tv Washington Journal 04032019 CSPAN April 3, 2019 9:03am-10:03am EDT
speaker and those immediately to his left and right will be open. no one will be allowed on the floor of the house who does not have the privilege of the floor of the house. due to the large attendance that is anticipated, the rule regarding the privilege of the floor must be strictly enforced. children of members will not be permitted on the floor. the cooperation of all members is requested. practice of reserving seats prior to the joint meeting by placard will not be allowed. members may reserve their seats by physical presence only following the security sweep of the chamber. pursuant to the order of the house of thursday, march 28, 2019, the house stands in recess subject to the call of the chair.
world70 years later, in a where the threats have changed, what is the case for nato today? in some ways, it's the same as it was in 1948 when we first started talking about nato when the treaty was signed. a fundamental belief in the united states and among europeans that the best way to the europeannd continent, a content that had four decades, indeed centuries, seen war and conflict, including two devastating world wars, that
the best way to avoid conflict in the area is for the united states to be engaged in europe's and to encourage european countries to work together to resolve differences through dialogue and diplomacy rather than the force of arms. it has been in the last 70 years the most successful alliance in --tory, which has present prevented the return of war on a continent that, as i have said,'s has seen its fair share of it. host: when it comes to the mission of nato today is it more defending territory or defending the interests of its member countries wherever those interests are threatened? in some fundamental ways it's more about defensive territory. article five of the nato treaty, the collective defense provision that says an armed attack against one will be seen as an armed attack against all is
about the use of force against an ally. the use of force can be different. it doesn't have to be tanks rolling over the border. it can be, as it was on september 11, 2001, airplanes being flown into buildings. indeed, it was on september 12, 2001, that nato for its first and only time invoked article five, the collective defense provision for defending the united states. but it is linked to an armed attack when it comes to the question of collective security. that said, the 29 and soon 30 countries that make up nato today together represent the largest military, largest democratic, and largest economic lock the world. and as a result, it is the weight of that capacity that exists among the nato allies that will allow its to have a say in what happens around the
world and to defend the interests of all of its members by providing for peace and security in the north atlantic and perhaps other areas. indeed, nato has been involved in afghanistan since 2003. the nato mission in afghanistan today is a mission to which the u.s. contributes about half of and europeans and other allies contribute to cap. haveime nato's interest expanded beyond the immediate territory of the alliance to concern itself with the security and stability of the periphery and indeed, beyond the periphery of the north atlantic area. is a formeralder ambassador to nato. we are talking about nato for the next 30 minutes or so this morning. if you want to join the conversation, for minds are open. republicans, it's (202) 748-8001 . democrats, (202) 748-8000. .ndependents, (202) 748-8002
we'd like to point viewers to this headline from "the ."shington post "nato's biggest problem is trump." written by two former ambassadors from before and .fter your time today in their op ed they write that nato is still the world's strongest military alliance but the single greatest danger is the absence of strong principled american leadership for the first time in history. what do you make of that assessment? guest: well, i share nick and doug passed unique assessment of the scituate -- assessment of the situation. we are in a unique us -- a unique situation. we have an alliance that has responded strongly against a reemergence from a threat in the east in the aftermath of the russian invasion of ukraine and
the annexation of crimea. nato has stood up and put its forces into eastern europe, bolstered its presence in baltic airspace ofross the baltic countries, deploying troops into norway that hadn't been there since the end of the cold war. and in general has increased spending on defense and bolstered its defense and deterrence capability. , thes a positive element united states under the trump administration has significantly contributed to those efforts. but we are seeing something quite new, quite unique, a president that doesn't look at nato is a central part of american national security strategy. that is a change from the 13 presidents that came before him. since harry s truman was president and signed -- oversaw the signing of the north
