tv Washington Journal 04232019 CSPAN April 23, 2019 6:59am-10:00am EDT
their own what was important to them. she's been opened in to washington policymaking for all to see, bringing you unfiltered content from congress and beyond. in the age of power to the people, this was true people power. in the 40 years since, the landscape has clearly changed, there is no monolithic media, broadcasting has given way to narrowcasting, youtube stars are c-span's big idea is more relevant today than ever. that money supports c-span, it's nonpartisan coverage of washington is funded as a public service by your cable or satellite provider, on television and online, c-span is your unfiltered view of government so you can make up your own mind. this morning on "washington journal" two reporters join us to talk about the 2020 residential campaign. later, heather connolly looks at the mueller report and russian
interference. we take your calls and you can join the conversation on facebook and ♪ host: you're looking at a live shot outside the supreme court because justices will hear arguments before and against including an immigration question the 2020 senses. the trump administration requested the question last year but several states have sued and corks -- courts have blocked from allowing the question. now the supreme court will decide. it is your turn to weigh in on that question. should it be included. ,f you say yes, (202) 748-8000
if you say no (202) 748-8001. start dialing in. join us on twitter and facebook.com/c-span. that the constitution required the census to begun every 10 years. article one, section one and two of the constitution states representative selby apportioned among -- representatives shall be apportioned among several states. the final meeting of the congress of the united states of america and with every subsequent term of 10 years in such manner as they shall by law direct. the census gathers a lot of information. some of that information goes to re-apportioning districts across the country for representation in congress. this is the language the commerce department once to add to the 2020 census. is this person a citizen of the united states? this question will go last on
the survey. , yes, born in puerto rico, islands, yes, born abroad to u.s. citizens or parents, yes u.s. citizen by naturalization, or no, not a citizen. here's what wilbur ross had to say about adding the language. [video clip] mr. secretary, you wrote to the committee that the reason you did not mention your ads -- your reasons to add a citizenship question before the doj letter was because these efforts were informal and hypothetical discussions. with all due respect, that explanation does not pass the
laugh test. >> that is the fact. i am sorry you are dissatisfied. >> you testified three times and each time you withheld critical information that congress needed to oversee preparations for the 2020 census. mr. secretary, will you take responsibility today for misleading congress, whether intentionally or not, about the process you followed to add the citizenship question to the 2020 census? >> i have never intentionally misled congress or intentionally said anything incorrect under oath. >> mr. secretary, you lied to congress, you misled the american people, and you are complicit in the trump administration's intent to suppress the growing political power of the nonwhite population.
you have already done great harm and you have zero credibility and you should resign. host: that was an exchange between mr. clay, a congressman, and wilbur ross at a march 14 hearing. the same day, mark meadows, on wrong -- a congressman from north carolina, defended secretary ross. here is what he had to say. [video clip] >> there seems to be some indication there were nefarious purposes for including this particular question on the census. do you believe president bill clinton had nefarious purposes in mind when he included a citizenship question on the 2000 census? ability to read
president clinton's mind, but i have no reason to believe he had nefarious purposes in including the question. >> do you have any knowledge of any other democrat president who had nefarious purposes in mind when they included the census question -- the citizenship question on previous censuses? -- i have not approach this as a partisan matter so i've not differentiated whether between a democratic president or a republican president. >> you say you're approaching this from a census point of view, to get an accurate count for the united states of america. is that your sworn testimony? >> yes. it is explained in the decision memory of march 26, 2018. it is also to comply with the
request by the department of justice that we at the citizenship question so they could have block level census data. to mr. meadows point, pew research put together information on the census question. take a look at what they found. in census question was asked each senses from 18921950. from 1890 was only -- to 1950. in 1920 it was only asked of adult men. the government's interest in asking about citizenship coincides with the rise immigration in the united states. 1890 to 1950 are the years they , peaking atuestion 15% of the population in the late 1800s and 1900.
