposed to be.
yourself, he had no authority. involved this way. i think eric holder was charged, impeached or something like gives --that is -- host: i don't think eric holder was ever charged for impeached with anything. caller: are you sure? host: i am pretty sure. caller: he was indicted or something -- host: i don't think so. caller: well, i will look it up. we will have to look it up, but i do not think he was ever charged or indicted during his time as attorney general. we will both look it up. caller: thank you so much, i appreciated. assad, callingto from washington, d.c., who has no confidence in the justice department.
caller: good morning. inon't have any confidence not only the justice department, all of it. host: are you still there, or did we lose you? i think we lost him -- let's go to a clip of acting attorney general matt whitaker, who was asked yesterday about special counsel robert mueller and about lace of the mueller investigation. here is what he had to say. -- the length of the mueller investigation. here is what he had to say. >> he will finish the investigation when he finishes the investigation. >> is the honesty ago >> i have bob on the record about mueller and his ability to conduct the investigation. >> do you believe he is honest, yes or no? >> i have no reason to believe he is not honest. >> do you think he is conflicted? recusal, it is a
conflict analysis for up lawyer to make the -- when the matter is before that. the president has called him conflicted and you oversee the investigation. do you believe mr. mueller is conflicted? as acting attorney general, i have followed regular order at the department of justice, and i expect the lawyers, support staff, and agents that work for me follow regular order. as i sit here today, i have no reason to believe that. host: just to follow-up, we were having a conversation a few about former attorney general eric holder and whether he had been indicted or charged with anything. we pulled up the story from from 2014, and i will read a bit of it to you here. a judge has declined the house committees bit you have attorney general eric holder held in contempt in court and possibly
to turn overiling documents related to operation fast and furious. but amy berman jackson also denied holder's request for an indefinite stay of her prior order that the attorney general must turn over any nonprivileged documents the house and oversight -- house oversight and government reform committee subpoenaed as part of an investigation into the botched gunrunning investigation. the judge previously ruled that holder must give the panel any documents that were not both pre-decisional and delivery of in nature.erative holder called the panel entire jackson called the house contempt motion entirely unnecessary and said it was evident that she was considering the government's motion to lift her prior order. let's go to maxwell, who has confidence in the justice department. caller: good morning. i have confidence in the justice
department, but i don't have confidence in the acting attorney general. he was so arrogant, he was so the actingi think attorney general is there is a spy for donald trump. maybe time will tell, in a few years, a few months. re to be a spy for trump. when they asked him, have you ever disclosed the investigation with donald trump, he could not answer that. have you ever told any person, is bob mueller conflicted? is he honest, number one, and is he conflicted? he did not say whether he was conflicted or not. if you are overseeing his
investigation, you cannot say one way or the other whether the man is conflicted. how do we have confidence on you, the acting attorney general, that you are not passing all the information you have to donald trump? [inaudible] so i don't have confidence in accounti cannot for [inaudible] him, andhould follow find out who he talks to. [inaudible] host: let's go to william, calling from houston, texas. william has confidence in the justice department. good morning. caller: no, no, no. you got that wrong. i do not have confidence in the
justice department. host: tell us why? caller: my grandfather told me a long time ago that common sense is not common. [inaudible] every day for a common drug dealer. --trump tomorrow said he was that is [inaudible] that has been repressed in our community for years. it comes down to simple logic. ok? suggest.hat i would this new congress, we are going to treat donald trump the same way that the congress treated obama. that would be fair, and see if you greece. have a nice day. .his is laughable -- he agrees
have a nice day. this is laughable. host: let's go to caroline from missouri, who does not have confidence in the justice department. caller: good morning, how are you? host: i am fine, go ahead. no, i don't have confidence in the fbi, justice department, white house or any of them. is charged with something, whitaker has lied through his teeth, and anybody, anybody would know that donald trump should not be in there. he has committed more crimes than the people that are going to jail, and they just don't want to do anything about it. all the people who were out of work and going to food pantries and everything, he said he could relate to it. he is not relating to anything in his life. and they are not going to do anything to him because they are
afraid of him, but if people would stand up to him, do their jobs, everything would be much, much better. host: let's bring you one more , actingcting -- clip attorney general matthew whitaker when he was asked about work at the justice department. >>'s bruce or still employed with the department of justice? >> to answer your question is currentlyce orr employed with the department of justice. >> is there any process at this point or personnel issues -- are you aware of the discussions and also the implication, investigations from congress and surrounding bruce orr's involvement in many of the problems we have seen over the past years at doj? >> i am generally aware of mr. orr, questions being raised
about his behavior at the department of justice. knowing what you know and seeing what you have seen and using your past experience and prior knowledge, do you believe that mr. orr is operating outside of normal and appropriate channels, which has been publicly reported? >> this is a very important question for many people, both in this body and the general public. the office of inspector general is currently looking at the carter-page fisa application, and it is also being reviewed at the same time simultaneously by mr. john hubert, the u.s. attorney from utah who is asked by attorney general sessions to conduct a review of certain matters at the department of justice. together, with the fact that any situation regarding mr. orr' employment would be part of that process, i am not able to talk anymore about mr. orr's
involvement in any matters that could be subject to an inspector general's investigation or a human resource matter. host: roland, calling from maryland. roland does not have confidence in the fbi. good morning. caller: good morning. i do not have confidence in the the attorney general because they compromise the doj. [inaudible] they cannot defend it. that --,d, we know using the legal [inaudible] time, theysame
cannot come up with the truth. everyone is saying oh, we need to build a wall, we need to do this. [inaudible] we know that immigration and everybody makes money out of it. callingt's go to ben, from woodstock, connecticut, who does have confidence in the justice department. caller: good morning. the ranknfidence in and file, the upper echelon is wrong. this started long before trump, under obama. they stonewalled all the congressional hearings -- fast and furious, all of those. we never got the truth on anything. if they would hold everybody to the same standard, then the
american people would have more confidence in them. another thing, i do have more confidence in the fbi and justice department over congress and the senate. we have been fighting with immigration for 30 years and they still can't do anything about it? thank you. host: let's go to betty, calling from westminster, maryland, and that he does not have confidence in the fbi. good morning. caller: good morning. host: go ahead, betty. caller: yeah, thank you for taking my call. i just wanted you to know that i don't have confidence in the justice department because as far as i'm concerned, i agree 100% with the previous call, because they were fighting for a long time for all the corruption --is right now, and it was
he colluded with russia and nobody said anything, including all the newspapers, all the publicity is just say bad things about donald trump. person, and itino agree 100% that donald trump should build the wall, because all the superstars and rich people have walls. and they lie all the time to people and brainwash everybody to say oh, i don't agree with the wall. but they have walls. because they know it is very safe and protect themselves. host: let's go to john, calling from holyoke, massachusetts. john does not have confidence in the fbi. good morning.
thank you. i have not had confidence in the 1920's in the 1930's. these are the people, descendents of the queen of england, just about every president has been related to the queen of england -- that is in actual fact, because you can find out by the blood lineage that the little girl did with obama, ok? another thing, people suffering from post traumatic slave disorder -- this was a plan created by the europeans and the united states. when you took away from the copper colored people that were here -- host: let's go to caffe, calling from delaware. kathy, calling from delaware. kathy does not have confidence in the justice department. caller: let me make a couple of points. if you go back to win loretta
lynch was on the tarmac, speaking with hillary clinton's husband when she was suspected doesy number of things, that not tell you that there might be a problem with our justice department? but it has nothing to do with donald trump. donald trump was -- they tried zrok,ctimize him with st page, and other activities before the election, trying to find ways to impeach him. that might give you a hint there is a problem with the justice department. host: caffe, do you think there is still a problem with the justice department now? as long as donald trump is my president, i believe he will get things done and get the justice department on the right track. i watched the entire thing yesterday with whitaker.