atlantic treaty back in april 4, 1949, every president has seen obama put it, as a cornerstone for american engagement in the world. that we have strong, capable allies in europe who are not only there to help defend their own territory and interests, but are there to help defend the global interests of the united states and of these countries themselves. the u.s. has consistently over those seven years believed that if they lead in nato, that if they were present and helped nato to achieve its objectives, whether it was in terms of defense, in terms of arms control or diplomacy and dialogue with other countries around the world, that that would not only serve american interests but make the world a better and safer place. donald trump does not see nato in that fashion. he has look at it as a coalition
of states where the only measure that matters is who spends what on defense and if countries do not spend enough on defense, they are not worth being allies. there is no interest beyond what we spend on defense. he has called nato obsolete. he did so repeatedly during the campaign and after he was elected. he refused for many months to endorse article five, the fundamental collective defense provision. and he has called into question whether the united states should remain a member of nato. so in that sense i think my , as they aregues right to point out, we are entering a new era. i should add that this is only a perspective that i think is held by the president. held by other members of his administration. indeed, secretary mattis
resigned over a difference over this. it's not held by members of congress, who have voted overwhelmingly and repeatedly for nato. and it's not held by the american public. the council of global affairs has done opinion polling and support for nato today is that a higher level than it has been for the last 44 years. if you want to join the conversation this morning, republicans, (202) 748-8001, democrats, (202) 748-8000, .ndependents, (202) 748-8002 it's the secretary general of nato that will be addressing a joint meeting of congress today at 11:00 and you can watch it here on c-span. he met with president trump yesterday in the oval office and president trump talked about the issue of nato member defense and how the relationship is with nato under his administration. [video clip]
flax seven of the 28 countries are currently current and the rest are trying to catch up and they will catch up. some of them have no problems because they haven't been paying and they are very rich. but we are looking at the 2% of gdp level and at some point i think it's going to have to go higher than that. i think probably it should be level ofut we are at a seven out of 28 and the united states pays for a very big share a disproportionate share, but the relationship with nato has been very good. the relationship with the secretary-general has been outstanding and i think that tremendous progress has been made. if you look -- in fact you showed me this original yourself . if you look at the charts and the different things and go back 10, 15 years, it's a roller coaster ride down in terms of payment and since i came to office it's a rocket ship up. we have picked up over $140 billion in additional money and
it looks like we will have another 100 ilion more in spending by the nations, by the 28 nations we are going to have and that's exclusive of the united states. we will have another $100 a littleore by 2020 or bit into 2020. tremendous progress has been made and nato is much stronger because of that progress. mr. secretary general, is a great honor to have you with us at the white house today. host: and joining us on the washington journal this morning is ivo daalder, the former u.s. ambassador to nato and the co-author of the book "the empty throne, u.s. abdication of global leadership." add has been waiting to chat with you from meadowlands, pennsylvania, a republican. ed, you are up first. guest: caller: -- good morning -- caller: good morning. appreciate the author's point of view.
i appreciate the book and the inspector general's comments and i have to admit that i fully agree with him. as americans we seem to be abdicating our responsibility. we have some of the largest gdp in the world, even if there are deficits and all the rest. theave been known as world's peacekeeper. if we are willing to give that up in the manner in which our guest is speaking, there will be a major reshuffling that may not make america great again. that's all i have to say, thank you. guest: we agree. i think the united states has played an extraordinary role in maintaining global peace and years.y for the last 70 it was after world war ii that the u.s. decided it needed to be engaged in the world to prevent the recurrence of the kinds of devastation and economic in theion that we saw
first half of the 20th century. that wiselyto that the united states decided that the best way it could do so was by having strong allies strong alliances. one of the great elect -- hasntages the united states in competing with russia and china is that the united states has very strong allies. seven of the largest world economies in the world are allied countries. six of the largest military ofers are allied countries the united states. these countries are contributing to helping america achieve its security and its prosperity in the world as it becomes more competitive and more dangerous continuing toia try to influence what's happening in the world. china is rising and wanting to compete with the united states for power and influence over global affairs. the one thing that united states has long had that they don't is allies. they have clients.
