tv Washington Journal 02262019 CSPAN February 26, 2019 6:59am-10:01am EST
[captions copyright national cable satellite corp 2019] >> coming up live, the house returns at 10 a.m. -- 10:00 a.m. for morning speeches. to consider a resolution to block the emergency declaration to build a wall on the southern border of the united states. on c-span2, the senate continues work on a judicial nomination. on c-span3, the senate finance committee examines drug prices in the united states with the ceos of major pharmaceutical companies. >> coming up, heritage foundation discusses the impact of the national debt and policies to reduce it. a discussion on the u.s. role in venezuela's ongoing turmoil. our guest is frank mora,
director of the florida international university latin center. morning, it's tuesday, february 26, 2019. tosident trump is en route north vietnam this morning for his second summit meeting with the north korea leader kim jong-un. mike pence is traveling to talk, columbia to call on nicolas maduro to step down. in dubai today, a new round of high-level talks begins, focused on ending the war in afghanistan. we will begin this morning on "the washington journal" by hearing from you about your top four and policy priorities. give us a call and let us know
top foreign-policy issue you are concerned about. republicans can call in at (202) 748-8001, democrats at (202) 748-8000, independence at (202) 748-8002. facebook,om/cspan on very good tuesday morning to you. back here on the sixth floor studio at c-span headquarters, we want to hear from you this morning let your question on the top foreign-policy priority. you can start calling it now as we share the headlines in today's paper about the upcoming second summit between president trump and the north korean leader, kim jong-un. "the washington post" rights in their headline, "love is in the air." brighter today," "a north korean economy will be a tall order." times," "washington
the host thriving economy in hanoi is evident, noting that kim jong-un is already in hanoi for the summit with 40 reporters nations around the world expected to cover the meeting between president trump and kim jong-un. it's all expected to get underway at around 9:15 a.m. eastern time, hanoi is 12 hours ahead from the eastern time zone. it's all expected to begin after that as we wait for the summit to begin and play out over the next couple of days, we want to hear from you on your top foreign-policy priorities. democrats, (202) 748-8000, ,epublicans, (202) 748-8001 .ndependents, (202) 748-8002
this survey, 6800 americans talking about limiting the power and influence of north korea as of theriority from 40% respondents. among the top issues listed by respondents, taking measures to protect the u.s. from terrorism. republicans, of say itdemocrats him should be a couple priority. protecting the jobs of american 70 1%., preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction, 60 6%. improving relationships with allies, 58%. breaking the survey down by party, we will of course be digging a little deeper into this firstgo through segment today, but again we want to hear from you on phone lines or democrats, republicans, and as usual.ts
the vice president was in callingcolombia, again on the president of venezuela, nicolas maduro, to step down. a picture of mike pence there with juan guaido. the vice president there also making statements to the press about the u.s. support for juan guaido. here's a little bit of what the vice president said yesterday. [video clip] deliverll continue to medicine and food to those displaced by the brutality and deprivation of the regime. while we stand with the venezuelan people, we will also continue to stand up to all those who would oppress them. many in your country, they have frozen the assets of military officials still loyal to maduro. and we commend their actions.
steps.re important cutting off the regime from the theions they stole from venezuelan people. we urge other freedom loving countries to do the same. host: that was the vice president, yesterday in bogota, colombia, back in the states today as president trump travels overseas, with plenty of foreign-policy issues to talk about today. we want to hear from you and stop -- star by getting your top foreign-policy priority. democrats, it's (202) 748-8000. it republicans, (202) 748-8001. .ndependents, (202) 748-8002 dj, independent line, out in california. go ahead. caller: good morning. i saw the president had finally made it to vietnam and i was just glad that his doctor was able to take care of his bone spurs. host: dj in california this
morning. one of the other stories we noted at the top, the united states and the taliban beginning their highest talks -- highest level talks yet on ending the war in afghanistan. the highest level negotiations yet between the diplomats of the united states and the taliban and the taliban began in the capital of qatar on monday.
host: what is your top foreign-policy priority? joel is next from north carolina, democrat. good morning. caller: hi, good morning. my name is joel king. i have got to say a plane comment. mike pence should not be in the office he holds. trump is wearing -- leading the country down a very long road. he's nothing but a lapdog. top foreign-policy
priority? elect someone that has sense in 2020. not someone like donald trump or makes no senset to me. host: christina, line for democrats, go ahead. iller: yes, good morning, appreciate the show. my top foreign-policy, i really government, going after countries that have oil. my top foreign-policy would be peace. now we are interested because they have oil. we attacked direct. i remember the headlines after shock and all.
after the bush cheney regime , it was that we capture the oil fields. when is this -- when other people going to wake up. host: there are talks underway if a deal can be reached question mark caller: -- reached question mark -- reach? caller: what kind of deal? he joined -- my son joined under bill clinton, retired from the military, and i'm tired of it, and i don't think i know how he got elected. beach,ileen, ormond florida. good morning.
what's your top priority? venezuela has a representative government. we do not. we don't have a representative government in america anymore. what's the path forward in venezuela? should we step away? they are our neighbors and we need all the friends we can get. host: before he left for his trip to hanoi, vietnam, president trump was talking about his efforts to replace the north american free trade .greement yesterdayaking morning with governors at the white house. here's a bit of what the president had to say. [video clip]
emptied us out. we had a surplus with canada and we went to $130 billion trade deficit with the combination of mexico and canada. back.eal will bring it we are opening it up to farmers. opening canada and mexico to farmers, for example. was a closeose, it shot, they took nonmonetary trade barriers, they were judging for certain agricultural tariff. and almost 300% nobody talked about it or knew about it. they saidisconsin, they couldn't compete. charging us to hundred 80% to be exact. i said you got to be kidding and we did something about it. we did something that is important. it will help the dairy farmers in wisconsin, winemakers in oregon, california.
michigan, ohio, pennsylvania and all over. .that's the president today there's a lot of foreign-policy news. we are asking for your top foreign-policy priority. ,epublicans, (202) 748-8001 .emocrats, (202) 748-8000 jim is in new castle, delaware. good morning. caller: i think the biggest problem we have right now is the foreign influence in the western hemisphere. we have to get back to the enforcement of the concept of the moderate doctrine. we see what the chinese have done with their debts, taking over ports, going for all of the strategic materials. i'm afraid that that could happen with some of these south american regimes, where the chinese get in and they supply debt to these countries and then
when those countries become extremely in debt, they end up foreigno bow down to influence, the same with russians arming venezuela and continuing the problem that cuba presents. helped to support south america, we end up with jobs down there, create less of a need. i think that would be a good policy direction for the trump administration to pursue. keep the influence out of the western hemisphere. this stick around, at 8:30 morning we will be talking to a professor from florida international university. , more aboutenezuela those election issues there and the current crisis. we will talk about russian efforts as well. stick around for that discussion a little bit later in the program. nashville, tennessee is next. go ahead. knowr: yes, i'd like to why our foreign policy must
involve treason on our end? in vietnamresident this morning that has kicked out the press and invited russia in yet again. there needs to be accountability on our end before we address anything in the foreign realm. peace to all, but this is ridiculous. joey in arlington, virginia, independent, what's your top foreign-policy priority? to say that, want peace talks with north korea are the thing. if there's anything the president has done that's positive, it's engaging with the north korean leader. and the potential war with them. thank you. joey, before you go, would with those out there
asking for a nobel prize for president trump when it comes to his efforts with north korea? >> getting north korea to completely denuclearize? if you did that i would say that he had done more to deserve a nobel peace prize than his predecessor. that's joey in arlington, virginia. willy mcgurn takes a look at that particular issue, noting at a white house press conference earlier this month that that the trump said japanese prime minister had given him the most beautiful copy of a letter to the norwegian nobel committee. saying that he nominated him for his work to be increased to -- bring peace to the korean peninsula. the south korean president also believes mr. trump worthy of the prize.
so do two norwegian lawmakers who have nominated him for the prize in the past year. boardsa today" editorial taking up the issue in their lead editorial today, noting that it is particularly concerning, "president trump's infatuation with diplomatic flash over substance and a desire for a deal that he can use to distract them negative heraldingat home, singapore results, vague as they turned out to be, with a peace prize for his efforts. in the end if there is verifiable progress that persuades him to relinquish weapons of mass per strip -- mass destruction, we can talk at nobel with a prize as premature as the one awarded to trump's predecessor. gerald is in fallbrook, california. democrat. what's your top foreign-policy priority? ending regime change
wars. i support chelsea gabbard, running for president. she is the only person that is bringing this up anywhere. there is no reason for us to be involved in another nation's affairs. the only reason we are messing around with venezuela is they have the are -- largest oil reserves the western hemisphere and it is all about money. it is a sad day when the oligarchs and the rich fat cats determine what our foreign policy is. host: how long do you think that has been happening? many, it'sgosh, how been since the end of the -- since the death of fdr, since the end of the new deal, since they started dismantling everything he put together. people forget that our country experienced the greatest deal of prosperity when fdr enacted the new deal. and since that time, since the 80's, trickle-down economics, we
have been on the decline. a gerald in california. this is lynn this morning. what's your top foreign-policy priority? caller: for one thing, trump told abbe to nominate him for the nobel peace prize. told him to do it, didn't offer to do it. i don't understand why trump once to take u.s. troops out of ,outh korea against north korea guarding those nuclear weapons on the southern border against the people that throw rocks. do you think that a president trump can negotiate a deal with tangible results that it's worth giving him the nobel peace prize? you still with us? those years, just a turnout it gives him a because trump tells them to. because he gets condos on the beach.
trump is in love with a leader who beat to death in american college student. host: talking about the auto ierm beer -- otto warmb situation? americanes, and college student. not to mention his own family. but trump got a big beautiful letter from him, so i reckon that's good enough to be in love with him. host: thank you, lynn, north carolina. if you want to join this conversation about your top foreign-policy priority, republicans at (202) 748-8001, democrats at (202) 748-8000, .ndependents at (202) 748-8002 a foreign-policy was on the mind , u.s. president yesterday
relationships with european allies. here's a bit of what the president had to say on that front. [video clip] >> many countries take advantage seriously, at nato and on trade. the european union is very tough . they don't allow our products in. many of you represent farm states. they won't allow our farm products. they don't take any. they are brutal. they charge big terrace. it's hard to get in, number one, they charge him was nothing but they send their cars to us, mercedes and all the things they said. you are not going to play ball, president obama in eight years can do the thing, they wouldn't even meet with him. they had no intention of meeting with him. they wouldn't even meet with president obama.
they wouldn't meet with president bush. tougher than china, just smaller from our standpoint. they have to meet and we told them, have to meet. if we don't meet we will terrace the hell out of you and they're going to meet, they are going to meet. we lost last year with the european union, $151 billion, it has been going on for a billion years. think of it. we don't charge them terrace, they charge us terrace. other than that it's a very fair arrangement. trade one of the foreign-policy issues. ,hone lines for republicans (202) 748-8001, democrats at (202) 748-8000, independents at (202) 748-8002. andrew, chicago. caller: foreign-policy is very
important in this country. korea going on with north , they say that they stopped the and nuclear testing missile testing. we haven't tested a missile for 1993. -- since 1993. when israel put up the wall theeen 2000 and 2003 in greens own, it was because there were 79 suicide bombings. thousands were injured. hundreds were killed.