inigrations slowed sharply the 1920's to less than 5% of the population. the removal of the citizenship question came as the census bureau reduce the number of questions asked of all asking all and begin questions of a sample of the population, which is done every year instead of every 10 years. we want to get your take on this. should this immigration question be added to the 2020 census? you say yes. good morning. caller: good morning, how are you. host: doing well. what do you think? caller: absolutely. why wouldn't we want to know? in today's day and age, we have to know who is here. we have so many outside influences. they are coming from poor countries, countries we support. they do not have the rights
under the u.s. constitution as we do as american citizens. in coming from a large city down amounti work and saw the of u.s. taxpayer dollars being given to these people who just come over and do nothing. they do not learn languages. we need to know who is here. i am all for immigration. learn our language, be productive. i do not understand why people would not want to know who is in our country. i think the question needs to be added if they say no, i'm not a u.s. citizen, i think they need to say where are you from? host: you mean what country? caller: yes. host: here is an argument for not including it. by an associate counsel for latino justice. he submitted a legal brief to the supreme court. he writes that the citizenship
census question hurts us all. the census informs and affects every facet of our lives. forcymakers use it to plan emergency response, health care, education, and transportation, roads and bridges and childcare and senior care. it is how we decide how to allocate our federal budget and businesses you census data to find new markets and determine future developments or geographic relocation. he writes that the trump administration knows it. to 32 millionup latinos will be eligible to vote in 2020, the largest ethnic minority block in the country. and under count on the 2020 census will result in faulty data that the census bureau my not be able to correct between the 2030 census. sixth sense as directors of and
democrat warned the citizenship question would have consequences for years to come and impact democratic -- limited english proficiency, and whether a district offer spanish-language ballot is determined by the census. even worse is slow material fact. low latino census counts will lead to inadequate infrastructure, misinformed planning, and inefficient health and social services in latino community, many of them already start for resources. you say yes as well in overland park, kansas. what do you think? caller: i'm a democrat and i'm ashamed of our party. in kansas we have lost people because the population has gone up in other places like california. we do not have as many congressman. why should we allocate more money to people that are not citizens. i'm tired of people telling us
this is a nation of immigrants. this is a nation of citizens. host: if your populations have gone up but you have less representation, those people in your community will not be counted, which means you have less representation from the 2020? caller: why should they be counted for an extra congressional seat? i thought that's what you are arguing, that you have less representation. becausein kansas we do, immigrants have raised the population artificially. they get more congressman. they taken away from the smaller states. host: got it. what you think about the impact of this on other aspects of the federal government? this is how you would get money for infrastructure needs, health care, etc. if they don't count everybody, thatarea has more people
are using the infrastructure, that are using the health care system but not getting as many dollars. caller: i do not believe them when they say there will be an undercount. why should they live? they will not get kicked out -- why should they lie? they will not get kicked out when they answer the census. if we have to answer the question of the long form, why wouldn't it be any more accurate on the long form? more on the impact of the question. connected to that concern for state officials about the undercount. if you have an undercount it might affect the amount of state dollars -- of federal dollars that come to the state. shows what amount of federal dollars from the program goes state-by-state. that information is based on the 2010 census. if you go to the website, there
is a link you can click to the various states you live in. you can find out the amount of federal dollars that came to your state on data from the 2010 census. is that data that caused the responses from members of the federal officials -- state officials in two states quoted in papers and quoting this data. a milwaukee make -- the the storymayor saying said he emphasized the need to count people of color, low income communities, homeless individuals, single-parent households, families whose "as a second language. the request comes five -- you speak english as a second language. according to a report from george washington university. taking a look at the state of idaho, the idaho state journal taking a look at that data from george washington university
saying idaho receives $2.4 federalannually from 16 programs that use the census to determine funding according to george washington university. although there is not a state literary relationship between state population in federal funds, that is about $473 for each idaho resident. idaho is one of the fastest-growing states, with a quarter of that growth from the hispanic population. reuters looks at how big business looks at how big business uses information from the census. walmart and target you census jpmorgan uses -- the information for branch firms to scrutinize the statistics to build homes and shopping center, and univision -- that story available at reuters. host: charles, in alexandria,
virginia. you think the immigration question should be added. tell us why. caller: i am a former employee of the census bureau. i do not speak for the bureau. keep in mind, the citizenship question has been on previous censuses without challenging -- without challenge. there is a president. the government has the right and the power to know how many citizens live in this nation. that is a no-brainer. the fact is, adding the citizenship question may discourage some people from answering the census. that being the case, that may lead to a slight undercount. that is the risk. the people who are not answering have a reason. they are illegal, they do not want to be picked up. the fact is, the census is required to count the number of