it's a very biggest engine. it's why an organization like nato is so important. it provides the united states with support for its efforts, isis init is countering the middle east or indeed even dealing with countries like china and its influence in europe and around the world, or supporting our efforts in latin america with regards to venezuela. you name the issue and allies are there with us and that is really what our foreign policy has been about, how successful it has been. democratic and republican leaders for 70 years, it's something we shouldn't risk without having a very serious debate. host: a lot of callers waiting to chat with you. lee is next, watertown, in -- minnesota, independent. caller: so how are you today? host: doing well, go ahead. caller: yeah, i just wanted to mention that the previous president had tried several
have theny times, to rest of the nato allies up their game on defense spending and i just think that trump is on the right track here. things on a does whim. he definitely does things on a whim. he says things that he doesn't do. i will admit that. but i still think he's on the right track. way thato equalize the america spends around the world with all the other countries. we can't keep shouldering the economic heart of it all. you know? we have to equalize that. to spent,t we are now, we are to spread out. we need to pull back and that is one area where we could pull
back some. host: thank you for the call. guest: thanks, lee. youar you well and i think are making an important point. every president since harry talked to the allies about increasing and upping their game militarily and in terms of security spending, as well as taking on the bigger responsibility and bigger role in the world. i think president trump is exactly right, as indeed was president obama and everyone else before that, to say that europe needs to step up its game, to spend more on defense and two more to provide for the common security. 2014 under it was in president obama in the wake of the soviet -- sorry, the russian invasion of annexation -- and annexation of primary it -- crimea that nato came to the conclusion that really needed to reverse the cuts in defense
spending that had been ongoing since the beginning of the century and needed to reverse spending patterns. it was two years before donald trump became president that nato that individual countries would pay up to 2% of gdp within a decade, by 2024. the numbers mentioned earlier by the president and a press conference that he had with the secretary-general that we just saw, the numbers of the increases started in 2014. now i am happy for the president to take credit for that, that's politics and it makes a lot of sense. i think the nato secretary-general has played to the president's desire to have a win here and he has done it extremely well. and importantly european defense spending has gone up. i would argue that it hasn't gone up enough. it needs more spending with greater responsibilities taken by europeans for common defense,
but it's moving in the right direction. the way to do that is to do it together and not make the kinds of threats that we saw a year ago when the president said that if you don't spend more, we are going to leave the alliance. it's not in the interest of america or in allied interests and above all, it's not in our interests. the alliance doesn't exist because we are doing somebody a favor. it exists because it is fundamental to our security. it's seven member states the contribute at this point. the united states at three point 9% leading the way. and then greece, the united kingdom, estonia, poland, the rest of the nato member states under the 2% goal. luxenberg at the bottom, spending just .54% of their gdp on defense spending. washingtonis in "the times today. scott, illinois, democrat, good
morning. good morning. relating to the china initiative, how does the nato military alliance and the political dimension confront the effort in the eastern hemisphere? guest: a great question, an important one, and it's not an issue that nato has taken seriously enough. there is an issue there to argue what is the extent to which nato should concern itself with security challenges that are far and away, including what at points are considered far away challenges from china as a rising power? today, however, china is engaged in an economic relationship with many -- of course with all nato countries, but in terms of the development initiative that you mentioned, with many of our nato
allies. italy, a founding member of nato, has just signed an mo you of cooperation with china on the initiative. has an intense economic relationship with china. are real consequences security, for cooperation future of security in europe and the north should leada that the allies to take a much more conversation about what it is they can do collectively to address the challenge. of this is a good challenge, economic investment by countries like china are not something that we want to discourage at all, but we also want to make clear and sure that those developments are contributing to the overall development of the world economy and not just benefiting one at a cost andntry
hurt to the economies is engaging with. this is an issue that if i were back at nato had orders or i were in washington, i would want to take up with our allies and say -- what are we going to do together to deal with the challenge of china? why not sit down with allies from asia, south korea, and have an intensive dialogue about what it is we will collectively do to make sure that the competition leads to positive outcomes for everyone rather than a negative zero some outcome that it sometimes appears to be. that is what allies would do and it's unfortunate that in europe and in the united states there is no real drive yet to have that kind of conversation. host: tom, good morning. caller: i'm going to read you something. a well regulated militia being necessary to security of a free
state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon. was there a thing signed by barack obama in the senate against the constitution and our rights to bear arms? and any gun control law has not been amended, so they are all against the constitution and our rights as american citizens. like missouri is doing and idaho, we need to bring back the constitution. host: this is a discussion about nato. caller: nato? i'm talking about the constitution and nato doesn't have the right to come on the high water mark of 7000 feet within the united states of america.