israel put up an electric fence, a technology fence between them and egypt. that is working better than the solid wall. if he can get netanyahu and the palestinians to tear down one and no has ever been able to do it. host: listed as a top foreign-policy priority by respondents, we broke down the response along party lines between republicans and democrats. some issues there.
it's a middle tier objective. 30 points more likely to say assumeher countries will the cost of maintaining world order being a top priority for u.s. foreign-policy. comes toon when it military superiority, a large majority of republicans and republican leaning independents, 70% say that maintaining the u.s. military advantage should be a top priority for the united states. just 34% of democrats and democratic leaders rank that is a top priority, notably rating it as a top priority for a majority of adults, age 50 and over, 30% of those who are younger than 30 say that this should be a top priority. that again from the pew research center, conflicting priorities that.s. is the headline of
if you want the read it. twin falls, idaho, you are up next. >> high, yeah, my foreign-policy objective is to expose the fact that trump has gone back on his the traderning agreements that he said he would get us out of. nafta, all they did was rename it. and add to it. now he's trying to negotiate with china. i have been watching the economy and the effect of china for about a decade and a half now. china basically, with the help of our government and our policymakers has been bleeding our country of economic activity. what i would like to see is the complete deconstruction of the thatworld war ii world
they came up with after world war ii, because it's not working and it's not ever going to work. all it's going to do is to lead to war. another world war, only this be here, itt just will be our country and the entire world. because these policies are coming from the united states with the multinational corporations taking over. it's the policies of the world, they are destroying lives for regular citizens. i would like to see the whole thing collapse. the issue of china,
president trump also spoke about his efforts to negotiate a chinese trade deal, they expect to sign a deal fairly soon. it was at the same meeting of state governors that we have showed you, some of the other summits, assigning summit, he said, which is even better. that was the president yesterday morning before he boarded his flight to head to hanoi, vietnam, where the second summit with the north korean leader will take place over the next several days. we will of course be watching. the president is expected to touch down in hanoi at nine: 15 eastern time, 12 hours ahead, it will be 9:15 p.m. when the president touches down. louisville, kentucky, patrick, go ahead. as a conversation continues i would like to add
,hat the situation down there it's the communist party. the communist party in the united states, which is in the congress right now, the 1950 term limit was declared because of the prominence here in the united states. i think that president truman, i mean president trump, should declare the same thing, which he did do. invoke the appeasement act in the emergency, declare martial law. the communist party has taken over the united states. ed is next in arlington, virginia. ed, go ahead.
i was an independent in a previous life, now i'm for me a democrat, particularly because of foreign-policy. we are looking at destroying venezuela and meddling in their affairs because they have oil in their country. we need to leave venezuela around, trump needs to keep his promises about battling in international affairs. and at the same breath we will sit at the table with the taliban and, who has been killing americans, telling them we will pull out as long as they think they can promise to not support terrorists when they actually were the terrorists? i'm confused about this of foreign-policy shaping up. north korea will not give up nukes if we promise to build hotels, right? there are better ways to negotiate. getting itmp is done, using foreign-policy to come up with a big win. the middle class has been robbed with a tax break.
we are giving them a billion dollars in subsidies to farmers to compensate them for these trade wars. things that are failing and even on the foreign-policy front i don't think that trump is getting it done. host: you changed your party from independent to democrat because of foreign policy. what foreign policy event was the impetus for your change? this may just be on my end here, but venezuela, the taliban and and syria have raised my eyebrows. host: so it was only recently made the change? guest: caller: yup -- caller: yup. you ared now the registered, are you voting in the democratic primary question mark caller: absolutely. -- primary question mark -- primary? absolutely.
bernie sanders when he was running last time was more or less in the camp of focusing on america and stop meddling in foreign affairs, mimicking a lot of what the libertarians say. so far i like his stance. did you feel like you are more libertarian in a previous political life? caller: yes. host: why did you become libertarian? fiscally responsible policies. to me the government wasted a lot of money. government is too big, too much overhead -- overhead. and on the social responsibility side, the gay marriage and all of that, people can just do what they need to do. it doesn't bother me or impact my life, i was more focused on the financial aspects. we are heading out now to west palm beach, florida. republican paul is next. thank you for taking my
call. i was listening to a previous caller, three people called and said that we invade other countries and take their oil. in iraq, did we take their oil? as a moderator, you should correct them. we don't take their oil. we never did such a thing. you never stop them from telling that. went to the summit in singapore, everybody said -- third worlde a big war. there was nothing, everything was fine. these loonies on cnn and nbc, that's all they do. host: what do you think will come out of the second summit? i think it will go in stages. kim is a completely different kind of guy. he gets everything from china. china is behind everything. he goes to china and he comes to
the summit now. so i think that china is completely behind their i think. host: think he deserves the nobel peace prize? more than obama. spanish fork, alabama, independent, good morning. i think the other collar stepped in to what i wanted to say. it's a good topic, worth saying a lot of times, china as the defense secretary said to his people recently, i was proud of him. he said what i want y'all to focus on is china, china, china. couldn't have been said better. where do we even start?
the uighurn people, people, genocide is being committed against them by the chinese communist party. apparentlycally showing signs in his glee to get a victory or the appearance of a victory, he's about to sign some had a really bad, bad trade deal with china. instance after instance we see it's a tragedy for the chinese people. i'll think of the american people are aware of the real danger presented by china. years ago they talked about -- by your time and
they have done it effectively. marco rubio, ted cruz and bernie sanders of all people would be, right now, if elected president they would be far tougher with china. host: how did you think that the obama administration did what came to dealing with china? caller: abysmally bad. i'm one of the minority out there in the country that can call this thing without being completely partisan. you have to try to call it fairly. as bad as bill clinton. i think that clinton takes the cake, but obama was equally bad. what trump seems to be doing is he seems to be having some sort of hybrid policy of what the with nixonted, along and kissinger, this canard that if you let the chinese, the
communist chinese as opposed to taiwan, if you let them develop capitalism, that they will then suddenly embrace freedom and democracy. that, hard hasn't worked for 50 years. that's part of the big lie. and to think that trump is bringing these absolute butchers, like present she and apparently president kim, he's going to fete them and host them? state dinners at his palatial mansion at mar-a-lago? the american people should be up in arms at this. host: it's just after 7:30 on the east coast. our question for you today, we want to know what your foreign-policy priority is, having this discussion as president trump travels overseas the day after vice president pence got back from traveling
overseas in the day after one of the most enduring traditions here on capitol hill. sinceyear, every congress 1896 a member of the united states senate has read president george washington's farewell address allowed on the senate floor. yesterday it was senator fischer from nebraska who had the honor. here's the part of the farewell address in which he talked about foreign alliances. [video clip] >> europe has a set of primary interests, but to us have none or a remote relation. hence you must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concern and must therefore be unwise of us to implicate ourselves by with thel ties politics of the ordinary combinations and commissions of 10 ships and enmities.
in a distant situation, enabling us to pursue a different course. if we remain one people under an efficient government, it's not far off when we may find material injury different from external annoyance where we take the attitude that causes neutrality. [no audio] we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected. when belligerent nations under the impossibility of making these impositions upon us will not likely hazard the provocation. our own standing upon foreign ground, interweaving of destiny ,ith that of any part of europe
entangling our peace and prosperity in the toil of , interests,ition humors, or caprice. it is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world. that was senator deb fischer yesterday on capitol hill. getting underway, the house and the senate will be gaveling in with a busy day on capitol hill. jerome powell will be before the senate banking committee at 10 a.m. you can watch the hearing after proceedings on the floor of the house there, expected to start at 10 a.m. after they gavel out. on c-span3 at 10:15 a.m., a high-profile hearing, seven ceos from various pharmaceutical companies will be before the senate finance committee.
you can watch that as well on c-span.org or listen to it on the free c-span radio app. "washington post" talks about that hearing and the seven executives that will be on including the ceo of pfizer, merck, astrazeneca, bristol-myers squibb, and others. it's noted that they are expected to shape -- face sharp questions from members of the senate finance chairman, charles grassley, who will be heading the hearing along with top democrats on the panel, such as ron wyden. that gets underway at 10:15 this morning on c-span3. back to your phone calls on foreign policy, we want to know what your top foreign-policy priority is. mike has an waiting in north
carolina, a republican. go ahead. good morning. thati'm just, you know, venezuela thing that the previous caller said, trump needs to keep his nose out of their. he must be a socialist, because maduro is a dictator, something that bernie sanders and the democrats won't say. we are not there for the oil. the citizens of the country are -- they should be in with the oil money. you know that maduro is pocketing all that money in there, china and russia will. then you will have them further south. that is just my opinion on it. saudi arabia they need to keep
their nose out of that. what about the death of jamal khashoggi? caller: he's foolish for writing about the leader of saudi arabia, then you go back to saudi arabia. that's like committing a bank robbery and going back to the bank. he wasn't in saudi arabia when he died. he was in turkey. caller: that's my bad. but he was at the saudi arabian consulate, was he not? host: yes, sir. caller: see, you write stuff , and they still treat the women as third class citizens, they want to go messing with these oil-rich countries and start something over there? that new green deal might come ,rue with oil being so high
they will have to take a fast train. that's just my opinion, you know? caroline. is good morning. caller: when we have trump talking about adding tariffs, he passes it on to us and that's adding taxes, trying to clean it up. trying to put more money on the economy, we are borrowing more and we are going to lose the war because we are not playing it directly. we are talking about adding more to us in getting less back. i always think of it like a college student hitting student loans and living like large, but in the end they have to pay them off and of a and of losing and
that is where we are as the trade war. las vegas, good morning. caller: the main thing we should be concerned about is the middle east. first of all, the israelis are russian agents. and they have been the main supplier of technology to china. china is one of the main supporter creators of the state of israel and the country of palestine. why the think at all israelis are russian agents? caller: because that is their native language. russia deployed all of the jews to get into palestine after world war ii. i and world war ii was about creating the state of israel. nothing else. we are controlled by them. the pendergast family put truman -- tiger point.ht,
stephen, republican line, good morning. pretty morning, i'm ticked off about fisheries management issues. the usa was followed by the world, let's say in the mid-70's, 80's, 90's, and voided we lead them down the rathole and that was terrible. we need good fisheries policy. trump doesn't understand -- though i am a big trump supporter, he doesn't understand managementresource balance sheet. he understands private balance sheets. what usaid can do with canada with russia, with the caribbean and mexico, do the deals similar communally or a owned farm, let's say. and then we would have so much seafood it would be ridiculous. host: you a fisherman up there? i used to be, call us up
a fisherman. host: what do you do now? research and i have a little tv show but no one here in cape cod listens, the answer is what the fisherman want to do. that's all people think. they don't go to the deeper level. who should be that deeper level, stephen? how much caught fish habitat does the usa have? haveuch do the canadians and you allocate the poundage with competitive operation. everyone is getting their fair share and nothing more with the paranoia going away and the fisheries can thrive. much do we have compared to canada? we get it all from iceland.