democrats 24 angry with the mob mentality, interrogating the attorney general. beingey came across as unreasonable, hostile -- they are looking for ways to somehow tie whitaker's activities to donald trump so they will have enough evidence to try to go for impeachment. politico'sg up next, environmental reporters that: will join us to talk about the green new deal, as well is the new house select committee on the climate crisis. coming up, we will talk with dr. ung about fighting pediatric cancer in the united states. we will be right back. ♪ >> have you seen c-span's newest
book. hundreds of gorgeous photos. magnificent. senate historian richard baker says, "mesmerizing photographs establish this as the ultimate insiders tour." to order your copy, visit www.c-span.org/senatebook. watch road tod, the white house 2020, with presidential hopefuls. today 11 eastern, elizabeth warren is in lawrence, massachusetts to kick off a seven state organizing tour. 1 p.m. eastern, howard schultz speaking at purdue university. later, 4:00 p.m., live with new
jersey senator cory booker in iowa. on sunday, minnesota senator amy klobuchar takes the stage in minneapolis, live at 2:30 p.m. eastern to make a major campaign announcement. follow all the candidates on the road to the white house on c-span and www.c-span.org or listen on the free c-span radio app. coverage of political events continues monday night as president trump travels to texas for a make america great again rally. live coverage on c-span two at 9 p.m. eastern. >> washington journal continues. host: we are here with zack colman energy and environmental reporter from political. we are talking the green new deal and efforts on climate change in congress. guest: thank you for having me. host: tell us what it is.
guest: the backers are calling it a national mobilization to address climate change and remake the economy. it is a huge push to try to get the u.s. off fossil fuels in 10 years. whether it is realistic, is up in the air but they have put it out there. it calls for a brand-new social program of health care and higher wages and union jobs. it is ambitious. host: who is pushing this? who are the leaders? guest: the people who introduced the resolution this week, are alexandria costo cortez out of new york and senator markey of massachusetts. it is led by a group of young climate activists off capitol hill who are mobilized to push for climate action, led chiefly
by the sunrise movement. it is a youth led activist group. progressives and old guard environmental groups are calling for action. host: what is with the name? we all know president roosevelt had a program called the new deal. how is this connected and why are they using that name when they talk, green new deal? guest: they envision this being a publicly funded effort, just like the original new deal. they say this is something that was so important to our times, addressing climate change, that it needs to be done in concerted nationally bought into kind of way. if you look at science, there was a report at the intergovernmental panel on climate change last fall that said we have 12 years to cut levels,s 45% low 2010
to get to a place where we won't have impacts from climate change mid century. there has been nothing proposed on the scale of solving that problem in almost any country. host: this is washington. we talk about cost. idea how much this deal will cost? have they said how they will pay for it? guest: they have not put a cost figure out there. this is the beginning stage of conversation. there was a fact sheet put out theyrtez's office, saying envision it as a massive public spending program. there is heated debate in congress about that. republicans are pushing back. democrats have not signed on. more than 60 house members have. close to a dozen senators have
signed on. that is not anywhere near a majority. host: let's get the callers involved. we will open up the regular lines you. republicans, (202)-748-8001. 0.mocrats, (202)-748-800 8002,endents, (202)-748- and you can always reach us on social media on twitter @cspanwj facebook.com/c span. is it feasible to assume we can go to 100% renewable energy in a decade? guest: that would be tough. if they expanded the definition -- renewable energy, solar and wind, they have left room open for nuclear power, which provides 20% power today with
zero omissions, and also technology that could capture carbon emissions from coal and natural gas and pump them underground to do something with them. it would be ambitious. i don't think any country has been able to pull something like that off in terms of transitioning their entire grid that quickly. host: what would be the biggest say, thatfor them to they would face if they, that america would face if it tried to go 100%? guest: at this point, the idea that people would accept the kind of effort that would entail. that is the point now. people backing this understand how big a shift this would be but they need to put it out there. it is in many ways changing the idea of what could be possible rather than necessarily achieving everything put out in the resolution this week.
host: david from clinton township, michigan on the democratic line. good morning. caller: good morning. hey, listen. i am a democratic activist. guyso believe in what you are coming with but i think coming with it -- in such a way, going to turn off a lot of voters and almost a sure that republicans win the next election, if you push this agenda like that. i am all for the environmental changes you guys are talking about but not as part of the democratic platform because i think that is going to be to the detriment of our party. guest: there is a lot of concern. republicans have started to talk about how this could be a winning chip for them to paint
this as a radical plan, bought into by national democrats. there are a few democratic candidates who have endorsed this plan. senator kamala harris, senator gillibrand, senator warren, senator booker. the broad party has not backed it yet. host: robert from michigan on the republican line. i am pretty sure i mispronounced your town. caller: you're right. host: go ahead. caller: climate change, almost like a southern border. you got to close the southern border -- host: how is climate change like that? caller: you have to close the southern border to fix immigration. you have to stop russia and china and india first and bring them to our standards on clean air. they are the problem.
we are in the same world. they are -- they have to fix their problem first. guest: there is no doubt they produce an immense amount of fossil fuels and they have their part to play. this is a global problem. the point that the green new deal backers are making is that someone has to lead. saying what cortez was in a thursday press conference, announcing this. is, everyf the matter country will have to do their part to solve climate change. it is up to those who want to take the first steps to do so. it is a tough process to get everyone along with it. host: dave from midlothian, illinois on the republican line. caller: good morning. where does this plan run into science? i have talked to people. we need the capacity to store this energy.
we like our energy on demand. we like the lights to work when we turn it on. so, this plan does not look heavy on r&d, where the money needs to be. it seems like it would be wasted, anywhere else. guest: there is a lot of money that would have to go to research and development. it is envisioning people will pay more upfront for these types of tech, because on the back end, you have climate change destroying crops, sea level rising furrther. they are making the point that the upfront investment will save money long-term. there is technology to store renewable energy but it is not cost-effective at this point. the point they are making is, we will have to pay that cost. host: let's look at what new york democratic presented --
democratic presented of cortez said could have a global impact. >> it is comprehensive, thoughtful, compassionate and extremely economically strategic as well. today's the day we choose to assert ourselves as a global leader in transitioning to 100% renewable energy and charting that path. that means we are not going to lowestselves by the standards of other nations. it does not mean we will say -- what about them? they are not doing it. why should we? we should do it because we should lead. we should do it because that is what this nation is about. we should do it because we are a country founded on ideals, a culture innovative, that cares for our brothers and sisters across this country. we should do it because we are an example to the world.
that is why we should do it. we need to save ourselves and we can save the rest of the world with us. host: fred is calling from perry, ohio, independent line. caller: good morning. was it my understanding 97% scientists agree we are in global warming? host: yes. caller: 97%. they are absolutely right, correct? guest: they are, based on science. caller: this 3%, how do they keep their jobs? why are they not getting fired when they are absolutely wrong? guest: i do not make those decisions. chris from go to florida on the independent line. caller: how are you doing? that was interesting. what i was going to ask was, how many wind turbines they will use? i read an article, they said
--y put up wind turbines, the temperature is increasing. when you decrease the wind speed, the temperature rises. i would like to talk to you, if i could. green energy, clean energy, is what they were crying they will try to get, which will be pretty impossible. do a lightning farm. why not spend -- that is crazy. guest: i am not aware of the research you mentioned of wind turbines. they do not produce carbon emissions, which warned the planet. as far as lightning farms, i am not sure of that either. host: pennsylvania, republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. caller: the politicians, go back
to al gore. and fly all over the world tell people you are polluting, destroying the environment and the world, and they use more energy than anybody. little common sense and leadership, like you said, they want our country to lead? how about they lead. do not use any energy and show us by example. guest: that is one of the difficult things about this type of change, that the green new deal backers are proposing. it would require in norma's personal changes -- enormous personal changes if you were going for eliminating air travel. they recognize that will be a difficult thing. there is a fact sheet that cortez's office sent around that says we are talking about eliminating as many emissions as possible from transportation
because things like air travel will be tough to get rid of in 10 years. at this point, there will be hard choices if you want to achieve the scale and change that this envisions. however, it is a starting point for a conversation, is what the backers say, and you are going to have to work through issues and get to a point of rational agreement about what is possible. host: by saying it is a starting point, are the backers admitting they don't think this bill has any chance? guest: what they put forward was a resolution. nonbinding. no one is voting. no one is committing to killing cows because they in it a too.ons -- emit emissions they are talking about it. cortez will work with colleagues to identify bills that become
part of a comprehensive plan. we are not voting on anything at this point. no one is committed to bringing this resolution to floor which would give a sense on where congress stands. what nancy' pelosi had to say here. "no one knows what it is." it doesn't sound like she is on board. guest: she credited the enthusiasm that the conversation has started. the enthusiasm of the people pushing for this. when cap in trade, the last attempt to push forward a big sweeping climate bill came through the house when she was speaker in 2009, she got it past. it failed in the senate. there was not grassroots energy to push it across. senator markey referenced that
on thursday saying, now we have you people, being activists pushing the conversation. we did not have that when cap and trade failed in the senate. that is a big difference. she is acknowledging there is momentum. host: christian from lexington, kentucky on the democratic line. good morning. are you there? caller: good morning, america. can you hear me? host: go ahead. is, i: so, what i look at am following dr. jacobson at stanford university. i would love it if you could reach out to him. as as an amazing plan, former climate science expert for george h w bush and one of
the science leaders of the world, he is got a 50 state plan, which would be great especially for kentucky, and i wonder if zack could talk about his plan, that would if we move to 100% renewable energy, basically wind, water, solar for everything, it would reduce direct energy costs by half and reduce social costs by 80%? here,, business as usual and what a lot of people are kentucky,tch mccancer leading the u.s. in coal use, and tops in the united states for pollution linked asthma, lung cancer, diabetes, brownfield, we have the most
polluted river in america, the ohio river, and the damage to that, people are not talking about, we have some of the most related to the stress from big pollution. the opioid epidemic, we lead the u.s. in cruelty to animals and children. you don't hear about that so much. renewable programs, social areice warriors like aoc, pushing, people are more optimistic. i wonder if your guest could talk to that. cost: there is the upfront of transitioning to renewable energy and the hidden cost of not doing that which are health costs, effects on rivers, the air and effects from climate
change which will shift crop yields, which farmers are dealing with now. those are things that are hard to price into your electricity bill. that is what people who are pushing this conversation are saying. if you transition off these types of energies, you receive a benefit in the sense that your air is cleaner, the water is cleaner, you're not paying health costs you might have otherwise paid. there is potential net benefit down the road. michigan on the independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i have a question. i agree we can do a better job in curtailing pollution in all forms. the concept of a totally
renewable resource energy in foreseeable future is simplistic and shallow thinking. mequestion is, can he tell what form of renewable energy source can possibly be built and maintained without the use of fossil fuels in producing items needed to create the unit and transporting it there, mining materials? i would be interested to hear how he would develop this perfect world. guest: i am not developing this world. i am talking about what people have said. it is a supply-chain issue. there are complicated questions people have not begun to start picking apart. you talk about what happens when you make a turbine. there are inputs, energy inputs that may are not accounted for in a holistic way at this point.