in california, anyway. and we are being invaded. host: we will keep the conversation on the 70th anniversary of nato this morning . have about 15 minutes left with the former u.s. ambassador to nato, ivo daalder, author of the ."ok "the empty throne taking your calls and questions this morning. god, valley, alabama, you are next. caller: if you look around germany, they of the allowed all of those people into their country and now our country is being overrun. did the same thing in south africa, they changed a lot of the laws and thousands of white farmers are being killed there. you never hear that on the news that they are being run off of their land and killed since mandela came into power after he got out of prison.
why don't we hear anything about that but we do here things about smaller, tinier countries in africa and in different places? i think america shouldn't be getting too involved with these wars over there. think these little countries should pay a percentage according to how much money they got. it's like anything else. if you pay taxes in this country , you pay by how much you make. geithner point on member state contributions and the pressure as well of the immigration issue and what it has meant for nato countries. guest: just on the contributions, which is an important point, there are two ways in which all of the 29 nato countries contribute to the common defense. one, they make an actual contribution to a nato budget. they pay into that budget. the budget is quite small, less than $5 billion, it pays for the
headquarters and the civilian staff and some of the military capabilities and command structure that nato has. countries pay according to their relative economic capacity based on a measuring of gdp. so, the united states pays 22% of that total. germany, the second-largest economy, pays 15%. countries like france, the u.k., and italy and others pay a .esser percentage in that case, everyone is paying their fair share. the second and far more important way in which countries contribute to collective defense is by having national militaries. they spend money on national militaries and in the united states we spend about $700 billion on our military, some of which is deployed in europe and might be available in case of a conflict.
which is to protect the united states and is about u.s. defense spending. countries in europe are also spending on the national militaries. that is where the 2% guideline comes in, saying that we think over all as a collection of nato leaders that the time has come and the threats are such that if we all collectively spend about 2% of our gdp on defense, we will have enough overall military capability, adding up the national capabilities that exist among the countries to enhance our security and the that is a respectable goal that everyone should adhere to. by the way, it is what nato countries spend. in 2000, just 19 years ago, but the cuts that came after that now need to be reversed. that is really what the debate is about. 2%, or what have you. a legitimate debate to have, but
it is not that we are paying for a defense that europe is not paying for. host: you mentioned a command structure at nato. how many troops are specifically under nato command and how is that command determined? guest: there are very few under command on a day to date acis, but there is a command structure led by an american general who is the head of the european command in the structure and has a second hat as a supreme allied commander in europe. it is that person and that command structure that says in case of need, i want to be able to come to the countries and say -- can you please contribute a division here or there or a squadron of airplanes here. when they are then under operational fighting, they will be under nato command. so, the 15,000 or so troops who are now deployed as part of that
resolute support operation in afghanistan, those 15,000 are under nato command and are paid for by the nations. their salaries are paid for, the deployment is paid for, their ammunition is paid for by the nations making the contribution, but they are commanded by nato and that is true for any operation that takes place, whether it is libya or a counter piracy operation in the gulf of aden, or a peacekeeping operation in the balkans. those are under nato commands provided that the soldiers are paid for, trained by, provided by the individual member states. joseph, new jersey, republican line, good morning. caller: i have a question, what ceto?appened to seco -- what caused its demise? and what lessons did we learn as it relates to nato?