she, my mother, yelled at the guy who sold the fish and he said it was not his fault. we are mother and father fishers as well? caller: no, my mom was an army navy, andwas in the they moved to cape cod in 1952. my dad was very political. i'll is thought that this was very wrong. fisherman are like a barking dog chasing a car. once they got the fishing rights, they didn't know what to do with it, they didn't improve on one dam thing.
our habitat is 90% ruined. unlike that system, they don't protect the habitat at all. it's a favor system. the people in the right place at the right time get the favor, get the free fishing rights and do nothing for these rights. and so, incrementally over decades and decades, the habitat has gone down and the stocks therefore follow and go down. but we still -- we still ask what the fisherman want to do as the public. thanks for chatting about it this morning from massachusetts. lewis is next. good morning. caller: my top priority is to fight countries that foster terrorism. iran, afghanistan, venezuela right here in our neighborhood.
are you talking about military action? caller: no, i'm talking about putting up the mill it -- the necessary pressure so that those countries cannot foster terrorism. host: where are we doing that well and where are we not doing that well? caller: unfortunately, we are not doing that well in nowhere, really. what happened in iraq was a disaster. what happened in iran is a disaster. what's happening in it that is way left -- in venezuela is a disaster. the united states needs to work with the region and give the allies more to limit these global countries that are fostering terrorism. a ground for terrorism, like it's happening in venezuela now.
lawrenceville, georgia, independent, good morning. caller: i'm a member of the libertarian party, but i do have my differences with them when it comes to opposition in afghanistan. everybody kind of supported going into afghanistan back in 2001. unfortunately, we got waylaid or diverted into in iraq, which i supported and i regret that to this day. now here we are in afghanistan and the united states is negotiating directly with the taliban, not even including the government of afghanistan, at the request of the taliban, mind you. it makes me sick to my stomach to think that we are going to let the taliban come back and tolerate afghanistan after all .f this happened
the direct responsibility of that country, the taliban in particular, bribing al qaeda and allowing them to thrive. i just think it's a travesty and even though i'm a libertarian, it drives you nuts. one of the negotiation points is to ensure that the taliban and wouldn't foster terrorist groups again where they are in afghanistan. do you think that they can ever be trusted to do that? caller: hell no. host: in your mind what would the right thing to do be? keep the troops there permanently? caller: yes. unfortunately, that's the one place we cannot allow that group to get back in power in afghanistan or the same crap is going to happen all over again. it will be isis next time and we will have to do this whole rigmarole again. keep the met a with 5000 troops?
so be it. whatever the number is, we need to do it in perpetuity. part of the problem there is that they have the reserve in pakistan, where even the tolerated. between us and the pakistanis, we can get together and basically somehow eliminate that bunch. i don't see how. host: this is leo, illinois, republican line. caller: [indiscernible] problems our country faces. to make a few points. first, i spent six years in the 96th navy.
during the vietnam war when saigon fell, my ship was there. these are the reasons why they created this country and called at the last best country on earth. we have become like the empire that spreads themselves too thin. it's an elective desperate for [indiscernible] that theyson says have controlled themselves because they are not dangerous, so unless we shift our priorities it will become mediation of these. believe that america is going to lose its leadership role
because all we do is destroy. that's not leadership, its destruction. like we just did in iraq, afghanistan, libya, syria, yemen, somalia, leaving can that leaving destruction there. as is tradition each year on presidents' day, president george washington's farewell address was read on the senate more. what do you think about his thoughts this typically on alliances? caller: i agree with him. the state of the world is like before world war i. it's in the interests of power, money, wealth, natural resources rather than the broader picture. washington was right, these alliances in israel and saudi
from ourt takes away ideals as a republican democracy and leader of the free world. about five minutes left in this segment to get your thoughts on your top foreign-policy priorities, having this conversation about 90 minutes or so before president trump is set to step his in hanoi, vietnam, for second summit with the north korean leader, kim jong-un. "the new york times" about the upcoming summit and what will be competing against american televisions in the upcoming days, president trump "will have just wrapped up his first a with kim jong-un. michael: taking the stand tomorrow, testifying publicly bringt him with to
, makingt storylines peace with host: if you want to read that story in today's "new york times" or watch michael: on the house oversight committee, c-span3 tomorrow at 10 a.m. is where you can watch it. you can also watch it at the span.org or listen to it on the free c-span radio app. it will be the most public of michael:'s testimonies on capitol hill. he's also expected to testify behind closed doors on capitol hill today. that is what the senate intelligence committee, through
a series of meetings with michael cohen this week in the building behind me, time for a few more of your calls. your top foreign-policy priority? steve has been waiting in windermere. good morning. i guess two of the most important issues, both will take some time, the we don't have a lot of time to resolve them, one is nuclear proliferation. and the elimination of the united states being the lead, of course, in reducing the amount on the planetbs that each country has. we have signed agreements over years, even though they have , we cannges right now certainly move ahead in helping to reduce that possibility.
you never know when you're coming across to leaders in vietnam who are unusual in their possibility of causing something catastrophic. the other being long range also, really we are running out of time, it's the planet itself, climate change. certainly dropping out of the paris peace agreement was a big mistake, but we need to move quickly and as a leader of the world really in making the areges so that people who the third-generation -- i'm a 70-year-old man and certainly i want my grandchildren to live in a world where they can exist. host: a green new deal? caller: go ahead? host: is the green new deal a
way to move forward quickly? step.: that's one 2020 being the year that we needed to make changes by and we are verging on 2020 and the amount of changes made to the planet have not been done. back to the nuclear issue, an article in today's paper that was very disturbing between the ,ctions of pakistan and india two nations that have nuclear , who people have realized that have had conflicts before, but the danger there in kashmir is certainly something to be concerned about. both are very, very, very important. gregor, illinois, independent, go ahead. you doing? how
well, anyone that calls can look at the mideast and if you are a student of history you would know that we go into many places -- reasons that are not always problem isward, my like your previous caller. is forgingan, ahead. pakistan and india would not nuke themselves, they are too close to prox -- in proximity. the big bears are russia, china, and iran. and those countries get along pretty well. if you put them together they have a decent military even though donald trump says we are againstagainst -- 10:2 russia developing and producing weapons. i don't believe we should interject that much effort into
countries such as afghanistan for 20 years. that's like a prolonged vietnam. the noble causes used to be the way, when america was great. to coin a phrase. but there are so many things that america needs that we have been spending to build up the country. if you look at russia they don't move until it wants to move and they don't use any effort into doing what they mean to do. they just tested a missile that goes at the speed of light that cannot be traced. a threat.iewing us as but as far as meetings with kim jong-il, and other dictators that are known to really stick it to their own people. and to think we are going to change their mind about the west . the west will always be the west. the only ally we have is israel in the middle east. that, butia portrays
i lean towards not being an ally if everything hits the fan. host: we are running out of towns -- time. you quoted when america was great, when did america stop being great? caller: i love this country. we are the freest country in the world. spende amount of money we on all of our military objectives, and you throw in the war, it could be put to a greater america. isrica where infrastructure strong, education is strong, we have the military and more power than anyone in the world. and truth be told, do you see anyone lobbing a nuclear bomb when the earth is as fragile as it is?
everything would go up in a puff of smoke. billiont need $700 allocated for that. illinois,'s greg, in our last caller in this first segment of the washington journal. there's plenty more to come. up next we will talk about the nation's 22 trillion dollar debt and recommendations to reduce that figure, we will be joined by the heritage foundation's justin bogie. and florida international university's frank mora is looking at why the united states is involving itself in venezuelan politics. we will be right back. ♪ >> the only thing we have to fear, is fear itself. >> asked not what your country can do for you -- ask not what your country can do for you.
ask what you can do for your country. and the people will not these buildings down. >> c-span's newest book, the presidents, noted historians rank america's best and worst chief executives. providing insight into the lives of the 44 american presidents. through stories with note event -- noted presidential historians. explore the events that shaped our leaders, challenges they faced, and the legacies they have left behind. published by public affairs, c-span's the presidents will be on shelves april 23. you can preorder your hardcover or e-book today at c-span.org/the presidents, or wherever books are sold. michael cohen, president trump's longtime personal journey will testify before the house oversight and reform committee on wednesday.
it's led by elijah cummings, who will inquire on the interactions with the president. watch the hearing live wednesday morning at 10:00 eastern on c-span three, c-span.org, or listen with the free radio app. washington journal continues. host: justin bogie is a senior analyst at the heritage foundation, studying fiscal affairs. he joins us to discuss this number. trillion and counting. this is the current u.s. national debt. could you put that number into perspective? guest: reading it out is a laborious number, to put that into perspective, if we divided it among every person in the u.s., they would have a 67,000 share -- sick the $7,000 share of the national debt. over the next 10 years that's expected to climb.
it's a huge number, it's overwhelming for a lot of people to think about. most families could not sustain a hundred thousand dollars in debt. so how does the u.s. government do that? host: and how did we get here? guest: it's a lot of factors, over the last 10 years, debt has really climbed. it's up to $10 trillion. -- it climbed up $10 trillion, some of that has to do with stimulus packages under president bush and president obama. we had budget caps with several deals to amend those which has increased by hundreds of millions of dollars. a large amount of emergency and disaster spend and relating. it's really a lot of factors going into that. host: what was it at the end of the obama administration and how much has gone up? guest: it's gone up about $2 trillion in the first couple years of the trump administration. host: two usual ways to reduce
the debt, decrease the spending in the future, or to raise revenues to reduce the debt. where you fall? is it a mix? one of the other? guest: this problem is being driven by spending. i don't think increasing taxes will fix the problem. revenues are at historical averages but spending is above the historical average. that's driven by social security, medicaid, medicare, and interest on the national debt. $22 trillion is a huge number. when you start paying interest on that, you are going to see a large amount of money going into that. within the next five years the country is projected to spend more money in interest on the national debt and defense. that is something that should alarm everyone. it becomes a security issue. host: in terms of reducing spending, remind us what the budget caps are and what happens later this year. guest: to clarify, the federal
budget last year was $4.1 trillion, the budget caps only disc -- only cover the discretionary part, about a third of the federal budget. you're not talking about a lot of money. but we have these increased spendings by about $300 billion over two years. and we are setting up for a cliff where offending would -- spending would fall by 100 when he $5 million last year if they reverted back to the bush cap. some of that goes to national defense. there's a discussion about a budget deal, or some way to increase defense spending. host: explain what the overseas contingency operations fund is, and how that plays into this. 9/11. this evolved after it was originally designated as emergency spending but it was to respond to the efforts in iraq and afghanistan after 9/11. it's turned into -- we do have some ongoing war efforts across the globe.