persons regardless of citizenship status. therefore, states and municipalities should be encouraging everyone to respond to the form when it arrives in the mail, answer truthfully. people do not realize the information that goes on the form is entirely confidential. no one can get access to that for 72 years, including the irs, including law enforcement, including the fbi, all of the information goes into magnetic bubble memory and is buried in a nuclear bomb proved false in kansas for 71 years. vault inear bomb proof kansas for 71 years. if people think they will answer they are not a citizen and law-enforcement will find out, that is false. when i worked for the census bureau, people would ask me what
response rates, it is also an issue for the 2020 census during drawing boundary of congressional districts. in 2008, a census bureau survey found 85% of americans plan to answer the 2010 census but only three quarters of the population wound up doing so. in a survey, the projected response rate of the 2020 cap was 67%. people do not want to answer these surveys. are you still there? .e lost him therefore all of you to respond to as well in the wall street journal. joining us on the phone is robert barnes, a supreme court reporter with the washington post. mr. barnes, one of the legal issues in this case? what are the legal issues in this case? guest: three judges said secretary ross had violated the apa at -- the administrative
procedures act by the way he went about saying this question was going to be added to the form, acting against the advice of those who said it would cause an undercount. two those judges said it would result in a survey that was so inaccurate that it would fail to satisfy the constitutional demand that population be counted every 10 years. court has a lot of things to look at today. it has expanded the argument time beyond its usual hour to hear from all of the lawyers who want to be heard about this. host: who are the lawyers? who is arguing for and against adding the language? guest: the solicitor general will be adding -- will be arguing for the federal government, for the trump
administration. then there are lawyers from the state of new york, an aclu lawyer, and there is a lawyer representing the house of representatives, which since democrats have taken control of the house, has intervened in the case. host: what will the trump administration be arguing today? guest: the trump administration will be arguing this is a decision that is left of the agency to decide. clearly, has said the power to set up the census belongs to the commerce department, the census bureau, judges, you cannot -- the court system should not be intervening to make these decisions. it is the power to make these decisions that is
important, not necessarily motivations for why adding a citizenship question is a good idea. host: what are his motivations for adding it? guest: that has been a problem. he first said he was adding it at the request of the department of justice, which said it needed tot information in order enforce the voting rights act. this is something that protects minority rights. had gone out that he to the justice department, saying i need you to tell me i want this information so i can do this. he had talked about this issue with some of the hardliner immigration types in the white house. there does not seem -- there is a lot of skepticism by the
judges who looked at this case and they walked right up the line of calling him a liar for his motivations in this. arguments are the from the other side to not include it? what is the fear? guest: the fear is there will be an undercount that your previous person was talking about. that even though this information is supposed to be secret, and we have no reason to believe it is not secret, there will be worries in the households that have ties to undocumented people in the country, that they will not want to fill this out, that they will be afraid the information will be used to try to find people who were in the country illegally.
it will not be accurate. the estimates, even from the census bureau, is that it could be an undercount of as much as 6.5 million people, which is larger than many states. effect, with then throw all sorts of things off. it could even affect the reapportioning of congressional seats to the states, it could mean some metro areas are not seen as large as they really are. billions of dollars of federal aid is distributed because of where people live. if we do not have an accurate picture of where people live, that will not be done in a correct way. host: do you have a sense of how the justices might rule on this? is there precedent? guest: there is not really precedent.
the question has been asked before in previous census forms. it is always asked of a subset of people. it has not been part of the short form since 1950. we have gone a long time without asking the citizenship question. the court sometimes is quite deferential to the , to letting those who have the power make those decisions and reluctant to get involved. i think it will be a very interesting oral argument because we do not know. the only thing we do know is when the challengers to this decision were trying to depose the commerce secretary, wilbur ross, that issue came to the supreme court and the supreme court said no, they cannot take that deposition of a cabinet
officer. there was no precedent for that. the court also did allow these trials about the case to continue. we had a little bit of a mixed in the from the court only previous interaction they have had in this case. host: when will the court ruled? guest: i wish i knew. that is the question people always ask me and i can never answer. the court issues its decision whenever it is done. we know it will have to be done by the end of june. the court took this case in an unusual fashion. usually it waits for something to be argued and go through the appeals court process. there is no time to do that. this question has to be decided and the forms have to be printed this summer. we know the court will have to rule by the end of june. host: other news out of the
supreme court, front page of the washington post, your story, court to consider rights of gay and transgender employees. what that the court decide -- what did the court decide? guest: it decided it will look at the civil rights bill passed in 1964. it forbids discrimination on the basis of sex. the court will decide whether that phrasing is broad enough to provide protections based on sexual orientation and gender identity. two oftaken three cases, them involving gay workers who were fired for their employees. that involved a transgender woman who was fired from her job. they will look at this question of what, exactly, title vii protects.