that is what they are putting forward. they are putting forward a conversation starter. the questions you raised are ones people will have to work through. they are hard and complicated. host: let's look at what senator markey had to say about the larger benefits of this green new deal. [video clip] >> when we talk about a green new deal, we are talking jobs and justice. the greatest blue-collar job creation program in a generation. we are talking repairing the historic oppression of frontline and vulnerable communities which have borne the worst burdens of our fossil fuel economy. because president roosevelt was right. "statesmanship requires relief
to all at the same time." we are talking historic tenure mobilization that will mitigate climate emissions, build climate resiliency. we have acted on this scale before and we must do it again. we need massive renewable energy, wind, solar, offshore wind, storage batteries for renewable electricity. our energy future will not be minr butthe dark of a in the light of the sun. host: victor from silver spring maryland on the republican line. caller: good morning c-span. um, i do not believe a single word of man-made climate change. you guys have been pulling this hoax for the last 30 years and rush limbaugh has had lots and lots of fun making fun of you,
making jokes about you. i would like to end my call with a question that aoc forgot about. she talks about cows polluting. what about dogs and cats? i was at my fiance's house one time and her dog broke wind and she said it was so bad that she asked me to help her open all the windows to air the house out. guest: luckily, odor has no effect on climate. climate change is not a hoax. if you look at where we are, compared to where the sun is, if there were no people on earth our co2 levels would be much lower than they are now as would temperatures. it is true, it has been hotter in the climates history, it is true there has been more co2 in the atmosphere in the planets history, however that is not the
situation we have here. cooler and have far less co2 at this point in the earth rotation around the sun if there were no people. fallscassie from tioga ohio on independent line. caller: good morning. thank you so much. 110% behind the green new deal. people like the gentleman who just called are the reason why i wanted to call. i think, you have to get through to people and quickly. the most important thing is timeframe now. you have to get specific with people. two that jonathan from maryland, i would like to share my work experience to show what we are doing wrong. -- two that gentleman from maryland, i would like to share. stintlege, i did a short at materials production center in southern ohio, that proceeded
to contaminate the ohio river valley with contaminants for decades. killed people, injured people, the department of defense without a lot of money. it was horrible. andalyze hazardous waste stations that are leaking into the groundwater. at was mtb i worked processing who freaked out when they lost their patent. as a lab technician doing analytical work in r&d was by friends worried about their investments. claws in their
wallets and do not want to let go. we have to talk about it and it has to happen quickly. those three examples are nothing compared to the massive mistakes we are making with overdevelopment and damage to fe.dli host: david from new york, on the democrat line. caller: good morning. i would like to ask a series of questions. the green new deal does not go far enough. i would like to hear the commentators opinion on our culture as well. morning.ne hour every i do not have any traffic. i feel for the people headed to new york, driving five mph. hours a day drive 4 and doing nothing but adding to the climate. in new york city, the presence
ft drivers has given more smog and co2 to the. -- to the air. host: how will they curb transportation with this deal? guest: this is one of the more complicated questions, green new deal or not, and climate policy. people are driving. not just in this country, across the world, there are wealthy countries and wealthier countries who have, a lot of southeast asia getting to the point where they can purchase cars. there will be a massive uptick in transportation emissions. part of it is designing cities better. you want that density. he drives one hour. that is tough. that will be a strain on emissions and cities. this is something that a lot of
cities and states in the country need to wrestle with, but there is no easy solution. look at europe. germany has talked about banning, sorry, the internal combustion engine. that is one avenue. i do not see that being feasible short-term, and certainly not in this country. host: we would like to thank zack for explaining to us the green new deal. we will have you back again. thank you. guest: thanks for having me. host: up next, we talked to dr. andrew kung of memorial sloan kettering and he will talk to us about the state of pediatric cancer in the u.s. this came up during the state of the union speech, where the president spoke about pediatric cancer. here is what he had to say. [video clip] tonight, i am also asking you
[laughter] every birthday, since she was 4, grace asked her friends to donate to st. jude's children's hospital. she did not know that one day she might be a patient herself. that is what happened. last year, grace was diagnosed with brain cancer. immediately she began radiation treatment. at the same time, she rallied her community and raised more than $40,000 for the fight against cancer. [applause]
>> when grace completed treatment last fall, her doctors and nurses cheered, they loved her and still love her, with tears in their eyes, as she hung up a poster that read "last day of chemo." [applause] >> thank you very much, grace. you are a great inspiration to everyone in this room. thank you very much. many childhood cancers have not seen new therapies in decades. my budget will ask congress for $500 million over the next 10 years to fund this critical life-saving research.
>> washington journal continues. host: we are joined by dr. andrew kung of memorial sloan kettering cancer center, the chair of department of pediatrics and pediatric oncologist. how common are stories like the one we heard from president trump? fortunately, childhood cancer is still a rare occurrence. approximately one in every 300 children's will be diagnosed with cancer. childhood cancer is rare. cancer is still the leading disease-related cause of death in children. there is still a lot of work to be done. host: what types of cancer normally affect children? are there certain types that are more prevalent in children than adults? guest: it is a good question. the types of cancer affecting children are different.
there are cancers that affect adults, cancer develops as a result of damage to dna. inlt cancers usually develop those organs, tissues that are exposed over a lifetime to environmental or lifestyle challenges, such as smoking or sunlight. childhood cancers do not develop due to exposure to the environment. they are completely different in most respects, then adult cancers. host: what is the survival rate of pediatric cancer? that is in part the good news in childhood cancer. on the backs of continual research over the last 40 years, the outcomes for childhood cancer have steadily improved. at the current time, we are
80% of all-- curing children diagnosed with cancer. progress has not been uniform. there are certain types of childhood cancer where survival 95% but theree are other types of childhood cancer where survival rates can be as low as 0%. childhood cancer, like adult cancer, is not one disease. it is on the order of 200 different diseases. the progress has not been uniform across all types. host: memorial sloan kettering as one of the largest pediatric oncology programs in the world. 80%,you say we are curing are you talking about you there or nationwide? guest: nationwide. as a community across the
nation, eight out of every 10 children diagnosed with children are cured. host: we know sometimes curing cancer also has side effects. what have been some of the long-term side effects of cancer treatment in children? is a very important point. one of the things that brings many of us to the field of childhood cancer is the fact that children are so resilient and it is a joy to be able to care for kids that shows such resiliency. as a pediatric oncologist, what that also means is they are able to tolerate much higher doses of the kinds of treatments we have to give, chemotherapy and radiation, to be able to cure them of cancer. much higher doses than many people with adult cancers.