overseasasingly the contingency operations account is not capped by the budget caps . it's an unrestrained amount of money, increasingly used for the department of defense and department of state budgets, and set it going for comp looks overseas, like intended. host: are discretionary budget caps enough to bring down that massive number? guest: in the short term i think it's important to control the growth of discretionary spending. but no, it's not nuts ever -- within a few years you could get rid of the entire discretionary budget, and because of interest, social security, medicare, and medicaid, we would still run a deficit. you will not get there on the discretionary budget. guest: how do we get there -- host: how do we get there? guest: you have to focus on these huge programs, social security, medicare, medicaid. they are on a path to
insolvency. they are already taking in less revenue than they are paying out. there are reserve funds build out, but they will start running a deficit. benefits are already on track to go down. so until you make those programs more sustainable, by lowering health care costs, it's going to be hard to balance the budget. host: is that happening in congress? guest: no, that's alarming. geeks it's adget depression but no one in congress is talking about it. host: why not? guest: the debt doesn't mean anything. we have got to the point where instead of having a statutory debt limit, they pass to the limit suspension. and eventually just allows congress to borrow as much as it wants to. we're about to run out on march 1. but we need to get more serious about the debt limit. we need to have a number in place.
for going to raise that limit, it needs to be accompanied by spending cuts, or to offset the increase. host: we want to invite viewers to call and, if you want to join the conversation for republicans (202) 748-8001, for democrats (202) 748-8000, for independents (202) 748-8002. our conversation in this segment of the washington journal about this number, $22 trillion and counting. the u.s. national debt. richard is up first, in new jersey, a democrat. go ahead. expect hello, as i would from the heritage foundation, it's not that the rich people are getting too much money. it's poor people getting too much money. people who get social security, medicare, it's their fault. it's not the wealthy, we have a tremendous number of wealthy people. just cut back on things like social security and medicare.
have a wealthywe country and there's lots of people with lots of wealth. and we keep cutting their taxes. but let's blame the poor, that's the real problem. this is the real problem in our country, you have poor people blaming other poor people or immigrants on the problem which is really the wealthy who run the country, the corporations who run the country, the wealthy who suck up the money. host: justin bogie? guest: i don't think anyone is saying we should cut the benefits for the poor. in fact the heritage foundation's position has been that we should prioritize money for the social security, medicare, and medicaid, and those who needed the most. it would not be taking money away from the poor or anything like that. host: why not look to the revenue side? here's a recent piece by a reporter in the hill newspaper, he works on the committee for the responsible budget. he says revenue should have gone
7% this year, instead revenue fell despite strong economic growth, moderate inflation, and unemployment at its lowest level in the early 50 years. according to a projection the tax cut increased future deficits by almost $2 trillion over a decade and with one full year of the new tax code behind as we now have good evidence to back up these projections. we can put to get -- to bad the myth that the tax cuts are paying for themselves. this is a flat number, revenues will decrease by $2 trillion, but it doesn't take into effect the broader economic impacts of that. people putting those tax cuts back into the economy and investing that money. i would say this is a spending problem. we are at the historical level of revenue, we are well above the historical level of spending. if we look at the last budget deal, a rate spending at $300 billion, this adds a ten-year
effect on the deficit. this is a twofold problem. host: if a deal could come together and you can get folks in the building to pay more attention with a deal that involves some revenue increases for decreased spending, would you be ok with that? guest: we don't think revenues or lack of revenues is the problem. this is a problem that congress has to face, they have to look for a compromise they can agree to that the president would sign. i hate to commit to the details of the deal, but it certainly a problem that needs to be addressed. host: john, in leesburg, virginia, and independent. caller: when making this argument it's hard for people, when most people think the defense spending is too high, but nobody is paying attention -- when they look at the spending they are not looking at the mandatory spending. you know what it is, but when the debate arises, on how much
is pendant -- spending and where we spend it, they look at the dot is out of control but nobody is looking at --. i think putting this in a pie chart, as a visualization for most people and pointing out that this is the discretionary spending, this is what government is meant to do. and the 75% going to entitlements is what we pay the government to do and now that's going out of control. needs toomething that be stamped in everyone's mind, this is what it looks like and it's not the d.o.t. that's out of control -- the dod that's out of control. guest: that's right. i would suggest you go to federal budget -- you go to our website because we have a lot of those pie charts and easy representations that show the budget picture. but mandatory spending, as the caller said, is almost two thirds of the federal budget and
no one talks about it. it's continuing on autopilot without any input from congress. we spend an awful lot of time worrying about the budget that congress appropriates every year. when really, that's not what is driving the problem. host: roy, on twitter, asking what percentage of legislators have signed the pledge, grover norquist pledge to never raise taxes. do you really think running the country on people's payroll taxes is a good idea? does trickle-down economics work? guest: i think we seen as the result of the tax cuts that went into effect, we have seen the lowest unemployment rate since the 1960's, there are now more jobs available than people seeking jobs. so i think that works. but the biggest problem with the tax cuts and jobs act is that it was not accompanied by spending cuts. spending is continuing to take up, and when you are cutting revenues in the short term, and
increasing spending, as every family budget knows, that's a recipe for failure. host: fred, in texas, a republican. good morning. caller: i don't understand, i'm a retired man, 76 years old. i'm not sure i understand how when less than 50% of our people pay any taxes whatsoever into taxes, how we can't sustain the tax base. i know that is old-time thinking, but it astounds me. a tax policyt expert by any means, i think we all have -- all of us working are taxed and are trying to pay our fair share. in some cases, some pay more than their fair share. that's all i have to say about that. host: congresswoman alexandria a
casio cortez has expressed the idea of modern monetary theory, can you ask plain what that is? guest: i'm not sure what she's getting out on that one. host: public spending need not be constrained by tax revenues. yeah, i would say that's a bad idea. i keep going back to the family budget. atanyone who runs a budget home knows, if you're spending more than you are taking in year after year, that's not going to work. you will at some point be bankrupt. or some reason the federal government is held to a different standard -- for some reason the federal government is held to a different standard. this has broader impacts. god for bid we get into a bid -- forbidor we get into a conflict or a war. this could make it harder to borrow additional money, china and japan hold a large
percentage of our debt. these are all national security a smart, and it is not policy to continue to pile more on the debt. we need to find ways to stabilize it. host: in the state -- in the state of the union, president trump did not use the words debt or budget deficit. how surprised are you? guest: i'm not surprised but it is concerning. he has people in his administration that care about was on themulvaney house budget committee when he served in congress. has a budget background. i know they are concerned about the budget. but i wish the president was out there making the point that the deficits are too high and we need to do something about the national debt. but he has other things on his plate so i don't think it's a priority. host: in oxford, pennsylvania, good morning. caller: good morning.
thank you for c-span. i have a few points if you will allow me to have them. john, we or someone when did america stop becoming great? i have some viewpoints. i think it stopped being great when corporations from foreign countries and our country were able to buy congress and have the free-trade deal that shipped most of our jobs from this country. when i was growing up you did not have to -- you could use your community to find a john. there were factories everywhere -- a job. there were factories everywhere. now they are overseas. for example, i had to call prudential insurance, their customer service is in philadelphia. i spoke to someone in malaysia. had that phone call went to
philadelphia, it would have been a taxpayer there, paying into the system. that is when america stopped being great, when our politicians were bought off by national corporations. and pass that trade bill. the $22d the issue of trillion debt, how concerned are you? it's: it's not the debt, that we're not worried about the american worker anymore. we are concerned about money going overseas and coming back to the 10% that has it all. and they don't want to share it with america. host: your thoughts? guest: i certainly share his frustration, anyone who has tried to call into a helpline, it's hard to understand are your santa somewhere else -- sent to somewhere else, it's a problem. the administration has been committed to bring more jobs back to america which i think is a good first step.
hopefully we will continue. host: justin bogie is with us for another 10 minutes, you work at the heritage foundation is a senior policy analyst studying fiscal affairs. our topic is the 22 trillion dollar united states debt. in toledo, ohio, a democrat. caller: i don't understand why these republicans keep wanting to cut social security. reagan back in the 80's took many millions out of social security and never paid it back. thing, where do we get this money to send to israel every year? and saudi arabia? do we give billions to israel every year and saudi arabia and other countries? where is that money coming from if we are in such a big debt? host: on foreign aid, justin
bogie. guest: the fact of the matter is the social security program is on track to go insolvent and it won't have money to pay off beneficiaries. if we don't start taking these steps now to change that we are going to get to the point where there is either a larger benefit cut for everyone out there, or we see a huge increase in taxes to cover the liabilities. i don't think either of those options is what is best for america, that's why we need to start addressing this now, instead of kicking the can down the road. on foreign aid, i think we spend a lot of money overseas and that is something we need to continue to look at. one of the problems with the federal budget is that we have all of these programs out there, foreign aid included where we have segments of them that are unauthorized, meaning congress does not re-up these programs every year. like they are supposed to, on a schedule.
they are allowed to continue on and on when we need to think about are they still relevant? are they serving their purpose? are they a good use of money? host: some numbers on foreign aid when it comes to the crisis in venezuela. this is from the washington times today, on monday the administration pledged $56 million in extra aid to support nearly three point 4 million venezuelans who fled the country with economic hardship and political repression. this is on top of u.s. aid that has been sent to columbia and brazil, bringing total u.s. assistance to venezuela to $195 million, 150 $2 million in humanitarian aid, and $43 million in the knowledge -- in economic development. on the republican line, in ohio, good morning. caller: at the end of world war ii this country bailed on asia and europe after the war. now we are in debt.
in debt to who? the national debt is a farce. who do we owe this money to? i would like to know who this group of people is, because somebody has to be collecting this money. all of this farcical talk about international loans and back and forth is the interest rate. the fake interest rate that this country into debt. and the american people have to wake up. there should be a banking system that we can tell the people to go to you nowhere. guest: the two largest holders of our debt are china and japan, they are back and forth usually. it's interesting he brought up world war ii, at 22 between dollars now, this is actually the highest the debt has ever been other than the three years in the immediate aftermath of world war ii. that's definitely a problem. host: what are your thoughts on government shutdowns? guest: i don't think anyone
advocates for government shutdown. i don't think it's a good idea. but we've seen these proposals out there from several members of congress to have these automatic continuing resolutions so that basically a shutdown would never happen and new funding would kick in. host: and it would stick to its previous levels. guest: correct. some would see spending going down, but i don't think that's a good idea either. the reason we have shutdowns is because the good -- the budget process is not followed. the 1974 budget act, that timeline said that milestones had to be set for passing appropriation bills and congress does not follow that. if you have this automatic continuing resolution against another shot down i think that would make congress do their job even less. i would prefer to see a no budget no pay act, or no budget no travel act and that we may be kickstart congress to do their job, to either shame them or penalize them into doing it.