host: supreme court reporter with the washington post. thank you. guest: back to our calls -- thank you. host: back to our calls with all of you. tammy is next in las vegas. go ahead. caller: good morning. host: what do you think? caller: i live in southern california for 15 years. i love my latin brothers and sisters. the legal ones. we should not be giving money to states based on how many illegals are there. are you kidding me? why would we do that. it is for our own people. my ancestors lived in this country for 100 years, we fought in every war. we have been paying taxes for 100 years. you will not come in here and get all of the freebies. we are drawing the wrong people. we are getting people who want different things from government. host: how you respond to people
who will say it will hurt you -- of the population is not counted where you live, that means you get less money for the roads you drive on? caller: it is unsustainable, what we are doing. what you mentioned about ballots in other languages, here's a fun thing. i going to vote in california and i forgot one thing so i need to read the ballot measures, they had it in every language but english. if you going with chinese, they had it, you speak spanish, they had, but american english-speaking people are being disenfranchised by illegals and by foreign interests like that other one the woman said. we have russian interference in our elections but it is ok for mexico to do it? host: tammy in nevada. phil matthews, north carolina. you say yes as well. caller: absolutely.
we are about two different issues. the citizens are and allocate political representation on citizenship, that is a different issue than allocating money for the number of people actually in a county. noncitizenluding residents, particularly undocumented citizens gives a partisan result in the political allocation. here in north carolina, a county -- would put larger representation in the two largest counties to give democratic seats. this is designed to give a partisan result. it would put more political power in large cities, which tend to vote democratic. in countingthat, the people that are in a county for the allocation of road money , the kind of support services you need, granted the idea of
funding people who are here illegally may not be popular, but we are not going to let them starve to death on our streets. if they show up at the hospitals, we will treat them. let's don't attend we are not. the native tongue ballots does bother me. i was under the impression you had to be able to read and write english at a basic level to become a citizen. these are different issues. we definitely should know who is a citizen, who is not. i think the undercounting is a strawman argument to try to gain a political advantage. i appreciate your time. host: fill in north carolina. the oral argument that the supreme court is hearing today, they have extended the time so they can hear from all the lawyers. and other networks including c-span have asked for the same day release of that audio. the court denied that. this audio will be released on
friday and we will air the oral argument on friday evening in prime time. go to c-span.org for more details on that. we want to show you a little bit from earlier this month, the hearing with the u.s. census bureau director stephen bellingham. he discussed on the agency is preparing for the 2020 census. he was asked about the value of the data and the privacy safeguards. host: the sense of --[video clip] >> the census data is so valuable. it is used at all levels by all people of all communities. it is attached to economic data, sometimes, to help us understand and formulate decisions and policies with regard to impact that deales, etc., with the people across the nation and their communities and their businesses. we had senses collect the data,
and if -- we at census collect the data, and we produce numbers. discussed,s we have is totally secure. the best technology available for protecting individual data and we have privacy protocols going into place that are state-of-the-art that have never been used before as additional layers of protection. individualnot get double data. the confidentiality is protected. what i can say is we are in the data business and we are in the number business, and america uses this data and they use these numbers for very important purposes. we will do everything possible, and we are totally confident this data confidentiality will be protected host:.
back to our convert -- will be protected. host: back to our conversation. what you think about including a citizenship question on the census? john in new york. you say yes. caller: good morning, c-span. i have a problem with everything this administration processes. it is either too controversial -- i do not agree with them, especially their foreign-policy decisions, sanctioning countries one after another without having a win-win strategy. sanctioning iran, which has read to the increase -- which has led to the increase in gas prices in california and other places. this is a disastrous administration. we are seeing crazy prices. host: you agree with including this question on the census? i completely agree with this.
let me say something. this is a disastrous administration. host: we already heard that. michael, kansas city. you say no, do not include the language. why not? caller: everybody that fills out the census -- if they are uncomfortable the question, fill in -- can't they they plead the fifth amendment? host: michael in missouri. we will go to wisconsin. chris, you are on the line for yes. caller: yes. thanks for taking my call. i think it should be included. it is something that has been asked on censuses before until relatively recently. i know on the long form. i think we should be able to ask it. other major countries ask that question in their censuses and
my understanding is that even the u.n. encourages countries to ask that question. ofwe cannot ask the question who counts as citizens in our country, i think it is a sad state if we cannot ask that question. host: chris in wisconsin. pedro has some news on the president this morning. queen elizabeth celebrates her birthday and extends the visit to president trump to visit talking impala. -- to visit buckingham palace. this will take place in june according to buckingham palace. if you go to the axioms website, more about joe biden's entry into the presidential race. will talk about what kind of people we are going to be. he will emphasize the kind of politics he is running against
and what kind of leadership the moment calls for. some key democrats are bearish on the 76-year-old chances, some calling it a third obama term or a second hilary term. it beensay fight personally making fund-raising calls, a sign of his focus on a race where he left much of the field ahead of him. if you go to fortune.com this morning, it takes a look at potential republicans who might run against the president. one of those mentioned is maryland republican governor larry hogan, saying as governor ,f maryland, hogan cut taxes eventually raising wages and create 100,000 new jobs. he also has a record of investing in education and transportation and was the first governor in the country to declare a state of emergency to address the opioid crisis during also enology and climate change is a seer -- also acknowledging climate change is a serious threat.