because of that, a majority of children cured of cancers will have some sort of long-term side effects. nearly 90% of all adult survivors of childhood cancer have some sort of long-term side effects, that could be, cognitive side effects, development of the brain, heart issues, issues with the gut. so, one of the mandates as a field moving forward is to not only focus on doing better for the children we are currently not curing but to try to decrease toxicity of treatments we give so those children that do survive are burdened less with the effects of treatments. host: we will open the phone lines to viewers and we will have special lines. or anyone anyone --
you know has experienced with pediatric cancer we want to hear from you at (202)-748-8000. if you or any member of your family or someone you know has experienced with pediatric cancer, (202)-748-8000. if you don't have experience but you still want to be in the conversation, (202)-748-8001. if you don't have experience with pediatric cancer but you want to be in on the conversation, we want to hear from you at (202)-748-8001. we are always reading on social media, twitter @cspanwj and on facebook.com/cspan. called for $500 million to boost research in pediatric cancer fields. how much money is currently
being spent on pediatric cancer research and treatment? field,i think that as a the $500 million announced is welcome and very much needed. currently, the largest funder of cancer research is the national cancer institute and of the entire research budget of the institute approximately $450 million of that budget is directed toward childhood cancer research. while that sounds like a tremendous amount, it actually only represents 4% of the entire research budget of the national cancer institute. as a field and as a doctor who takes care of children with cancer, i would argue 4% is not enough.
every addition to that is both welcome and very much needed. host: mary, calling from california. good morning. manyr: well, there are also inn the world and the united states where they say they are curing cancer. so, instead of all this research, that is good too, but i think maybe some of these hospitals treating children and adults, they should try and use some of these doctors and researchers, who say that they have treatments that are curing cancer, and maybe so many people ,ould not have to die of cancer
at special hospitals for children, where most patients, could be children. host: do we have a cure for cancer? guest: i think that, i think that it is important to understand cancer is not one disease. there will never be a cure for cancer. instead what we are trying to do is to understand cancer as it really is, which is 100-200 separate diseases. some of those cancers are curable at the current time. a disease like acute nympho plastic leukemia, the most common form of cancer in children, blood cancer, right now we cure 90% of all children with acute leukemia. by contrast, a type of childhood
brain cancer called diffuse intrinsic, this is a disease we have made no progress, there is no center, no doctors able to ise ipg, the survival rate 0%. there are certainly cures for certain types of cancer. we want that progress to be more uniform across all forms of cancer. host: ken calling from ft. myers, florida. good morning. caller: good morning. is, my daughter has got acute, back then they called it acute lymphocyte leukemia. the symptom was, she quit walking on her left leg, after
she had started walking. we received treatment at the children's hospital in columbus, ohio for close to, they said cured,ive years, she was but we kept going back to see like, 20 ande was the consequence of radiation therapy she got to her brain, not only caused thyroid issues but also she had been diagnosed and learning disabilities we have been fighting to get her on social security disability for over six years as we tried to have her work for a while. she would get these outbursts that would not do well in the work environment.
she wased how common, diagnosed with nonverbal learning disability, close to the autism spectrum, this was like, six years ago. she is now 42. -- residuales will pain in her right shoulder and right hand. i'm convinced myself it is all linked with the leukemia treatment way back when, 19 rounds of chemotherapy to the usual prednisone for five years, short and small hands and feet, so how common is to have this kids
learning disability? ken, i appreciate you sharing your story. earlier,as i spoke to this is an area that really requires more progress. , acute lymhpo leukemia is curable. we cure 90% of patients. between 2-3t is years and during that time there are many side effects of the treatments we give, during the course of treatment and some of the treatments can have long-standing side effects. some of the money that is being
directed toward pediatric cancer research must be directed toward an understanding of how to incorporate new treatments that are more targeted, less toxic, so that we can replace some of the toxic chemotherapy that has these sort of long-term side effects. this is a very important aspect of our field, that we have moved in some disease states, past the point where we focus solely on cure to a point where we can now, and we must now understand how we can achieve those cures with less toxicity and less long-term side effects. host: john is calling from illinois. good morning. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. caller: how are you doing? host: we are doing good.
caller: a side effect from my it was a type of sarcoma on the left side of his body. he had radiation treatment. ended up with surgery, taking ribs, stainless steel rod in his back. here we are, what? is 18 months younger than me. the left side of his body is younger than the right side. you can see it in the hair growth on his face. and man will get a beard -- the one side, is behind quite a ways. is that a common side effect? guest: i have to say, that sounds like there could be some effect from treatments necessary sarcomathe underlying
that your brother had. one of the great areas of excitement in cancer research as a whole, not just pediatric, is the hope of newer forms of therapy. there have been new therapies approved in recent years where instead of using chemotherapy, the approach is to try to use the body's own immune system to battle the cancer. these type of approaches, along with drugs more targeted to the cancer, offers hope of being able to move away from some of the less specific treatments like radiation therapy, chemotherapy to a more targeted approach. these are approaches already taking traction both in cancers
as well as childhood cancer and i think part of the research we as a field need to do in pediatric oncology is to better understand how to use these more targeted approaches to attack cancer. host: if you are a parent, with a child, suffering through pediatric cancer are there resources you can look to? are there places you can go to get more info and help and support while your family is going through this? guest: absolutely. foundationsveral and groups dedicated to pediatric cancer that you can access online. certainly, anyone going through a diagnosis of pediatric cancer, the most important resource is going to be the pediatric
oncologist and the team of doctors that are treating your child. there are resources both on the internet but also, take advantage of the multidisciplinary team that is assembled to care for your child. host: johnny is calling from pennsylvania. good morning. joanie, i am calling, my daughter had cancer when she was 4.5 years from 11 to 15. she was 11 years old, when she was diagnosed. we have all these hospitals like st. jude's in business for 60 years down there. they still cannot say they have a cure for cancer. they can treat it with all kinds of drugs and chemo radiation, she had it all.
she had so many side effects. she has been gone 35 years. they are no further ahead today than they were when she was diagnosed. they are still treating it with the same jugs, the chemo, -- the same drugs, the chemo, the radiation, they go through a living hell with cancer. they show these kids on saint jude, just makes me sick to my stomach, these kids that are so sick to raise money for more cancer research. saint jude60 years has been there and we still have no cure for children's cancer? it makes me sick to my stomach these doctors get up there and say, they are going, they are finding a cure. there is not one child in our town, which i live in a small town, not one survived cancer. we had 12 cases of cancer in a small town.
all different kinds of cancer. they treat them all the same. chemo, radiation and drugs that affect their kidneys. they lose their hair, their eyesight. it makes them sterile. they do not tell the people the truth. it is a billion-dollar business. joanie, first of all, i really am sorry for your loss. 35 years ago, was around the time that i started in medical school. at the time that i started in medical school, that was in fact a time where the cure rate for childhood cancer was close to 20%. that point 35 years
ago, only one in five children diagnosed with cancer actually survived. over the last 35 years that i have been in med school, medicine, residency, fellowship, now as a childhood cancer doctor, we have seen as a field, that survival rate improve to out of everyre 4 five children diagnosed with cancer are cured. and by cured, we mean forever. there has been advancement. family, itd, anyone is 0% or 100% with their child. we are still not at a point where any of us are satisfied, either as doctors or as parents, that four out of five is not good enough. four out of five, when a majority of patients have
lifelong side effects is not good enough. this is what continues to push us, push researchers across the country and push the doctors to do better. so this is why research is still important, because, we have made advancements but we must do better. host: quickly, we have a question from a twitter follower who wants to know if you can comment on the cancer fighting properties in cbd oil derived from industrial hemp and/or marijuana? oil, along with many therapies, we need and westigate carefully are always very welcoming of new approaches but as a doctor, it
is very important to understand and make sure we know what the benefits and the potential downsides are for any new therapy. shown toas not been have any efficacy in terms of fighting or killing off cancer cells. it may play a role in terms of symptom control or other things in terms of making treatments more tolerable but if the question is, whether cbd oil can andent treatment of cancer kill cancer cells, the evidence is currently not there to, for us to suggest that. aurora,bert from indiana. good morning. caller: thank you for letting me call.