georgia,nesboro, david, independent. caller: good morning. i want to talk about public private partnerships. people don't really understand, that's where all of our money is going. on c-spana debate several months back about this very thing between cato and the national institute of health. the national institute of health a half trillion dollars that was being wasted on paperwork in the insurance industry. you can go tell these public-private partnerships and they had that same kind of waste. why aren't we doing something about that? is a: i think there tremendous amount of waste in the federal government, the government accountability office puts out reports every year highlighting billions of dollars in waste, fraud, and abuse. but until congress actually takes interest in that and takes
those numbersthen are only so good. it's hard to recoup them without congress. host: dorothy, in north carolina, a democrat. confused, you first said, and i've heard a lot of politicians say this, that social security right now is solvent. how can we be adding to the debt when we are not even using any money from the general fund now? we are using the surplus to take care of social security, and another thing. how much money is going into social security as opposed to coming out? we can do some math and then we could say that's what we are using but i don't get how we are contributing to the debt when you say we haven't run out of money? it can't be both ways. tost: i'm really referring
the long-term growth of the debt. the national debt is going to increase by another $13 billion over the next 10 years. and over the next 40 or 50 years it's much higher than that. if you look at the long-term growth of spending, it's all being driven by social security, medicare, medicaid, and interest on the debt. that's what i'm talking about. for the short term debt, it's caused by several factors, obamacare spending added new debt to the economy. you have these budget deals that passed that added more debt. there's a lot going on. host: do you thing to debt limit is a good thing? guest: i think it's better than not having a debt limit. i don't know if the ultimate solution -- if it is the ultimate solution, but anyone talking about a debt limit, totally. it's what we have already, the suspension is null and void. that's not helping. host: what you say to the ancern that it creates
manufactured crisis and fiscal cliffs? guest: you could argue that. and a lot of stuff gets lumped into these deals and that's problematic as well. but it's one of the few times where we actually take the debt seriously. it's one of the few times when people talk about it and care about it. i think it's good to bring attention to that issue. host: chris, in michigan, a republican. go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. i have three things that will help pay off the debt. the oil in venezuela i think would help a lot, and the united state -- the united nations should be doing more to take care of that situation. and if they are not willing to i think we should deal with it by ourselves. i think the second is decriminalizing marijuana on a federal level. , andaxes from that alone not fighting it, we should have
learned that from prohibition in the 1920's with alcohol. and with the robert pratt kraftion, -- robert situation, bringing up human shouldking, we decriminalize prostitution. those three things would help pay off the debt. host: what do you think about chris's three-point plans. guest: i'm not sure i want to touch those, this is a morning show. i think we should leave all options on the table. not those specifically but we should look at always to lower the debt to really get back to the constitutional role of the government. host: what are you doing to get the folks in that building to pay more attention to this issue? guest: we put out our budget blueprint every year, we have a new one coming out in the next month where we focus on cutting a lot of this waste on discretionary funds and putting
forth longer and comprehensive reforms for health care, social security, and a wide variety of programs. guest: -- host: in that blueprint is on your website. justin bogie from the heritage foundation. we appreciate your time. up next on the washington journal, we will talk more about the crisis in venezuela. we will be joined by florida international universities -- university's frank mora. willater today the house vote to block president trump's emergency declaration. stephen vladek joins us to discuss national security law implications. we will be right back. ♪ the only thing we have to fear, is fear itself. -- ask not what
your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country. >> and the people will knock these buildings down. c-span's newest books, -- newest book, the president, rank the 44ians american presidents through stories gathered by interviews with noted presidential historians. explore the events that shaped our leaders, challenges they faced, and the legacies they have left behind. published by public affairs, c-span's the presidents will be on shelves april 23. todayn preorder your copy at c-span.org/the presidents. or wherever books are sold. c-span, where history unfolds daily.
in 1979 c-span was created as a public service by america's cable television company. today we continue to bring you unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court, and public policy events and washington, d.c. end around the country. c-span is brought to you by your cable or satellite provider. [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] washington journal continues. us fromank mora joins miami with the discussion on the crisis in venezuela. he serves as the director of the latin caribbean center at florida university. can you briefly explain how we got to this point and the sequence of events since last year's election, presidential election in venezuela? last year venezuelan's had an election that was viewed and considered by the international community as not being fair or free. many governments in latin
america and around the world viewed it as an illegitimate elected nicholas maduro as president. the inauguration for his new on january 10. on january 10 he was inaugurated and it was viewed and announced by the international community as being illegitimate and illegal, and no one recognized the government, the new term of nicholas maduro. on january 23, the president of the national assembly controlled by the opposition announced that the presidency was vacant, because of the illegitimacy of the election of nicolas maduro. in the president of the national the constitution, took the oath of office as the interim president of venezuela. since january 23 there have been two presidents in venezuela, one with a lot of power and little legitimacy. , the interimdo
president, who has the support of the international community and legitimacy but is not able to exercise power in venezuela. yesterday vice president mike pence was with juan guaido to subsume -- to express his support. why is the u.s. backing juan guaido? where did he come from? who is he? guest: he was the member of the national assembly, elected representative within the assembly back in december of 2015. since then maduro has done everything to strip the national assembly legislature of its power. and the members of the national assembly, through discussion and negotiation, decided that juan early 30's,is represented a young fresh face of the opposition that could bring together venezuelans, as well as the international community, against the dictatorship of nicolas maduro.
since january 23 he has been doing that. on february 23 there was an important event effort to bring humanitarian aid to venezuela. and unfortunately failed. it's important that the viewers understand that venezuela is facing inflation rates of 1,000,000%. the level of scarcity and starvation is dire. there is really no resources, there has been a number of sanctions imposed on the venezuelan dictatorship by the united states and the international community. and the situation seems to be deepening in terms of the humanitarian crisis. we are at a crossroads in venezuela with the international community and nicolas maduro struggling to determine the future of the country. host: there are a few questions about the crisis, now would be a good time to call in, frank mora is with us from floor to
international university having this discussion until nine: 15 eastern. for republicans (202) 748-8001, for democrats (202) 748-8000, for independents (202) 748-8002. you can go ahead and start calling and start calling in now. mr. mora, as we have this conversation, how has nicholas maduro been able to hold on despite what you just described as an inflation rate of of the00%, and all turmoil that is happening in his country? guest: he has been able to maintain the unity within the institutions of power within venezuela. most importantly with the military. part of the effort since the pressures began against nicolas maduro as of january 10 was to try to get the military to withdraw its support for nicolas maduro. that was the effort on the part of the united states and the international community.
that has not happened. the military largely remains loyal to nicolas maduro. it's been the bulwark of his support. he's done everything to maintain that loyalty. the military, as a result, has been co-opted, corrupted, there are different mechanisms in the sense of support. i would say it's not so much political as it has been politically convenient for them to support a regime that they feel they have a stake in because of the issue of corruption mentioned earlier. he has been able to maintain that kind of unity. is still tenuous. i don't want the viewer to think that his hold on power is strong. it is not. it is tenuous, he is surviving day-to-day. selling gold and whatever he can to sustain himself in power, in light of the sanctions, the international sanctions that have been imposed in the last 20
days or so. so there's a day-to-day tactical effort to see what happens and who controls the future of the country. host: the u.s. announced new sanctions yesterday, what were they? do you think that will change the situation? guest: the vice president bogota, in pagoda -- the four border state governors, who are supporters of nicolas maduro, and are being held responsible for the destruction of humanitarian aid and other oppressions have now been targeted under the united states with financial and economic sanctions. this is the last of the long list of sanctions to include sanctions on the financial sector, the ability of nicolas maduro to finance his production of oil and other things he needs to sustain the economy, albeit,
as weak as it is. comprehensiveor and multilateral. the vice president announced that the united states is likely to announce further sanctioning in the financial sector, choking access to finance of nickel -- the finances of nicholas maduro for days or weeks. host: we asked viewers about their top foreign policy priority, a couple said the united states should mind its own business when it comes to venezuela. why should america be paying attention to what happens? guest: it's humanitarian crisis. dry aren venezuela are -- dying every day -- people in venezuela are dying every day due to the lack of access to medicine, the basics of the human condition and existence. in addition to that, if the criminal state. it's involved in all kinds of
illicit activities, including drug trafficking. 3 million venezuelans have left the country in the last two years, about a million if not more to columbia. it's become a regional problem. it's not an internal situation or a crisis between the united states and venezuela. thats had a ripple effect is of concern to venezuela's neighbors. and you have the issue of human rights, mocker saint, and the , and the democracy severe abuse of power and the way people are being marginalized, thrown into jail, having to leave the country. it's creating a governing crisis in south america that is not only impacting our overall interest, but particularly among the neighbors. venezuela's neighbors have all group, an lima
informal group of governments to put pressure on nicholas maduro. this is not a fight between venezuela and the united states, but the international community has not only joined the united states and in fact it recognizes juan guaido as the legitimate president of venezuela. about 55 governments currently recognize juan guaido as the legend and president of venezuela. is up first, in oklahoma, a democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. understand that it is very much the pattern for the u.s. government and their business allies to put people on various shows to come say things, but the truth of the matter is what's happening in venezuela, which everyone should know one
thing, venezuela is not a socialist country. 80% of their gdp is on free-market operations, capitalism. they just happen to have health care for their people. the truth of the matter is just like in iran and iraq, the u.s. government doesn't like the fact that venezuela, and people don't know this, it has the largest oil reserves on the whole planet. and america did not like when they wanted to nationalize oil because that cuts the american oil infrastructure out of their country. so what did we do? so we created a humanitarian crisis, starving people, just like we did in iraq. now we are going to have warmongers like mike pence go in there, saying he is supporting people who are starving but really he wants the oil. you: mr. mora, i will let respond. could you explain what the latin caribbean center is at fiu?
question,answer the hugo chavez was the predecessor to nicolas maduro, and he mismanaged the economy. the economy has been taking a dive for a number of years. well before the sanctions came into effect. when the oil prices began to decline and the overall management of the economy was highly politicized, really the conditions are largely driven by the policies -- the misguided policies of the venezuelan government. that has accelerated in the last years. you could argue that the sanctions have worsened the situation but things have been going south for a long time. and it's important to reiterate that this is not just the united states sanctioning or calling out maduro for his abuse of power and human rights
violations in starving his people. but the international community. european countries, venezuela's neighbors, who do not support a military intervention in venezuela, but very much support the policy, the overall international policy of isolating and sanctioning nicolas maduro. the latin american and caribbean center in florida international university, i've been a director there for six years. we do a number of academic programs. we have degree programs at the university and we do a lot of research that is policy relevant , in which we engage the policy community, broadly speaking, to leverage our faculty and network of experts to provide support for the pride -- for the private sector, the ngo community, it'sics community, and important academic work we do. host: jim on twitter would like you to speculate on to why there
has not been a civil uprising in venezuela? guest: there is, kind of. the problem is that the government controls all the arms. there is not a civil war and i don't expect there to be a civil war. but i do expect there to be a continued repression. the other side does not have access to arms, it can only fight back with peaceful demonstrations. and it hass done faced repression on the others. conditions for that kind of situation, unless there is a split in the military, where you have two .ides it's unlikely to happen but i suppose it is possible. independents,d from minnesota. good morning. independent, from a soda. caller: i was a vietnam veteran,
please don't thank me for my service, i was a mercenary. john there are two sides to every story, c-span is doing its usual thing, having propagandists like this guy, who has ties to the defense department. he worked for them for a while. that's our international mafia. host: let's let mr. mora respond to that. guest: the gentleman is correct. i worked in the obama administration, i was a political appointee of president obama to serve in the pentagon to the director of the assistant of the western hemisphere. i am proud of what we did there. my commitment has always been, as it was during the obama administration, a commitment to human rights and democracy. i'm a democrat. i have been clear in my opposition to president trump's policy,- foreign although i coincide with some of the things he has done in venezuela.