very interesting question. back in the 1950's there was an attempt to create new alliance structures in the middle east and in asia, multilateral alliance structures based very much on the concept of nato and of the organization of the american states within the western hemisphere to sort of surround the soviet union geographically i'm europe, through the middle east and into asia. the problem was that the countries who made up those various alliances, seco and others that you mentioned, weren't willing to cooperate with the united states. what they wanted was a bilateral relationship with the united states. so, we have a bilateral defense treaty with japan, the philippines, and the south koreans. it's more complicated on the
south korean issue because of the korean war and the u.n. demand structure, but the countries really didn't want to have japan defending the philippines. they wanted the united states to defend japan. that's why those alliance structures didn't work. contrasting to nato, which is why i think it has worked for so long, there was a fundamental understanding among europeans not only that they wanted deterrence and defense against the soviet union, and indeed in order to control in some way germany, which had been at the outset the cause of world war i and world war ii, but they needed to cooperate among themselves. they created the european common market, now the european union as an essential form of collaboration within the security structure of which the united states was a principal part. which is why the system not only worked but continues to work and
why the difference of -- different alliance structures and other parts of the world didn't succeed. just a few minutes left, a lot of calls for you. reginald, winston-salem north carolina, hello. i've been thinking that nato should be the most powerful organization in the world. that it should be made that way in order to help keep the peace. i do think that with the takingion with russia over sovereign countries, there need to be somebody to do more to put a stop to that.
because if we don't, ain't no telling how far russia will go. your pointll take and also hear from pat this morning in mcdonald, tennessee. good morning, pat. i'm just calling to let our president know that he has more supporters of you than he knows because he is doing such a great job. for our country. those are our last two calls. i totally agree that nato needs to be strong and needs to be a part of keeping the peace and that russia is a growing military and security challenge to our country and that the best way in which we achieve our objectives in the world is to have strong allies. that's what nato provides in has done for 70 years and i very
much hope it will do so for the next few decades as well. ivo daalder, former ambassador to nato, we appreciate your time this morning on "the washington journal." we have about 25 minutes left in our program this morning. we returned to the topic of everything that's happening today in washington. a very busy day, a few of the stories that we are tracking this morning include president trump's continued efforts to possibly close down the southern border and the reaction to that on capitol hill. also, senate republicans considering the nuclear option to speed along the confirmation of president trump's nominee to the house judiciary committee. set to vote, a subpoena to the mother report, and the nato secretary-general set to address congress in about an hour and a half. which of these topics to you want to call about?
we will be right back. phone lines are open. >> coming up this weekend on booktv, we're live for the annapolis book festival. sunday, on "in-depth," know me a liveoins us for conversation about her books and career. at 9 p.m. eastern on "afterwards," the keyboard -- examines the trumps and the commissioners in "greed inc.." a," douglas "q and brinkley talks about his book american moonshot, john f. kennedy and the great space race. >> he goes back to fdr, thinking big, butdeal was too
that what fdr did well was beyond social security, the tba, the grand coulee dam. eisenhower have a highway system . kennedy's thinking -- what's my administrations big public works thing? what i admire is that he picked the right number. technology. the computer shift as we think of it today developed in the late 1950's. starts kicking in and by the time -- with jack is running in the 60's, there are no computer science classes and in dallass there are suddenly computer science classes everywhere. air travel israel placing automobile travel in many ways. people are flying more and more to help the airports. the jet age, the space age, kennedy grabbed onto it and made it the cornerstone of the new frontier. that's sunday night at 8
p.m. eastern on "q&a." >> "washington journal" continues. host: very busy day, we want to hear what's on your mind in this last segment. republicans can call in at (202) 748-8001, democrats can call in at (202) 748-8000, it independents can call in at (202) 748-8002. happening now over on c-span3 the house judiciary committee is marking up a resolution to issue subpoenas for documents from special counsel robert mueller. that is also airing on c-span radio and on the web as well. also this morning, the senate appropriations committee is hearing the proposed budget estimates for fiscal 2020 from andrew wheeler, the administrator of the environmental protection agency and this afternoon on capitol hill the national security subcommittee of the house oversight committee will hold a afghanistan reconstruction efforts with the special inspector general for