dr., i praise you guys. your work for cancer. myself, i am going through cancer now. back to see if i have a recurrence of it. right now, my doctors have been on top of things. these children, the lady that called, she has 35 years with her daughter that you doctors that worked your tails off to care. it is in god's hands. you look at these children now and they talk about abortion. look how happy these children are and they are going through hell, like the lady said. you guys should be praised for the work you do. i am in musician, i do fundraisers for children or anyone that needs help. i love people in this country has got to get together and get
love back to this country and get god back to this country and let's be civilized. it is so stupid about putting everyone down. mr. trump is doing his best to make this country safe. it is fine people to wake up and live. the democrats, i tell you, i have never in my life seen such garbage that they go through. host: if you want to respond? guest: this is one of the privileges of taking care of children with cancer. children are a source of strength, not only for their parents but also for us as caregivers. i think, if there is any issue that we can all rally around, improving the lives of children with cancer is surely one of them. host: linda from brooksville, florida, good morning. go ahead.
caller: yes. physician in texas called -- [indiscernible] -- who has been curing all types of cancer for over 40 years. matter-of-fact, our government has taken him to court every single year, trying to take his license. whohows up with patients, ayo, whots from sloan, m are hopeless. he shows up in court with those patients and their children 30 years later and the judges for 30 years have thrown the cases out of court because the only reason our government does not want this information out there is because of the money made in
radiation and pharmaceuticals. the man has a two hour documentary trying to get the information out there. brezinski.", "dr. i would like to know if this dr. no, and of him, yes or if he is utilizing his treatment on the suffering children? this is a name those of us in the field of pediatric cancer are quite aware of. i would go back to what i said previously. our highest obligation as a physician is to be able to look at evidence and determine what has been proven, what has been shown to be effective for each patient in front of us.
treatments that the caller referenced, if evidence were worked, and if thelly evidence were there to show that it did not cause harm, these would be treatments that all of us as pediatric oncologists would embrace. the fact that we do not, i think, is a testament to us taking our responsibility very seriously, to weight the evidence, and pick those treatments that are actually proven to be effective. host: let's go to dan, who is calling from marble hill, missouri. dan, good morning. caller: good morning. ask the doctor -- first of all, i appreciate you all doing this.
when you talk about a survivor, somebody that is cured, it used to be that that would be five years, you know, to live five years after treatment. what does it mean now? guest: in pediatric oncology, we don't use the five-year cut off. when we say "cured," we made forever. we mean the cancer never comes back. so we are quite specific when we are cured, patients it is not that we are able to sustain them for two years or five years or some fixed period of time, it is that the cancer is eradicated and never returned. again, that is not to say that there are not side effects. one of the side effects of the treatments that we get is that there is a small increase, possibility of a second cancer developing.
types ofare the toxicity that we are really trying to push the research so we can substitute less toxic treatments for some of these toxic treatments that we are using. so "cured" means forever. host: let's take one more ark, who wasm our whm calling from ashburn, virginia. mark, good morning. caller: good morning, gentlemen. i will try to keep this as concise as possible. i appreciate the doctor saying he is trying to get the onion ,ork in trade i have a sister contracted cancer, we did all therapies, and when they were done with her, they said "we are giving her six weeks to live." i lived at the jersey shore at the time, i gave her a gallon of
prebrewed mushrooms for her to consume, a shot glass three times a day. six years later, the woman was alive. explainors could not it, and she returned to a normal state. so i would just like the doctor's comments on that. thank you very much. well, congratulations on that outcome. i think that it is hard to make any sort of judgment on very judgment on any particular patients. doctors, look at and welcome advances from all corners of the earth, and these are the type of approaches, alternative, what used to be therapies,rnative
all types of therapies that we are embracing as well. so it is our obligation to really try to drill down and if theand why it is complementary or alternative approaches are having an effect, we must understand why they are having an effect in who they maybe effective for. so research, again, is the basis by which we come to that. host: we would like to thank dr. andrew kung, pediatric department chair at memorial sloan kettering cancer center for being with us today. dr. kung, thank you so much for giving us some of your time. guest: jesse, thank you for the opportunity. host: coming up next, we will have haley sweetland edwards, editor of "time" magazine, and she will join us to discuss her piece examining the impact of howal migration and
countries are responding. we will be right back. ♪ >> this weekend on booktv, we will look at the use of offensive cyber weapons by the u.s. military, tonight at 8:30 zegert and herb lin with their book "bytes, bom bs, and spies." amy: you will have one country affecting the mask public of another without geographic evolution ofnd the this technology is going to make what the russians did, the social media. 1986en at 11:00, the beating of an african-american world war ii veteran by south
carolina police. a federal judge on the subsequent political and judicial response on his book "unexampled courage." fraught with problems, most notably, all-white juries, deeply unsympathetic to civil rights cases. further, congress is in powerful control who were determined to block even the most modest civil rights legislation. >> and sunday at 9:00 p.m. one book "the age the ," with shoshana zuboff. shoshana: the famous kayla doll that i write about, where folks discovered that this doll that people were talking to is
actually picking up the dialogue "dialogueldren, those chunks," in the business, they are called dialogue chunks, were being sent by a communication company, which then sells dialogue chunks to other organizations and companies and institutions, including the cia and the nsa who are developing voice-recognition software, right? child'sg from your nursery all the way to the cia for their voice-recognition software through these supply chains. >> watchable tv this weekend on c-span two. 2. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are coming back for our spotlight on magazine article in which we are going to talk today with haley sweetland edwards
about her "time" magazine why the"beyond walls: forces of global migration cannot be stopped." good morning. guest: good morning. thank you for having me. host: why did you decide to write this article now? we came together as a team and "time" magazine to look at global migration, specifically in the u.s. and europe, one of the major global shakers at this moment in time. host: so that is a very striking cover. who are the individuals on that double cover? guest: we have albertina and her daughter, jacqueline contreras. the two of them were separated at the u.s. border. they migrated up from guatemala, who is 27,na,
endured sort of unspeakable sexual violence at home, and she realized that her daughter, who had just turned 12, on state of the union they come up at her daughter was going to be subject to that same sort of violence, so she made the heart-wrenching decision to leave her home and leave the rest of her family and head north, and when they arrived in texas last may, they almost sixted for weeks, so we decided to ,ighlight them and their story of course one of thousands of families separated at the u.s. border this year. host: now, there is a lot of focus on what is happening at the u.s. southern border, but your view slits at the migration.e of
how were other countries dealing with the influx of immigrants across their border? guest: this is a fascinating problem, and each country is looking at it differently. mass of people entering venezuela, colombia, and each of the governments react differently. we looked at how complex western democracies were, like in the united states and europe, were reacting to these influxes, these waves of new migrants coming from sub-saharan africa, from the middle east, from a worse central america, which is much of our story here in america. what we saw when we started looking at the global had work or the sort of myriad reactions,
one of which, which we are seeing everywhere, is cracking on bank that made western democracies western democracies, ake social safety nets them open borders -- or not completely open borders, but permeable borders, the movement andrains, goods, people, across europe, across the united states, you are starting to see millions ofn to migrants moving across the border. host: what is the reaction? what is the public sentiment like in the united states and in other countries? is it similar in other countries to what we're seeing here in the united states? the push to build a wall. are we seeing the same thing? guest: absolutely. in hungary, for example, you have a giant border fence now.
the leader has implemented all kinds of laws to prevent migrants from settling there. they have criminalized the act of helping any undocumented person of any kind. italy, one of the to factor ilvini, heere, s turned away voting refugees at boat of refugees this summer very famously. if you listen to the leaders in europe, they listened very similar to our president, president trump, and talking about immigrants as criminals, talking about the need to what is referred to as judeo-christian values in europe , or use euphemistically here, "american values," as if we are
not also a nation of immigrants as well. you are starting to see this reaction, and it is really across europe. electoral power almost across the board in 2018, and we will see really important eu elections coming up in may. this influence of migrants is really affecting our democratic governance across the board. host: let's let some of our callers get involved in this conversation. we will open up our regular lines for this conversation, so if you want to call in on the republican line, call in (202) 748-8001. if you want to call in on the democratic line, call (202) 748-8000. independents, call at (202) 748-8002. and keep in mind we are always reading on social media, on twitter @cspanwj, and on facebook at facebook.com/cspan.