i'm not a part of the international op be a -- mafia, i'm an academic with the honor and the privilege to serve in my first four years of the obama administration in the department of defense and i have returned to my previous life as an academic. caller: would you like to finish a question -- guest: would you like to finish your question? caller: you need to have a counterbalance. i have a list of people you could have, alan their, tulsa this is about oil, the people who called in the previous segment claiming that it was not about oil, they don't know what they're talking about. ourselves into a war on iraq, now exxon mobil is pumping oil south of baghdad. to, our partner in crime from -- total, our partner in crime
from france is pumping oil, vp -- bp is pumping oil. this is about oil and venezuela has 1% -- we have 1% of the world's oil reserves, venezuela has the top reserves at 10%. you need to look up oil reserves, go to your computers. you will see that i'm right. it's about oil. it's about oil. it's about oil. host: we appreciate your recommendations. mr. mora, is it about oil? guest: no. i would remind your viewers that the united states has become the largest exporter of oil due to fracking and other things. it's part of the reason why the price of oil is so cheap. off, but i think we bring in about 4% or 5% of what we consume from venezuela. the united states does not need venezuela to meet its energy needs. i think, once again, if it was
about oil, the international community, all 55 governments that recognize juan guaido would not be participating in an effort by the united states to steal venezuelan oil. i think that's an important point to make. i think for me, it would be about what is happened in that country over the last 20 years. it's been tragic in many ways. i support some of the things the president have done -- has done. i do not support, as it was announced yesterday, at the lima governments recognizing juan guaido also do not support military intervention. i identify with that. i think the policy of international press or debt pressure, diplomatic pressure and isolation is the right way to go.
i would recommend to the administration that they stop with the bombastic rhetoric that i have often heard. the high-stakes hawkish rhetoric that i think is counterproductive to what i think is necessary, which is a steady process, a steady, patient process allowing the venezuelan people to do what is necessary for them to determine their own future. this should not be about the united states. it should be about the venezuelan people and what they need to do to make the change necessary. host: does juan guaido want international military intervention? guest: that's an interesting question. he sent a tweet on sunday, before the meeting of those regional governments. he seems to suggest that that needed to be an option. i was pleased, personally, to see that the governments of the group, including the vice president of the united states, was not willing to go there. though the u.s. government
continues to use the phrase all military options are on the table. the joint statement from the group was pretty clear, and the individual governments have said that the only solution to the venezuelan crisis is a peaceful one. and they would not support any kind of military intervention in venezuela as a weight of solve -- as a way to solve the problem. host: a tweet from elvin saying that the people voted for socialist maduro but they want to s to replace and which will definitely lead to a civil war like afghanistan, are you concerned about a civil war? not concerned. i'm more concerned about the humanitarian crisis and the repression we see, and the uncertainty that we see in the country. but i don't see the possibility -- the country is not divided ethnically in the way that afghanistan is.
these are very different conditions. in the case of afghanistan, we to invade, and we continue be involved. i think that would be the wrong way forward in venezuela. i think there is a current path of isolation and pressure which is the right one with the venezuelan people in the international communities. one of our callers wants to know about russian intervention in venezuela. can you speak to that? guest: the russian government is one of the few governments that continues to openly recognize and support the dictatorship of nicolas maduro. they have provided quite a bit of support in the past, some time ago they provided a military agreement or i should say sold military equipment. they made investments in the energy sector. the venezuelan government owes --te a bit of money to than
owes quite a bit of money, much more than to the chinese. i think the russians see venezuela as an opportunity to poke the united states and create more disruption. that seems to be the overall policy approach of the russian government. there were rumors, i have not confirmed this, that the russians are operating some level of security to nicolas maduro. i cannot verify that. at the end i think the russian support is not what is going to decide the future of venezuela. i don't think they are that important. in the russian concept, at the end of the day, this will be decided by the people. left, ifut 15 minutes you have questions about the crisis in venezuela, now would be a good time to call in. for republicans (202) 748-8001, for democrats (202) 748-8000, for independents (202) 748-8002. sharon, in arlington, a democrat. caller: i wonder if it's
possible to drop humanity and area -- mandatory and aid biplane. --by plane. guest: you could do that, but when the aid it drops to the government would then take control of that. thewhat we have seen from venezuelan government is that the resources they distribute tend to be politicized. so if you are a supporter of nicholas maduro you get more access to available resources and humanitarian aid. and those who continue opposed -- then as she meant hearing aid, then those who oppose the dictatorship. there was an effort to bring trucks through the colombian-venezuelan border on saturday. tragically,y, and the venezuelan government impeded that and burned the cargo in some of the trucks that
were trying to come into venezuela. it is a logistical challenge, it is a security challenge to bring that kind of aid to the country. particularly if you were to drop it in. and the question would then be who is responsible for disturbing it? host: george, in texas, a republican. romanian, not russian. i hear this gentleman talking -- they're trying to shift in venezuela about this guy. they say that venezuela is a socialist country, or a bit more communist. part ofthis guy is a
the conspiracy against venezuelan people. this guy, there was another caller, a vietnam veteran, exposing some of the details of this conspiracy. host: george, we heard the other caller, esther mora, i will give you a chance to respond. -- mr. mora, i will give you a chance to respond. guest: i don't believe in conspiracy, i thing to situation speaks for itself. i think the conditions are clear to see, and it's worth repeating that this is not an effort simply from the united states. the united states is joined by a number of other governments. even some governments who have opposed u.s. call -- u.s. policy for some time, which i think is important. , i don't workier for an oil company. teaches,fessor, who
and democrat at that. recognize the humanitarian crisis and the total abuse of power that is , and the in venezuela conditions in which venezuelans live. and there are these worthy and deserving of our support. i think that is why i generally support this policy of isolating and pressuring the regime as long as it is a multinational effort, as we are seeing. host: you talked about the background of juan guaido, can you talk about nicolas maduro and his relationship to hugo chavez? during hugo chavez's government, he was elected in 1998, he took office in 1999 and served as president until he in 2013.ay from cancer
nicolas maduro had served in several positions, including in the national assembly. the last position he served before hugo chavez fell ill was as foreign minister of venezuela. which he served for a while. and ultimately vice president before he took office as president of venezuela. upon hugo chavez's death. in brookville, maryland, an independent, good morning. respect, it all due is hard to believe this crisis does not have big oil all over it. this crisis is 20 years in the making and the isolation of thesure is what caused humanitarian crisis. that is my comment.
my question is, do you know of some deal the juan guaido government has made with big oil? my understanding is there has already been some deal made that control, hedo takes is going to start contracts with big oil. thank you. guest: it is the first time i have heard of that and i follow events closely. i cannot verify that agreement. in terms of sanctions, just a little history. it was president obama who begin -- begin sanction individuals in the venezuelan government, many involved in job trafficking. president obama did not impose overall sanctions but by then the economy of venezuela was taking and deterring. under present to
see more comprehensive sanctions. by then, you see inflation rates , nothing we have ever seen in the western hemisphere. it is important viewers understand the sequence of events and sanctions. the sanctions are not -- did not produce the humanitarian crisis. the deepening of the sanctions occurred with president trump and by then the situation has become dire. talked about the history of foreign agent from the united states to venezuela and the region. this is where it stands. the administration pledged $56 million in aid to support merely 3.4 million venezuelans who fled the country on top of usaid sitting along the colombian and , to $195 borders million.
that is $152 million in humanitarian aid. yes.: in the last month, the effort on the part of the united states and the international community is to focus attention on trying to help the situation, the crisisy and humanitarian . all eight has been focused on that. it has been sitting on the sidelines because there was no way of getting this aid into the country. host: what was happening to usaid before now? were we giving the nicolas 2015o government eight in -- aid in 2015? guest: no. the u.s. aid office have been closed by the shop as government. i do not have a date when that
occurred but it has been a while since usaid has been operating the way it does in other countries in venezuela. have frank mora with us. carl in massachusetts, a democrat. caller: thank you for c-span. i saw on alternative media that nicolas maduro is welcoming humanitarian aid from the red cross but is skeptical of getting aid from the united states because he figures they are smuggling arms. i have a follow-up question. talk fromre was -- nicolas maduro he would work with the red cross but nothing came of that. the only government i have heard
that has provided or said it would provide is the russians were going to send humanitarian aid but i do not believe that has arrived. has been no aid that has gotten into the country. caller: i want to throw something out there, food for thought. how would people feel if a foreign entity tried to depose one of our presidents and unknown --elatively the most people do not even know who he was. to me that is interference. i would like your comment. inter-american system, the governing international system of the western hemisphere does allow for the international community
to take actions against governments that are reviewed by the organization of the american states, which is the regional organization similar to the united states and's -- nations but functions in the western hemisphere. governments have viewed and decided nicolas maduro because of the way he has abused power, the breakdown of the rule of law, the lack of fair elections, etc. have decided as a group that nicolas maduro is not the legitimate government of venezuela. it is the right to help the it is theireople -- right to help the venezuelan people. they are doing it by sticking to legal international standards.
there is no arbitrariness. ,gain it has been sanctioned supported by the group of lima and governments in the european union. host: what has juan guaido promised if he is able to take power? guest: under the constitution, if he takes office, he is supposed to call elections in 30 days. if the presidency is vacant, he takes over for 30 days. he holds elections. organs not control the of power. he has no way of holding elections under current conditions. the decision has been made it is only when he is able to exercise power and control that he can hold elections. president until elections are held according to the constitution. host: how long would you expect that to take? guest: it is hard to say.