those efforts on c-span3 this afternoon. that is just some of what's airing on the c-span networks. of course, if you stick around here in about an hour and a half, less than that, you will be hearing from the thistary-general of nato morning, he will be addressing a joint meeting of congress. want to know what's on your mind, again, phone lines are open for republicans, democrats, and independents. david is up first from new mexico, democratic line. good morning. sir.s, i am a democrat, can you hear me, sir? yes, sir, i am a democrat, but we have got to give trump credit for trying to fix things that have gone wrong for decades. every timeay it, but schumer and pelosi and these democrats get in there, they say they are doing good for them, they are not concerned about me
or my family. my family comes first in my life, of course. , butl sorry for anybody our politicians care nothing about us, otherwise they would help to do something to help us get a break. are you concerned at all about the impact of potentially closing the southern border? we are hearing a lot about that with some concerns on capitol hill about economic impact. do you think it will impact you if it happens? >> it surely will, there's no doubt about it. we can pay now or pay later. when they see that they are not ?mpacting our, our, our economy i mean that's a farce, you know? they get up there and they smile and say hey, we are going to take care of it, but what they are telling me is hey, we're
going to take care of us and remember, we want to, and they are not concerned about america. the one thing i'm seriously concerned about is that in due time they keep saying there's more hatred in america? that is exactly true. the streets in america are going ofbe dangerous in a matter -- could be a year, five years. the hatred is going to carry on to the streets and it's going to be dangerous for all of us because we are going to have to fend for ourselves. morning.t's david this section" of "usa today," "the effects of closing the border would 12th of -- dwarf the fallout from the terrace that president trump has .lapped on imports from china
u.s. imports, 340 $6 billion in goods from mexico and in 2000 18 they exported $265 billion in products to the country and of the trade funds between the country, five hundred $2 billion across the border in trucks and trains last year according to the commerce department. those are just some of the stats from that story if you want to read about it today. david is next in greenville, michigan. republican line, good morning. there are so many laws on the books, you can't see the forest from the trees. all these illegal immigrants coming in, democrats saying that we don't need to verify, have they put in or sign up for selective service? that's a federal law. it's five years in prison and or a $250,000 fine. so why can't ice implement that? it's already a law on the books.
, youyou go to an employer ask the guys age and if he's below 26, have him provide you with his selective service number. you don't need e-verify. host: that's dave, michigan. wendy, new york, independent. go ahead. caller: yeah, good morning. i happened to catch the russian influence congressional meetings. i would suggest that everyone in america watch this. because the depth of the problem that we have with russia is so startling. it seemed that what a lot of the people took away from it and
spouted on the news were these little select bits. but it's really important for all of us to understand how big a problem it is that we have with russia. not just us, but the other countries they have interfered with. the amount of money they gave to marine le pen. the aggression in the ukraine. the best way to understand it is to go into the computer and watch this thing on russian influence. host: when you say this thing, what are you referring to specifically? >> you know, it was the congressional meeting -- the congress met? they had the 4 -- with the cia
director and someone is a diplomatic corps? all of these people with their really deep -- it was a congressional hearing? host: there was plenty about it. and today happening right now in the has to dish year he committee there is a vote taking place on whether to subpoena the full mueller reports on the russia investigation. jerry nadler is the chairman of thatcommittee posting hearing. sheila jackson lee is one of the members of that eating, she is actually speaking right now in the house judiciary committee. we are airing that over on c-span3 if you want to watch that this morning. al is in florida on the line for democrats. good morning. caller: i'm a democrat now, but i don't think not much longer. too much stuff
going on. we are not doing anything. we lost the election and we can't get over it. we just can't get over it. the border is out of control. health care is out of control. i guess we can do nothing until the election and you know we are going to lose the election. that's my opinion. i'm looking to become a republican, sir. host: what is the most important issue to you heading into the 2016 election? caller: basically safety, jobs. you don't have an economy if you don't have -- if you have not -- and of jobs and we sold our self out to countries like china and vietnam. this country is built on manufacturing. the democrats ain't doing nothing. they sold us out. that's why i'm going to be switching to become a republican. host: did you support hillary clinton? caller: i wanted to, but there