haley, you say that the mass movement of migrants has changed the world for better and worse. can you explain to us what you mean by better and worse? guest: absolutely. first of all, let's take another step back. when we talk about migrants in this story, in a lot of cases we are talking about folks like albertina and yakelin, who are fleeing violence, fleeing civille situations, war, war in syria, civil war in sub-saharan africa, wars in afghanistan, the rohingya, who do not have much of a choice -- they are fleeing where they are coming from. but this is many of the millions, tens of millions of people who are around the world right now are looking for better education, better health care, better jobs. so we made an effort in this story to look very broadly at
migrants moving around the world, and we looked at some of these studies. national studies here in the u.s., european studies, and what happened is basically when migrants first arrived in a socialthey do use more -- they often use -- not in every case -- but often use more social safety nets, resources than others do, but very quickly, and within an individual migrant's lifetime, they almost always get jobs and begin paying that back. migrants here in america, immigrants here in america pay taxes. they don't have access to any sort of free health care or things like that. so if you just look purely economically and just put aside the sort of, you know, cultural benefits of interacting with people who have different backgrounds than your own, just purely economically, it really does benefit a country within a
generation. migrants areof often given back -- giving back financially to an economy in ways that are hard to measure. course -- i bad, of mean, that is sort of a good story, and the bad story is these waves of migrants are very much broiling our culture right now, they are roiling our politics. -- it is aficult difficult thing to get your mind around. we are talking about globally and the effect of migrants globally on an entire political structure. i think we can see right now in havenited states that you people reacting in ways that is going to have an effect on our country for many years in the future. host: we talked about this a
little bit before, but what are some of the top reasons why people leave their homes and become immigrants or migrants? this is a very regional difference. places, and central america right now, we have major gang violence, gang issues. we talked with dozens of migrants who are fleeing just persecution from different rival gangs. domestic violence is a huge issue in central america right now. you have climate change issues, be enoughhat used to to sustain a family are no longer producing anymore. we talked to this one woman who was traveling north with, i believe, her two children and a niece or nephew, and she was saying, you know, i can stand not eating for a day or two, but the children cannot. so these are the kinds of situations people are leaving.
lots of other different parts of the world, sub-saharan africa and asia, you just see a mass migration of people looking for better jobs, looking for better opportunities for their children, looking for better health care, better education, fleeing government persecution, fleeing because they are of a sexual orientation that is persecuted. so it is really hard to put your finger on it, but one thing we have heard time and time again in interviewing these migrants is that the decision to pick up, put everything that you own in a backpack and walk out with your family is the hardest decision you can make. these people are making it, because they have to. host: let's let david, who was calling from denison, texas, on the republican line, join the call. david, good morning. caller: good morning. guest: good morning. needr: the united states
immigration, all western countries need immigration because of their birthrights. if i have my number is right, we took in something close to 2 million illegal immigrants last year, and probably at least a half million illegal immigrants. -- itestion is not about is not about immigrants, it is about illegal immigrants. every time i hear someone such as you talking about the issue, and not use the word "illegal" or "undocumented" somewhere in the conversation, it just makes why "time"ar to me magazine is becoming "time" broadsheet. you are giving part of the story. in 1965, we had a major change in the immigration law that switched to where things are more family-based, resulting in about 3/4 of the legal immigration now being based on chain migration rather than having anything to do with a merit-based system.
the trump administration, and most folks that call on the republican line, i am conservative, i am a mixture of policy. i am not just a republican or not just a democrat, and i am definitely immigration,vor of immigration that is not swamp our social systems and everything else. i live in a small town. i have a niece who is a schoolteacher who is changing school systems, because she is so overwhelmed by the amount of time she has to spend with english as a second language, which is kind of a funny thing when they have 26 different languages. host: go ahead and respond to that. guest: well, thank you, first of all, for your call. i think you make an important point. i am also from the american southwest. i think there is a dissension between people who are entering the country through legal
channels, and the vast majority of our immigration is legal. the vast majority is coming through legal channels. this is not part of the conversation that we have. the people are overwhelmingly -- they look different than our cultural discussion of them. thatnk there is a fence, there is a single, often mexican men crossing the border looking for work. that is just not what our immigration population looks like anymore. , and 45%ity is asian have college degrees. you are absolutely right, when we talk about immigration, most of the people are legal, and most of those people are actually very highly educated and comfort channels that are designed to attract and keep those people. there is a small portion of the population that is coming over the border undocumented, and that number, the total number is actually down almost 40% over the last 15 years.
seeing a actually major decline in the number of people crossing the border who are undocumented, and i think that is a very important distinction, and i'm glad you brought it up. the biggest number we have seen spiking are asylum-seekers, and this number has spiked dramatically over the last few years, over the last two or three years. i do not want to cite any specifics, because i could get them wrong, but it has gone up truly exponentially. these are people who are exclusivelymost with young children, times of people crossing with young children right now, and they are seeking asylum. that is a different issue, and you are, again, absolutely right. i like that you say you're not republican or democratic, and i think a lot of us fall under that category, that neither of these parties in either of the rhetoric on immigration assembly fit most americans' perspective
on this. it is good that we move forward and think about how we have a rational and humane border policy. how we don't -- no american, or if you look at the polling, most americans feel very uncomfortable with the idea of separating families some of the idea of putting toddlers in cages, things like that. there is no reason that we need to do that. we need to have a rational policy for dealing with the influx of migrants globally. host: let's go to matthew in ohio on the democratic line. matthew, good morning. caller: good morning. so i just want to make a comment. regards toe that, in the migration, i just do not believe that we have to have a government shutdown necessarily to have this rational policy.
i believe that it could have been avoided if the president would have signed the bill that mitch mcconnell put forth before the congress. weo believe, though, that don't, we can't just get asylum to the dreamers, to some of the people that came here illegally in that sense. i do not believe necessarily that walls are necessarily going to be the answer. i believe that we need to have the technology and kind of compromises in the bill that are going to be able to have a rational policy discussion on this. i cannot believe that we are going to be able to separate families and kids out of order, like was discussed. so that is kind of where i stand on this issue. thank you so much for
that comment, and i think you probably fall squarely in the lineup most americans looking at wall,al of the border which is actually fairly low, the number of americans who believe we need to build a physical barrier along the entire southern border is actually a fairly small number of americans. i think many people fall under the category that you are describing, which is that in order to have a rational policy, how do we have a combination of the physical barriers, many of which -- almost all of which already exist -- combined with technology, combined with, many people will say, more immigration judges at the border . we need to have essentially border bureaucrats to process these people, who are applying for asylum, who are applying for temporary jobs, working status, things like that, to sort of rationally deal
with the influx at the border, and then combined with technology, of course. you know we live in a world of rapidly advancing technology. so is the idea is to protect people running across the desert and things like that, technologies exist that do not require physical barriers. i think you are hearing a lot of americans on both sides of the ideological divide saying that these days. that is not coming from, necessarily, the highest echelons of government. host: you ask a question in your article -- what moral obligation to wealthy nations like the uso to the world's most rollable? or to put that another way, to americans rescue. hernandez, 39, fled her
town in el salvador when she was raped and stabbed after being to her of reporting local police. should either qualify for asylum ? guest: i think this is a fascinating discussion that we need to have as americans right now and ideally not on twitter. , we adopted the un's refugee protocol description of refugee, ands as a since then, that has evolved through the 1980's, the 1990's. people belonging to special persecuted groups might be considered for asylum, and the obama administration judges decided that could include people who are being persecuted because they were gay or transgender. it could also include people,
like albertina and yakelin, who were persecuted because they are women who were being abused sexually, domestic abuse, things like that. under the obama administration, that definition expanded broadly. under the trump administration, we have seen that close again. general jeffey sessions says those things do not qualify for asylum anymore. so we are having a discussion about who should qualify under our existing asylum laws right now. we just having a sort of in a way that is not systematic were logical, in some ways. it does not make sense to throw open the doors and say this is itt qualifies, and then slam shut again in a different administration. we as americans need to get together and say what is our obligation to people who are starving abroad, or people who
do not have enough to care for their children, to feed their children, who are being abused repeatedly, who are fearful for their lives, like the family in the lead of our story. they had to flee because they were -- their children had been threatened by a gang, and there is no real police presence that can protect them. so as americans, i do think we can come together and say this is what we can do, and this is what we can't do, but let's come up with a rational policy so that it is not just sort of political rhetoric at the highest level. host: let's see if we can get a couple more calls in in our time left. let's get to carl, who is calling from beaumont, texas on our independent line. carl, good morning. caller: i think i am in houston, but anyway. like everybodyd is glossing over the issue. these people are coming here for
ultimately, the job,al is being given the and nobody is going after the company that does it. a lot of times, they do not even want to hire you if you are here legally, because they are cheaper workers. i mean, everybody keeps, you know, glossing over that. we say of our people are doing this, a lot of people are coming here because they are being persecuted, but to me, that is what they need to do, deal with the drop issue. guest: well, thank you, carl from houston. sorry about misidentifying your place. of whatussion responsibility to put on companies is a good question to
ask, and this has come up over the years, over the decades, what sort of responsibility should employers have? in this debate? and right now, that is sort of discussion we are not having, because we are having this debate over twitter, having this debate over high-spirited name-calling rather than thinking rationally about what our allah sees should be, what sort of access, you know, people should have. focused onwhy it is asylum seekers in the story and also in the conversation is that is the biggest population of new people who are crossing the border without authorization. that is the big bubble that is coming up. in the 1980's and the 1990's, it was often single, mexican men who were fleeing economic collapse in mexico, they were fleeing a baby boom, there were
too many single people in mexico and too few jobs. that was the character and color of our immigration problem 25 onrs ago, and my point focusing on asylum-seekers now is our demographics look very different over the last 15 years. these people are overwhelmingly leaving their homes because they are fleeing something, not only because they are looking for jobs, but your point on employers being involved in the solution is a good one. host: let's go to john, who is calling from beaverton, oregon on the democratic line. john, good morning. caller: good morning. it is a little bit cold here, but i have three points. one, with being democrat, i am also roman catholic. there are interesting things we need to think about with asylum-seekers and refugees. welcoming, projecting, promoting, and integrating.