this can be drawn out. thinkdifficult for me to this sustained effort, nicolas maduro and the insulation this can continue. he has been shown to be resilient. been shown to be resilient so it is difficult under uncertainty conditions -- uncertain conditions to say when this will and and how far it will go. we will see in the days and weeks when the sanctions from the united states begin to bite. in oklahoma, a republican. guest: we republicans fear socialism and big government, and venezuela is a perfect example. republicans support gun control because government takes guns away before they take over the
people. venezuela is an example. i am surprised you admit you are a democrat and support democrat policies, which are socialist policies. big government is the danger and we should all teach our kids about the failure of socialism and anybody that preaches. gun: on your issue about control, a major vote coming up in the house on universal back -- background checks. is there anything you wanted to touch on? guest: the problems in venezuela is economic policy. some were socialist, some were not. the problem is it is a dictatorship. it is the question of whether it was a democracy or dictatorship. this dictatorship abused not
only is people but the economy. it has little to do with this concept of socialism although some of its policies, one could describe them as socialist and ineffective. at the end of the day, it was a that wasleptocracy committed to destroying the rule of law. they are allowing the problem in venezuela. fundamentally, those in power refused to allow opposition and others to participate in the political process. that is what has caused where we are today. buck on twitter, who asked is there ever a time when the u.s. should intervene militarily, whether venezuela
posts sufficient harm to the americasates or the that military action should be considered? that is a broad hypothetical but i do not see --te military intervention why military intervention is justified in venezuela. i understand the suffering but andith be counterproductive make things worse if we had a military intervention. what does not to say we should not continue to -- supporting the venezuelan people along with the international community. the solution to every problem should not be military intervention and we should work through global institutions. we should work with partners to help the venezuelan people determine their future. they are not able to do that at the moment but a military intervention is not the answer --ause the question becomes who manages the country and the
media postinvasion? there is a host of unintended consequences that can come from a military intervention and as i said, it would be counterproductive. host: matthew, thanks for waiting in new jersey. independent. caller: good morning. it is sad. the democrats supporting socialism. president trump and pence are doing the right thing because these people are not only starving to death but being denied medicine and medical care. some venezuelan people are eating their pets it has been reported, to survive. it is sad the democratic politicians and their fake news media are actually ignoring this
problem or in fact supporting the socialist disaster that is terrorizing and starving its people. it is pathetic. to correct, it is thertant your viewers know democratic party and leadership has been very supportive of president trump's policies with respect to supporting juan guaido, supporting the sanctions. nancy pelosi, chuck schumer, a host of democratic leaders at a time when we do not see much bipartisan support about anything, on the issue of venezuela you do see quite a bit of bipartisan support and consensus for the current policies. there were a few in the party who do not agree with that but it is important for the viewers
to understand the party leadership is aligned with supporting the venezuelan people and understand the suffering has and the party is committed to working with the lima group and the international community to bring that about. host: frank mora is the director of the latin center at florida university. find him online. we appreciate your time. one note for our viewers as we are talking international issues, president trump arrived in vietnam for the second summit with kim jong-un. kim jong-un already on the ground. he traveled by train to get there. some reporters from 40 nations covering this second summit
between president trump and kim jong-un. it gets underway today and we will can -- and will continue the next few days. we will discuss more of president trump's policies, particularly his order emergency declaration. next, we will be right back. the only thing we have to fear is fear itself. >> ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country. >> the people who knocked these .uildings down c-span's netlist book, the president's, provides insights into the lives of the
44 american presidents. presidential historians, explore the life events that shaped our leaders, challenges they faced and the legacies left behind. published by public affairs, c-span's the presidents will be april 23. preorder your copy at c-span.org/the presidents or wherever books are sold. c-span, where history unfolds. in 1979, c-span was created eddie -- as a public service. we continue to bring you unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court, and public policy events in washington, d.c. and around the country.
c-span is brought to you by your cable or satellite provider. texas lawersity of professor stephen vladeck joins us today. so much of the focus over the past 11 days has been on whether what is happening on the southern border is a true emergency. who gets to decide the definition? guest: it starts with the president. the national emergency act of 1976 to's not defined the term. congress recognized it would not be able to predict in advance all the circumstances that might resortinge president to special standby authorities he only gets to use in times of war and national emergency but there are mechanisms for others to weigh in. the house is going to vote on .ts termination resolutions this is built into the national emergency act. it is a way for congress to
disapprove and terminate a national emergency. it might get out of the senate. president trump said he is going to veto it. proof inere are veto the houses, it will shift to the courts. host: is there precedent for second-guessing the president whether by this mechanism on the legislative branch or through the courts? guest: we are in uncharted territory. the national emergency act has been on the books for 43 years. there have been 50 national emergencies declared. there has never been this kind of controversy, in part because the emergencies declared in the past whether we all agree they are emergencies were situations congress meant for the president to utilize. we have never seen one like this
one where the president declared a national emergency after negotiating with congress, after congress failed or refused to provide him with everything he wanted so he goes to plan b. that is why it is controversy. host: can you roundup the lawsuits filed over the emergency declaration and the major arguments? guest: the big ones are, there is one led by california. there was one drop by public citizen. we are seeing three levels of arguments so the top level is where you started. is this an emergency in the first place? the national emergencies act contemplated the president's authority. the second argument and to me the one that had -- might have more teeth is about the authority the president has claimed he can utilize.
allows fore statute the repurposing of military during aion funds national emergency for the use of the armed forces. that is the money he is trying to get access to. revolutioning to be over whether that is properly deployed. we have got landowners who are going to argue the government cannot take their property under this plan without violating their rights under the constitution. come back to that second argument and why you think that has more teeth than what we are going to see on the floor today, the argument of whether this fits the definition of an emergency. guest: it is a great illustration of the difference between medical questions and legal questions. congressman to use the termination mechanism. what we are going to see on the floor of the house as the principal way of constraining,
the middle argument about the military construction statute is something courts will be more comfortable with because instead of having to second-guess a president's the actual determination about a term not defined in the statute, the military constructs a statute is very specific about what he should be accomplishing. if a private party can say to a court, he is using this money to build a wall that has nothing to do with the military and everything to do with customs in border protection, the argument could stick. joining us from austin, a professor at the university of texas. with us until the house comes in at 10:00, we expect them to gavilan at 10:00 when congress is in session. we will do -- we will take our discussion. republicans, 202-748-8000
--202-748-8001. democrats, 202-748-8000. , 202-748-8002. why are non-border states allowed to sue over a declaration of emergency at the border? guest: the short answer is if they were suing by themselves, they would have trouble. in the federal courts, all you need is one to have stand in so in california. we have seen of them the other direction where ef -- where we have had red states sue the obama administration over immigration policies when those states have small immigrant populations. we are seeing more of this signaling through lawsuit. what is important is you also also newer states,
mexico is thinking about coming on board. walter, butler indiana. republican. caller: the whole issue is mind-boggling to think when you --ereect -- walls erect walls will say it is immoral. our society is changing over the last 50 years. there is going to be changes with robotics. low skilled manual labor is going down. you have people that do not bring anything to society, all they are going to do is beyond the realm where -- welfare ranks and destroyed infrastructure as far as safety nets. when they say the statue of liberty say they take your tired, they fail to say the last
four words. there is a frame and a lock. theave to come to realization we have people pouring across the border that do not speak english, that do not have skills in mud they are going to be a burden on society and that is the fault of the republicans and democrats. why do they not have automatic e-verify -- but: we lost the caller more of a statement than a question, but it there anything you want to take? guest: a lot of politicking and rhetoric is unhelpful on both sides. the accusation the democrats borders isne open belied by history. if you have a finite amount of money you can devote to security , what is the best way to spend it? is the best way to spend it on a wall that is not effective?
we have seen data on the percentage of the drugs coming through ports of entry as opposed to unguarded parts of the border. we are seeking rhetoric on both --es that makes the debate what is the best use of money to ramp up our border security, to ensure our laws are being enforced? it is a common misconception. it is not the case that someone who enters the point of entry has no right to be here once they enter. we have a file amaga says if you are entitled to a filing, it does not -- asylum, it does not matter where you enter. the key is to see the nuance in this conversation as opposed to the politics both sides are trying to do. host: virginia, independent. caller: there was one right that separates us from postmodern feudalism and that is the individual right of property ownership. they are writing language now
the justircumventing compensation clause of the fifth amendment. look at it. finish the wall. that is the only thing keeping is from finishing the wall, drawing individual property owners into a group in order to arbitrate with them as a group. they are going to draw those individual property owners into a group, forcing them to arbitrate and they will rights language so property developers will be able to draw individual property owners into groups. anywhere in the country, that is the next job of the new supreme court. host: this comes with that third argument4 you are talking about
of property ownership before the border. guest: i am not sure we are going to sue with the color described. the constitution is clear individuals with private property have a right to a remedy in the context the government is taking property without compensation. been seekinghave litigation under the security offenses act. they have got this ball rolling 13 years ago that is ongoing. it takes time when the government is trying to build. we have a strong tradition of property in this country. one place the president might have this calculated the base is there are libertarians who support the current president who value their property rights and see part of what the president is proposing. host: how far along other legal
challenges and what has been court said? guest: we are going one parcel of land at a time. some made progress. some are mired in early litigation. if we see the president go all the way and start trying to see , it is safeproperty to predict that is going to become mired in litigation for better or worse. this is not a short-term quick fix but something the president once to see through. it is going to take years, not months. host: might want to take a look at today's op-ed page of usa today. trump wants to build a wall in wall --ard, writing my to me and my family construction of a border wall is personal.
thomas, maryland, democrats. guest: good morning. like you said, about the property and you know the supreme court ruled on a law that is not the same thing but deals with personal property the government takes. border problem, the wall and not solve it and it is borderline race supremacy. if you look at the history of the united states, they have .aken from the ambulance they took blacks as slaves and that is a form of white supremacy no one is addressing and you do not hear black political voices being
interjected in the conversation. i am curious about that. that is a side issue. what you have is on point by saying the wall and the reason is notnce the wall valid. can you get a group of white supremacists to go against another white supremacist is the valid question? the point about the supreme court is an important one. this is it for that have gotten more conservative especially with the confirmation of justice kavanaugh. the one place where this court isgoing to be aggressive where you are going to see a coalition between the more progressive justices and , when itive justices comes to property. when president trump predicted during his press conference when
they discussed the supreme court, he is going to win, he would not be so confident. that is going to bother lawyers from both sides of the spectrum that anyone who can predict how this litigation is going to and is seldom. about 30 minutes before the house is expected to gavel. taking your calls, but professor since we are talking about the supreme court, perhaps you can explain this headline. the supreme court vacates decision by a dead judge. one.: this is a quirky the non-circuit, the federal appeals court for the west coast had a situation where they had decisions that had been finished up, sent to the printer ready to go and one of the judges participated in those decisions kept away between the twin.
it was published. was the swing vote. the supreme court yesterday said no. they are appointed for life, not eternity. ashave judges who can vote long as they are on the bench. that means up until the point the decision is handed down. the vote has to be still good. the disc -- the data decision comes out. courts profession, we look at that. host: was it one justice who wrote that opinion about life? was used for the court. that is speculation agree with them. it sounds like she stresses roberts. justices are appointed during which means there
are other potential strengths -- constraints on how they can be there. lot has been in the news a since gorsuch and kavanaugh. host: the court expanded its authority? guest: it was a good line that blurred the federal courts professors. fewer calls, david, albuquerque new mexico, republican. a lot of the property , rio grande. i am from texas and a lot of drug dealers and landowners will not tell you but they are letting all these drug dealers going to the property so they
can pay them and get away with it. though, theere democrats are against everything good. abortion, unemployment, you know? the democrats want big government. as much as they want to put in for venezuela, they do not want to put one finger here to help out american people that are really patriots. it is all about patriotism. host: what do you think should happen along the border? do you want to see a wall from sea to shining sea? ridiculous. is the democratic party's are putting excuses. it only needs to be where they can block off everybody coming
in and you know there are openings along the border. someway these people who have old properties are involved with what a lot of people do. host: the president saying he wants strategic walls. he has backed off on a wall from sea to shining sea. professor, what do you pick up on that? caller: the most important -- guest: the most important point suggests an overwhelming majority coming into this country and being intercepted coming to ports of entry. the concern, which everyone shares is about trying to invent the flow of drugs this country. most of that is happening at north of entry. nothing president trump is talking about is about bolstering points -- sports of
entry. all the folks are trying to blame democrats. the president had two years where he had a house of representatives controlled by republicans. one would think if this was that much of a priority, he might .ave tried to pursue it then as opposed to waiting until the democrats are in charge of the house. convenient to say -- to convenient to say this is about democrats. there is a complicated conversation on how best to respond to security borders and whether a wall is the way to do that or if this is an effective response. stephen,california, independent. caller: i wish people who keep getting false data commit fewer crimes -- that is false.