was too much luggage. i couldn't deal with her russia, the things she did with selling russia stuff, i couldn't deal with it. is there a democrat in the 2020 field, very big right now, that you think is speaking to these issues and what's important to you? caller: so far, none of them. the only thing they got to go on is joe biden and he has got a lot of luggage. host: that was al in florida. matthew, good morning. i think it's a great thing that we are putting the wall up. if you look at what's happening in our country today, our civil rights movements, people having to come together to get education benefits. now, you know, we have got people coming into our country and we are just giving out free
chrome books? that's not what's important, though. they talked about health care for everybody but at the side of the neck they say pre-existing conditions. all the time these campaign funds are getting bled into their accounts. these people are doing these special interest groups like that, things like that, they are -- destroying the patriot, destroying our country, tearing down our monuments. is anybody watching what's happening today? is anybody even believe that they see? you know who mike is, right? off crackat came cocaine in 2010. some of you are -- you all are sleeping on his pillow. chuck, alabama, good morning. you will us? caller: yeah. i'm a supporter of the wall.
we are being invaded and you know it. and the left-wing press, you people, you are more worried [indiscernible] lynn by the illegals coming in by the thousands and. onneed to put a moratorium this whole thing and stop having anybody come into this country for the next 30 years. like we did before, the italians and all of them, simulate. we had a moratorium from the 20 posture the 50 plus. we need another moratorium on and stop people coming in here unless there is a special need. need to have english as the official language of this country.
host: what would be a special need the would lift the moratorium for? >> it just kept going up with carter and that bunch. host: what would be a special need it you would lift the moratorium for? well, it all depends. maybe if there was a crucial a certainmployment in agency? you know, there are so many, i couldn't go through any of them -- all of them that could be emergencies. but they need to be case-by-case. moratorium. year stop it, stop it. this country needs to assimilate what we have got here now. host: illinois, democratic line,
good morning. caller: good morning. you know, just listening to the gentleman there, he's basically saying in his own words, you know, bring back savery or summit like that. this is what donald trump did to america. what i don't understand is why we are allowing these conversations to happen in real time. these states, from alabama to kentucky have congressman and senators that have done nothing for them, but they keep putting them in office. they hold them to issues for guns and things like race. then they vote against their interests. that's what we are watching. that's why they can't get ahead, because of the people they put in office. mcconnell is extremely smart.
i believe we need more black reporters, more mexican inorters, and more reporters the united states. you are doing something very well for america, but if you look at all of the other national, you know, news organizations, you are not seeing a lot of black, african, or mexican reporters, or even chinese, you know, questioning this president and his administration. so my point would be, too, you know, change that at first to show the american people that there is another conversation happening so that people -- saying with that gentleman said earlier on your show. going back to his comments, he was talking about a moratorium on legal immigration. why did you hear slavery in his
words? because donald, trump has used immigration as a slavery tool for the whites. i have never's and heard a politician talk about this in this way. what he's doing is he is demonizing the brown people so the white people can feel like they are taking their jobs. and because they are uneducated on how labor works and how you have to put a senator or a congressman in there with your interest, that is what they are missing. having a bade are argument about the whole thing right now. host: go ahead. caller: we are a country of laws, not of men. illegal aliens come into our country, break our laws,
disrespect our culture, our schools are overwhelmed. i am a teacher. .t's an invasion i want to support donald trump, build the wall, and shut down the border. do whatever is available to stop these illegal people coming in. i was at a library the other day and they were speaking spanish over the intercom and they were hero, a celebrate their hugo chavez? this was a library. i go to the store, i feel like a redheaded stepchild, no one is speaking english, no one respects our country or culture. it's an invasion. i would like to see them respect our laws. now if you come into my country and want to be a part of america, that's fine, we will help you, love you, take care of you. but when you cross over into my country and you basically waive
your flag question mark your guatemala, honduras, mexico? you come here is your finger and threaten us? absolutely unacceptable. do you feelulture like has been lost in what's been happening in the recent years? are you talking about in my little part of kentucky? my culture? pieces -- these people are in our schools. we have one school with seven interpreters. as a teacher, how do you deal with that. i see it in my classroom and it's unbelievable. we cannot teach our children english because we are worried about teaching them spanish. i mean they, they are, i'm amazed. in,n't mind people coming but they are all dressed from different countries, they all have their different garbs on. they all have their anchor babies, that's another thing that's very concerning.