the maryland governor will be at an event today you can watch on c-span, politics and eggs breakfast in new hampshire. live coverage for that event will start at 8:30 this morning and you can see that on c-span2. you can watch online on c-span.org and listen for free on the c-span radio app. larry hogan at 8:30. today's the day the house ways and means committee is supposed to receive six years of tax returns from the trump administration. this request was made to the treasury department by the chairman. if you go to the website accounting today, it takes a look at some of reasons why we have this law in the first place. it goes back to warren harding and talks about the teapot dome scandal. you can read more of that at accounting today. if you want a historical perspective plus the request from the house ways and means committee. larry kudlow, the national
economic tractor, will address the national press club today at 12:30, you can see that on c-span, c-span.org, and are c-span radio app. also richard trumka, a familiar name, the president of the afl-cio speaking at the economic club in washington. host: in news from c-span this morning, our latest book is out today. president's -- noted historians rank america's best and worst chief executives." we will talk more about that later on today. randy in louisiana. you say guest adding the census -- the immigration question -- you say yes to adding the immigration to the senses. caller: it is a no-brainer. we know who is here and who should be able to vote and should not be able to vote. anybody coming across the border
illegally, whether it be mexicans, chinese, muslims, anybody else, they do not need to be voting. when they do get here, they need to learn how to speak english. it should be on the census. host: even if those that are census not answer the because they have a fear of this information will be used against them? the commerceng to department it could be as much as 5% of our population not counted in this data would be used for the 10 years after that. do have concerns about that? caller: no. they are not going to answer it anyway. if you are illegal, you are not going to answer that. host: willie in orlando florida. caller: hello. i think they should know who is in the country and that is how
they can allocate the money to different schools, hospitals, things like that. if they do not know, they will not get the money and it will affect the neighborhood they are living in. i think they should. host: ok. richard also says yes in massachusetts. caller: i agree. it should be on. out whether they are citizens or not. so they get the money and stuff like that. saying i amhem from a citizen today? you know what i'm saying? how do you prove it? that is my -- that is what my wife was just saying. i will say i'm a citizen. how can you prove not? thank you for taking my call.
host: the washington post editorial board describes this as wilbur ross's con job on the senses. the supreme court should disallow adding a citizenship question. the trump administration contends the justice department one of the question included in order to gather data on the voting eligible population. mr. ross decided the only way to gather the information the justice department wanted was to ask for a census form. this flies in the face of common sense. testimony in trial court and analysis from the census bureau's own expert. the justice department would get more accurate data if congress -- rather than poisoning the senses with a new question. you can hear more of washington post.com. brenda in kentucky. good morning. you say no.
you are against adding the language. caller: i do not see how it would do any good. deliverare going to this through the mail, a lot of people won't even bother to fill them out. i think if you are in here illegally, you are probably not going to touch them. you will be hiding out. in lesson one can go from house to house and count the people, what good is he going to do? i do not think that can be done. it used to be done, but with some many people now i do not think it can be done. i've been trying for a long time to try to get on here to comment . i do believe this is someone trying to overthrow our president and bring in
foreigners, there's something wrong with those people. the senses i do not see it will do any good. they throw something out there to the american people to make them think they are doing something about it. i do not trust any of them, not trump, the congress. host: loretto in cleveland, ohio. you are against -- loretta in cleveland, ohio. you are against the citizenship question. becausei'm against this you do not do any good. host: why do you say that? caller: the law states that we are only supposed to count the number of people. that is for apportionment. gather, it looks like white supremacy to me. i am going to come out and say it. white people made it because
black people and brown people are having more babies and america is turning brown. they do not like it and they are kicking and screaming and doing every little thing they can do to try to stop it. it will not work. browna always has been and it is going to be brown. it will never be white. it never was. you broke up a little bit. i think we heard your point. thosek jorge vasquez at -- echoes your point in usa today's opinion pages when he says that is exactly what millions of latinos across the usa will do, regardless of their citizen status, when a census taker shows up at the door and 2020 asking whether the people
in their homes are citizens. they will not answer. he says the trump administration knows it. it also knows that up to 32 million latinos will be eligible to vote in 2020, the largest ethnic minority voting block in the country. let's go to john in mckinney, texas. good morning. you say yes, include the language. caller: absolutely. it is the only question the democrats are afraid of adding into the census. what they are scared about revealing is the extent to which we are being invaded by foreigners who do not share american values and american ideas. this is all part of a democratic plan to essentially create a single party totalitarian government in washington that would prevent any kind of opposition. it is sad.