peoplesing numbers about and that is against the law. wallemocrats do not want a because they want democrats coming in. knows because there is no way anybody checks anything? is democrats -- host: professor? isst: to my last point, it too easy to say it is the democrats fault. the republicans had control of congress and the white house for two years i did not get anything done on this front. the answer is it is more complicated than the republicans want x and the democrats want why. .- y
there is data out there. it has not been interested. relative crime rates. that is not a justification or being relatively more tolerant of undocumented immigrants. it is a point we ought to not given to the talking points when it comes to this conversation and a stick to the nuanced question of, what is the most efficient way to ensure that we are prioritizing the right things when it comes to border security? host: i want to talk about your expected legal routes for lawsuits about the border emergency declaration. jeff brought it up and we heard president trump talk about it as well. we got sued in the ninth circuit court. jeff will get another that ruling ended in the been another and up in the-- supreme court. is that your expectation? have seen lawsuits
filed in multiple parts of the country but not limited to the ninth circuit. in washington, d.c., which provoked bazaar objections those were suing. circuit's track record is not different from any other appeals in the country. the only difference is the ninth circuit is bigger. the overall absolute numbers are higher but by percentage, he did just as well as supreme court. it regards as challenges to president trump's emergency declaration. we are going to see them in washington. we are going to see them in texas, maybe new mexico and arizona. folks should not get too worked the president's ragged -- rhetoric.
host: what is your view on form shopping and is there any effort to rein in that? guest: form shopping happens. the president is fond of accusing democrats of foreign shopping. republicans do it too. challenges-profile to what we might think of as progressive policies in texas. for the obvious reason the federal appeals court is more conservative, perhaps one of the most conservative courts in the country, the limits are on foreign shopping. by requiring the underlying to have some nexis, but we are talking about these nationwide policies or at least in the case
of the border some of these multistate policies. it is inevitable plaintiffs are going to have options and any effort to constrain options is going to produce a more mischief than it is going to solve. host: maisel is an l.a. republican. caller: the caller from maryland had it twisted because the 14th amendment was drafted and that nativetated like americans who have been in the country for generations and who are the descendents of slaves are to be protected against the democratic party and that was changed. the republican party was taxed and they abrogated that responsibility compromised. is to protectment the descendents of slaves. we have had high immigration and now we have a legal aliens.
the black caller in maryland has no idea what he is talking about. black americans have become a permanent underclass. 80% of theens have construction jobs and trade jobs. there is a 14th amendment violation here. it is unconstitutional to have black americans relegated to a permanent undercut. maybe they are not in maryland, but they are in los angeles. host: let's focus on that for a second. guest: there is no question the 14th amendment was motivated out of an obvious desire to confer protections. those who had been mistreated believed to have been descendents of slaves. that is true. the court requires vis-a-vis immigration, that is a tricky question.
the fourth amendment guarantees citizenship for anyone born into the united states that is not a native american on a reservation or child of a diplomat. that includes folks out of immigration status who have a child in the united states. the supreme court has all but said this is the proper understanding. the intersection between racial discrimination of this country and between unlawful immigration is complicated, but i am not sure it reduces to a soundbite about the 14th amendment prohibiting what is happening at the border. host: some of the same issues but a different news item especially when it comes to who are the children of diplomats6? -- diplomats? mussqan is one of the so-called isis rides who marry
someone fighting on behalf of isis, provided support to isis, is now in detention somewhere in eastern syria and want to come back to the united states, which was all last week. pretty loud statements by mike pompeo and president trump on twitter, including she is not a citizen and therefore cannot come home. this is complicated and her case . everyone agrees she was born in the united states and new jersey. her father had been a give up -- a diplomat posted to the united nations. he was no longer working with the u.n. what you was bought -- born. she was a citizen of the time of her birth. this is a technical question about the fact of her case. there is a larger conversation about the other americans who win over to syria who were not
necessarily fight if. way tothere in some support isis, women to -- who win over to marry men passing -- fighting on behalf of isis. idiosyncrasies are harding -- hiding the harder policy question. host: president trump last week saying mike pompeo, and he fully agrees not to allow -- back in the country. question, does the constitution protect those seeking asylum? constitution -- it is a messy question. the supreme court said individuals who are seeking asylum where congress has -- has some modem of due process rights when it comes to challenging adverse asylum
determinations. the tricky part is when you have folks that just enter the country or who are stopped at the border some of the government argued successfully the constitution does not apply so much of the fighting we are seeing in the asylum cases and there is a big case now in california challenging president trump's asylum ban. the issue is not the constitution. -- tocongress has created apply for asylum on the part of undocumented immigrant even if they do not protect themselves at the port of entry. even if they overstate their visa, the circumstances with which they leave the u.s. we have seen that job administration pushed back order.ively an executive we have already seen one court in california enjoying that job administration policy.
we have not heard the last word in that case but the fighting has been more of the statute and what congress has provided. left till 10 minutes the house comes in today. we will take you there. us ton vladeck joining talk about president trump's emergency declaration. yesterday, came out nearly 60 prominent officials released a statement challenging president trump's decision. by madeleineed albright, chuck hagel and leon fromta as well as some republican in the station, including thomas pickering. , we are getting your thoughts, your questions.
buddy in alabama, a democrat. guest: i wanted to talk to you about the border cross. the wall is necessary. it -- if they can stop people from coming over here. it was up you from this property if that wall was stopped, it will not be long before there will be no such security because all of the .eople that has come our government is not equipped to take your of all these people. who live here, the young people who lived here, pay social security and the government do not know about those people. host: can i ask you a question on concerns? when it comes to asylum seekers, when they come through points --
ports of entry, do you think it should have a hearing if they entered that way? if they had been accosted before they came across the line and say the right things, because all those people are not asylum seekers and it is not for people just working jobs if people in jobs are under threat. you proposeuld separating one from the other and determining who is a true silent figure? guest: we must be allowed to to question people just caller: we must be allowed to question people. that is what the law is so important. that is -- if that is true, congress ought to rewrite the law. there is a disconnect between what the united states policy has been with respect to an
asylum going back decades and what the president did not just -- with the wall but executive order on of violence. this is a worthwhile conversation to have about what our asylum policy should be. it is a good argument congress has spoken and the president is acting what congress has said. we want to get to a point where ports of entry are the only place where individuals can apply for an asylum. that has to come from congress in the first instance. host: a hearing today on capitol hill you can watch on c-span.org at 10:00, coming up in 10 minutes. house judiciary committee holding a hearing on the trump administration's family separation policies. that gets underway. sheila is waiting in florida, a republican. guest: did more -- caller: good morning. i wanted to ask why we senior
barelys, i am disabled get by and we are still trying to get as many people in this country as we can. so i, my son-in-law to be, am not prejudiced. i have worked my life and now my husband and i scramble to pay -- a way to so many people. i do have a heart. i am christian. we do have to take care of our own. host: is it illegal immigration you are concerned about or legal immigration as well? but i do believe we need a wall. people should come in the legal way and i do believe that the democrats are drying -- are dying to get anyone here so they
can control this country. need do you think we limits on illegal immigration or are you fine with the system? immigration, if they go through the steps, yes. people that overstate their visa, i am sorry. they need to go. host: professor? we oughtere are myths to clean up. if you are an undocumented immigrant, you are not receiving federal or state benefits. insofar as there is a limited and of benefits, medicaid so one. the wall is supposed to keep him out. there is a conversation about whether we have underfunded medicare and medicaid. that is not this. with regards to the claim immigrants want more people in the country, i do not want to say other than that does not
make sense from the perspective of immigrants, whether documented or undocumented are not allowed to vote in federal elections, it does not necessarily follow that simply ,y allowing more immigration any process towards texas. the majority of immigrants documented or undocumented, the more political power texas has. you do not find anyone pointing that out. complicatedre conversation. it is not so easy as democrats once opened borders and unlimited immigration wants national security. it is to easy to follow to the characters we are seeing in the media. next, andy is up independent. caller: i am in texas, the oldest city in texas.
where are you from? in new york but i teach in austin, texas. guest: all these people from other states -- all these people from other states, keep your california attitude in california. i can take you to stretches on that highway ride in my beloved and all the other people who think we do not need a wall, i can take you and drop you off and by morning, you would be begging for that wall to come because those people coming through their will take your hat off just to get your parrot shoes. -- pair of shoes. guest: i love empty threats. it is worth pointing out the support for the border wall from those who live along the border
in texas is weak. even though i am not from california, let's talk about president trump. is the bordernt wall is a metaphor for a broader conversation in the president has turned it into an actual thing where if you are against it, you must be against border security and that is not true. let's talk about how to effectively spend money on the parts of an -- immigration we can control. say you are not qualified to speak about the matter is not helping the conversation. host: i want to let c-span viewers know what is happening on to spend another networks as well. a busy day on capitol hill. it will go to the house live at 10:00 a.m. once that in scum a we are planning to take you to the senate banking committee hearing with federal reserve chairman
jerome powell. it gets underway at 10:00. when the house finishes their business, we will take you there. also, the senate finance gets underway at 10:15 this morning on c-span3. c-span.org, you can listen to that hearing on the free radio app. just a couple clause -- a couple calls with stephen vladeck. i and a democrat and i do not want hordes of people coming to this country who do not belong, but i see things that make me wonder about policies. i understand there are 300,000 cases to be heard and yet we do not have enough money for immigration courts. , we have a person
granted asylum twice by the courts and was sent by ice to remain in jail for two years. in a jail that had not been used payinguntil ice started $70 a day to walk up people here. do? do we what does i have to say about people who have been granted asylum in the court and are still in jail? host: professor? guest: that is the point i have been trying to make, which is there are important conversations as to how we might better spent the same amount of money to improve immigration, to hire more immigration judges. clear the backlog of cases. degree,ing to a higher some of these agencies are things we ought to have about a
long side. immigration is this country is .ot just a question across the southern border, there are ways folks come in to the country lawfully or otherwise. the president has hijacked the conversation across the aisle, who had common ground on how to solve problems. the rhetoric is so hysterical it is impossible to have that new west conversation about a way oneard that is not just side winning and the other side losing. at yourke a stab thoughts on what is going to happen with the legislative after it blocks the president's emergency declaration. that voting is going to take place in the house today. let's share about what happened -- will happen in the senate. guest: the way the act works, if
the house passes this privileged revolution to determinate -- determine emergency. you do not have to go to the senate. i do not know what the photo going to be in the senate. filibusterable. it goes to the president's d esk. it will be interesting to see if he carries on his word. i doubt there are both in either house to override the president. you need to third of both houses. members of the house would be 67 senators. it would be important to get records one way or another, whether they are willing to support or try to stop this natural emergency. stephen vladeck is with the university of texas.
we always appreciate your time. thank you. guest: thanks for having me. host: that is going to do it for the washington journal today. we take you live to the house of the 4 -- four of representatives. at 4:00 a.m. pacific. theuse a commicion froth speaker. e clerk:epeakr'ros, waingt d -- fary 2 2019. i hereby aoint tonab spr prtemporons signed ncy posi, speak of the house the speakeprmpore: urant to the ord othe ho of ua, the chairlow regne mbe fromlistsuted by ers r ing hour date