fits into ms. edwards' statement about the next generation. inis only one generation terms of costs to the social safety net. the other thing is i was at a conference, a summit in november, and i met four people, and they talked about why they migrated -- a better life, education, health, and service. service to the community here. summit, it that same met a woman and her young son from honduras. in one of the breakout sessions. they asked for people to stand who were not born in the united states. up, and ir son stood stood up, because i was born in canada, so again, it is kind of alone, so in other
words, i was making the connection with her, but then everyone else stood up. so thank you so much. guest: thank you. that is a beautiful story, and i think that there is so much to unpack there, but there is a moral, you know, responsibility to the least of these, and, you know, we see that in, of course, both the christian tradition, the jewish tradition, the muslim to care forhe need those who have less than we do is an important moral prerogative, just as, you know, as people. i think that is a good thing to .ring up he to get back to the social safety net issue, because this is
missed a lot in the discussion, immigrants, undocumented immigrants, do not have access to the social safety net. they cannot get medicaid, they cannot get social security. they pay taxes, and their children go to public schools, as one of our callers pointed out, but this is not the skyrocketing medicaid costs, it has nothing to do with undocumented immigrants. they cannot access food stamps and things like that. so their children and actually them in their generation, in this article we went through and we found immigrants from iraq in the 1980's, immigrants from pakistan in the 1990's, who came ,ver without education, without you know -- one guy we talked to, i think he had five dollars in his pocket, and he just showed up, and he now runs a business, employs a couple dozen people in a business, a
car lot. do you do see this work ethic, purely from an economic it ends up working out, and that is not to say that there are not, but this is not an issue we have to deal with in the short form or fashion short or in the long term in america. like the caller said before, he felt like americans could not get jobs because immigrants were getting them, we need to have a discussion about that. we need to discuss about training, education, companies' obligations, but my point is we need to talk about them rationally and from a humane perspective. we would like to thank haley sweetland edwards from "time" magazine for being with us today and talking about her story, her story of migrants risking everything for their lives.
haley, thank you so much for your time today. guest: thank you so much for having me. host: coming up, we are going to open the phone lines, and we are going to talk about the 2020 campaign, campaign 2020, and we are going to look at what the 2020 democratic hopefuls have been doing. we will open up our lines. you can see the lines on the screen. we will be right back. this sunday on american history tv, the treaty of versailles, the moving of an important historical building, and voter suppression in the 1960's. at 4:00 p.m. eastern on "reel america," the 1963 film "we will never turn back," about the violence and intimidation civil rights leaders and black farmers experience of registering to vote. county of people in the
are going to register for the vote, but they will not because they are afraid of being killed. >> the in killed by paid representatives from mississippi, a white state representative after he himself tried to vote. >> then at 6:00 on "american will tour the oldest synagogue in washington, d.c., which was moved 800 feet to be an rated into a soon-to-be built capital jewish museum. the second congregation in washington but the first be built from the ground up a brand-new building. they put this up and dedicated it on june 9. president ulysses s. grant attended the dedication. and at 8:00 on "the presidency," a look back at the joint session of congress these by president george h.w. bush. : one thing that is so striking about the way the founding fathers looked at america -- they did not talk about themselves.
they talked about prosperity. they talked about the future, and we, too, must think in terms bigger than ourselves. >> and at 9:00 p.m. eastern, university of toronto professor margaret moor mcmillan on the treaty of versailles on iand its impact on world war ii. they established themselves on the map, as winston churchill says, the war of the giants had ended, but the war of the pygmies is starting. >> this weekend on american history tv on c-span3. "washington journal" continues. to spend ourgoing last minutes here talking about the 2020 campaign, specifically because today we have a lot of democrats around in early voting states talking about the 2020
campaign. in fact, for cory booker will be at polk county, iowa today at 4:00 p.m. you can see that here on c-span at 4:00 p.m. amy klobuchar of minnesota will announce whether she will make a presidential bid. you can see that tomorrow at 2:30 p.m. on c-span. coming up later today, elizabeth warren will make a formal presidential announcement. you can watch that on c-span at 11:00 a.m. so to talk about the elizabeth warren presidential election, we have paul simon heiser, the political reporter at concord monitor. there?re you guest: i sure am. how are you doing this morning? host: i am doing great. what we hear from elizabeth warren today? guest: you will hear about her
tell her and she will life story. this is a big day for her during we knew this day would come ever since december 31 come up with senator from massachusetts lost her presidential exploratory committee. jessie, she is taking an interesting place to do it. she is announcing in the city of lawrence, a working-class city in northern massachusetts along the merrimack river, and she is doing it specifically at a place called the everett mills, which is more than a century old mill building, which in 1912 with the site of a famous strike by textile workers, many of them women who were fighting for better wages, more humane wages, let's say. to paint ag this oftrait of her site progressive, populist values. right after she makes that announcement in massachusetts, she has over to new hampshire, the first in the nation
primary state, where she will be in dover, which has history in the workers' movement. and interest they must-win state for her in the primaries if she wants to win democratic nominatio, jesse. host: paul, she was the first democratic senator to jump into the race. what is taking her so long to get the announcement out there? guest: as a lot of candidates do, you set up an exploratory committee first, as she did january 31. she was one of the first to do it. then you wait a little while, and you make a formal announcement. why? you have a bigger bite of the apple. two things that the media will cover. others are doing it that way, castro., the former representative from texas and housing and urban development secretary under president obama. kamala harris did as well.
she did not do it exploratory committee, she just jump right in. same thing with senator cory booker, just at the same thing, formally announced. there are different ways of doing this, none right or wrong. host: do we expect her to do anything to address the controversies that have been flowing around her over the last couple of weeks, or will this just be about her presidential bid? guest: this will just be about her presidential bid. i will be extremely surprised if her address this morning in lawrence, massachusetts, whether she acknowledges or even mentioned that -- i do not think she will. you bring up a good point. about a week ago when she made that apology to the cherokee nation, it really resurfaced and gave a lot to this controversy -- lot of new life to this controversy, her claim of having native american heritage. that story came back, and a few days ago with the "washington post" report
that service for finding way that in 1986, by listing her race as american indian, it really put that story back on the front page. it is a distraction right now that is definitely taking her off message. she will not talk about it at this speech, but later in the day, she will take questions from the audience, maybe an audience member will bring it up, and if she does any kind of cattle with reporters today, obviously we will ask her about it today as well. host: we see a lot of democratic candidates heading to both iowa and new hampshire. is it any advantage to them to be hitting these states so early in the process? guest: yeah, you know what, the early bird catches the worm in these states. next year, when i what and new hampshire and south carolina and nevada as well hold the first four contests on the road to the white house. this has been a tried and true
way of campaigning for generations, and it still works. i will say things are a little bit different this year, because come march up to the early states vote, you will have super tuesday, very large states like california and texas voting. the importance of some of the larger states is a little more magnified this year than in previous presidential cycles, but the early states still mattering much. for someone like warren, new hampshire really matters. why? because there is a history of presidential candidates from massachusetts winning the new hampshire primary. all songs in 1992 -- paul 1992, john kerry, mitt romney in 2012. there is a lot on the line for her in new hampshire. a surprise it is not that her first off today after the announcement will be new hampshire. in, bernie sanders jumped
from vermont, new hampshire will be an important state for him. he crushed the primary there back in 2015 come with launch an american fight against clinton with the nomination. host: do you expect other big names to jump into the race? former vice president joe like you said, bernie sanders? do we see more coming soon? is a guys, there called sherrod brown, the senator from ohio. he was just in iowa, south carolina, and guess where he was today? new hampshire. i was at an event last night where he get a roundtable with local politicians and activists and students and voters at a high school in hampton. it is an event that your network, c-span, carried live. i asked him last night about his timetable. he is sticking to it. he will have an announcement probably in the next few weeks, in march. and some others as well. think about john hickenlooper, the former governor of colorado.