pregnant,over your they drop the child, the next thing you know that child becomes our responsibility and the bottom line is, we cannot afford it. host: south dakota, independent line. good morning, go ahead. i guess this is off-topic, but i'm more concerned about the lack of coverage in the middle of the country. we have a state just to the south of us here in nebraska that has just been inundated with flooding. if that was happening in -- on the east coast or the west coast? there would be nonstop coverage of it. i haven't seen hardly anything on the national news. it's been mentioned like twice. there were people flooded out of homes, farmers that are totally inundated. i mean i realize we are flyover,
but it just bothers me. and then people wonder why people in the midwest get upset. we don't even get coverage from the national news media on a crisis like that from a natural disaster. think that more should be done in that regard and quit concentrating on just the coast. i realized that -- i realize they have the biggest population, but we still exist here. news media,the congressional delegations and leaders in those states not doing enough to bring attention? where does the blame fall on that? caller: i think a try, but the delegation from south dakota, it's a whopping three, so compared to bigger states, it's not a loud voice. i'm not totally thrilled with all of my representatives in washington right now, but at
least a they try. nobodyean, it's like really cares what goes on out --e until maybe the race it the price goes up and then they notice us. host: de soto, texas, good morning. caller: the only problem i see, people saying other people are invading our country. the teacher who spoke, if she would teach american history, or just history, the indigenous people were to the east, the mexican people were to the west. tejas means texas. it is just overwhelming, the ignorance in this country because we don't teach history.
the people, the lady who just from nebraska? you are going to need some of those people coming across this , to geto help clean up in the fields. our kids are not going to do it. black kids, white kids, these people who are coming, they are the ones who will also have to fight wars. the first person that we forget that died in the iraqi war was from el paso, who was trying to get his citizenship. and people don't even he know that because they don't care. they are so hateful. we have a big tax plan for the 1 percenters, i'm 70 years old. i'm having to go back to work. i don't mind paying for health care. i have to pay for my car insurance. and my home insurance. and both of them together is more than my health care. the one who is talk about we
should have medicare for all. what are you talking about? you need to get out and pay like you pay for everything else. luxur has cdonald's, a big sign in deso thea, texas, asking for people to come to work in nevada. guess what? we have run off all the people who would work. thank you. have a great day, america. and learn some history. host: that's anna in texas. our last caller in today's "washington journal." we'll be back here tomorrow morning. 7:00 a.m. eastern. 4:00 a.m. pacific. in the meantime have a great wednesday. fun -- [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2019] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. isit ncicap.org]
>> coming up in about 45 minutes, nato secretary-general jens stoltenberg speaks to a joint meeting of the house and senate. our live coverage begins around 10:45 eastern with the secretary-general's remarks slated for 11:00 here on c-span. when the house returns for business later today, members will start work on the re-authorization of the violence against women act, which expired in february. it aims to prevent abuse and provide additional resources for victims. and includes a provision concerning domestic abuse and firearms. in the senate it's possible we may see a change in the rules for that body regarding the time for debating certain executive nominations. we'll have the house live here on c-span and the senate live on c-span2. and for some background on the violence against women act in the house, we spoke to a reporter who covers capitol hill.