he is coming to new hampshire in a few days. he is seriously thinking about it. oregon senator jeff merkley is also thinking about it as well. the field, which is growing by the day, will grow a little larger. jesse, you are absolutely right, the two biggest names we are looking at our biden and sanders. host: we would like to thank paul steinhauser with the "concord monitor" for being with us. thank you for all of your work. guest: thanks, jesse. host: let's go to the phone lines. remember we have the lines "republicans at (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. and if you are in the two crucial early states, new hampshire and iowa, we have a special line for you. we want you to call in at (202) 748-8003. once again, if you are in new hampshire or i will, we want to hear from you at (202) 748-8003. russell, who is
calling from asheville, north carolina on the democratic line. welcome. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you doing today? host:. i am good. go ahead caller: i am calling from democrat line, but i was wondering about the candidates coming from the democratic side, it looks like the republican side in 2016. the majority are older people. do you think there is a chance for a younger candidate who will be around for another 20 years to be the nominee, get the nomination for the democratic party as opposed -- i mean, i love the older people, but they are not going to be around. how to use c b 2020 election for a young person to take that spot against trump? actually go to -- this will show you a little bit c-span is coming up on
"newsmakers," and maybe the question will be answered there. here is new hampshire chair raymond buckley talking about the size of the democratic party field and what it means for the residential contest. >> chairman buckley, the size of the field, does that matter when there could be up to 14, 15 candidates in this race. mr. buckley: if there are only 16 candidates, i will be surprised. i think it will be a lot more than that. obviously, there is a history of folks who will be dropping out after i what, new hampshire, then keep going right through super tuesday. i think this is just really exciting. i would hope that none of the candidates dropped out and that they really give as many states vote as possible. that is something we discouraged, because we do not want to be the deciders of food
ho as a candidate or not, but we are making a recommendation on who we think are the top 3, 4, the top dozen, possibly. talked to some democratic operatives who think it is a real chance this nomination will not be decided even with all the primaries and caucuses that have taken place. how much of a risk is that for democrats that we could not know the nomination in the beginning? mr. buckley: i think that is the theasy of most reporters, idea to live through that sort of an experience. i am on the reverse side. i think we are going to have this nomination wrapped up by easter. size of the delegates that are being decided early on, i think you will see great movement, and we will not get anywhere near the convention where the superdelegates would have an impact on the second ballot. host: let's go to audrey, who is
calling from decatur, alabama, on the republican line. audrey, good morning. caller: good morning, jesse. how are you doing today? host: i am fine. go ahead. caller: i am calling from alabama, the beautiful. i would like to say on this 2020 election, we have a strong democratic party in alabama now. we elected doug jones. i think we get ignored sometimes for things we do. i am right here next to huntsville. we have more engineers in huntsville per capita than the whole united states. we have a great economy, great jobs, but on the green deal that haveare proposing, we developed here 15 years ago and that there alabama is a car that runs on hydrogen. now, he sold the technology to
general motors. there is an article on money.cnn.com about -- the s super quiet,m' super cool military 4 x 4," if anybody wants to look it up. these are hidden technologies. i mean, we have got so much robotics, mechanical engineering, rocket boosters have been going off all morning. do you understand what i am saying? and we have a lot of adversity here that people just do not understand, we are not the "old south." host: let's go to david, who was calling from edmond, oklahoma on the republican line. david, good morning. caller: good morning. am a lifelong republican. for the last two years, i feel like my party has been kidnapped
from me, so i am more of a man without a party. what i am going to be looking for in this election, first and foremost, i will be looking for a candidate who does not attempt to appeal to my fears. one, i am not afraid of immigration, and i am not afraid of things that those people passing them off as republicans tell me i should be afraid of these days. i am certainly not afraid of brown people. i am going to be looking for that first and foremost, but second of all, i am going to be looking away from extremism. i think we need to moderate. so i am interested in hearing what amy klobuchar has to say. i am going to be interested in has to what joe biden say, but i will be keeping an open mind, and those are going to be the kinds of things i am looking for in a candidate. john, who was to
calling from wisconsin on the independent line. john, good morning. caller: good morning. good morning. i am pretty much a centrist. i am definitely looking for somebody who is going to bring the,reat nation back to the two sides, like the last caller just spoke about, there is too much on the extremes. i do believe in borders, but i do not believe in a border fence that is stationed every couple of miles where people check in, things like that. freedom, that is one of the best things in our country. bit afraid of -- i not see us turning into venezuela. i believe in capitalism. i think everybody should break and. bones work by their bones it is not anybody's responsibility to take care of me. it is not my responsibility to take care of you. we need more manufacturing jobs and less service jobs, and that
should be our biggest push at this time. i like the idea of bringing all of the people home from the wars. myself, but i also believe in standing up for what we believe in, wherever it is overseas. for theor the best nation, i say my prayers for the nation, but we have to get away from the extreme far ends of both sides of the political spectrum. host: once again come up against, you can call (202) 748-8001. democrats, you can call (202) 748-8000. independents, we want to hear from you at (202) 748-8002. and if you live in new hampshire or i will, we want to hear from you at (202) 748-8003. let's go to kenny, who is calling from tennessee on the democratic line. kenny, good morning. caller: good morning. harris and joe biden
would make a good team, if it is thought about. but i would like to see more of person to be in the white house. i just think he is great. he done a wonderful job. host: kenny, who would you put on top of that ticket? would you have joe biden as president and, let harris -- and kamala harris as vice president? , joe biden as vice, her as president and him as vice president. i think that would be a good ticket. joe biden can bring to the table, where he has been there
with obama, of learning stuff. is ar as she would go, she very smart, smart lady. host: let's go to jack, who was calling from scottsdale, arizona, on the democratic line. jack, good morning. caller: good morning. are you there? host: i am here. go ahead. give a quick because we are running out of time. have always voted democrat, but i voted for trump the last time, because i am sick and tired of politics. what about hillary and obama? why are they still getting pensions? everyone can figure this out. everyone can figure it out, because it is really simple. they are all crooked, the democrats. look at lincoln, who was a republican. just vote for trump, and our country will go on and the good. from let's go to tim
columbia, south carolina on the republican line. tim, good morning. tim, are you there? tim, are you there? it seems like we lost tim. more, joe, who is calling from reston, virginia, on independent line. joe, good morning. there we go. caller: a quick suggestion about the term "democratic socialism." i am an independent. i have voted mostly democratic. i did vote for trump, which i regret to this day, but the term "democratic socialism" turns off too many people. i would like to suggest that the using a new term called "patriotic capitalism," because i think that is what we want. in terms of income inequality and getting more of the profits
to the workers, i think the term "patriotic capitalism" should be used. host: so we have come to the end of the show. i want you to keep in mind that we have several events that you can watch today and tomorrow on c-span. first of all, tomorrow, senator amy klobuchar of minnesota will announce whether or not she will make a presidential bid. you can see that tomorrow, sunday, at 2:30 on c-span. later on today, you can see cory booker at the pope county, iowa community forum. he will give remarks at a meet and greet. you can see that at 4:00 p.m. today on c-span. finally, coming up in one hour, you can see senator elizabeth warren making her formal presidential announcement at 11:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. we will have all of those events coming up, and we want you to stick around and watch those on c-span and come back for tomorrow's "washington journal" at 7:00 a.m. everyone, have a great day, and we will see you tomorrow
morning. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2019] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] ♪ on the p new members u.s. house during their first house.ys on the elizabeth is expected to kick presidential campaign. c-span is live in iowa meets in des moines, his first visit since announcing his candidacy. 116th congress has over