the census is intended to count all people, and all we are doing is asking whether you are a citizen of the united states. you can see the incredible opposition to this coming from the apparatus of the democratic party and the media that once to to removethat wants any opposition to their plans to centralize all power in washington. the fact that you got this reaction to a simple question, i think it would reveal that not only do we not have 10 or 11 million people in this country illegally, we could have 70 million people in this country illegally. that would cause an utter uproar. i used to think we were engaged in a kind of local civil war. this is not a civil war. .e are being invaded
we are being invaded with idea of people who do not belong in this country, they did not come here. host: what ideas do they have that are not american? caller: socialism. let's talk about that right out of the gate. immigrants coming here from where believe in socialism? caller: we have the south american folks that are coming, all the south and central american folks coming here. traditions of very powerful, very centralized governments. host: i'm going to move on. we are going to get more calls. first page oh has more on the president. call from thee house democrats yesterday in reaction to the robert mueller reports. tweets talking about the response. david from rhode island, one of the democrats, saying doing
nothing in response to the mueller report will tell all of our adversaries they can attack at well. congress cannot shirk our duty. politico has reactions from members. the possibility raised of a censure. jerry nadler said a censure would be possible but meaningless. a judiciary member said on the call that according to sources, we are struggling to justify why we are not beginning impeachment proceedings, going on to say that i understand, we need to see the full report and supporting documents, i believe we have enough evidence now from the sources, mueller did not do us any favors, noting he left as breadcrumbs to follow. the president tweeting several tweets in reaction to the news of the last couple of days, starting with "the radical left democrats together with their leaders and the fake news media have gone totally insane.
i guess that means the republican agenda is working." stay tuned for more. he adds that in the old days if you were president and you had a good economy you were immune from criticism. today i have the greatest economy in history and the mainstream media it means nothing. it will. host: we will go back to calls. avery in kansas city. what you think about the question? democrat.used to be a i consider myself to be an independent. i think that is a pertinent question. that is what the census is for. there is a more important thing lying underneath that nobody is looking at. this is the direct result of partisan politics. we have more important things to argue about right now and to take up the supreme court's time with. it is a pertinent question. that is what the census is for.
-- it as the gentleman seemed like he was talking we should not have immigrants to the country. if we were all descended from the forefathers we would have webbed feet. you have a good day. host: you say yes, jeff. caller: yes, greta. i believe it is ridiculous we spend any money on illegals. everyone of them should be sent home. you remember hillary clinton called me the enemy, i'm a racist, i'm deplorable, i'm a big it. you all got what you asked for. we have blacks, browns, refugees -- host: host: we will move on. you thinko immigration question should be
added to the 2020 census? caller: no. our country is overpopulated now. host: ok. asking the question would do what? caller: it would increase our population. we are overpopulated. host: arlene in charlottesville, virginia. good morning. tell us your opinion. caller: good morning. i absolutely agree with that other caller. it is a necessity. it is a no-brainer. we need to know who is here and why. as we told you, c-span's latest book is out. -- notedident's historians ranking america's best and worst chief executives." if you are interested in purchasing this book, you can go findspan.org/store and
other items for purchase. at can find it all their c-span store.org. george in clarksville, tennessee. good morning. caller: good morning. the only thing i have to say or need to know is what is the purpose of a census. is it to know how many people are in a country or how many citizens? either way, it does not matter. if it is only for those who are citizens, those who are not here , sogally will not answer it i guess the main question is what is the purpose? if it is to count everybody, then do not put it on their. it is to only count the citizens, which is the main -- if that is the reasoning, put it on there.
host: the senses is done in order to cap everyone in the country, whether they are a citizen or not. does that change your opinion? purpose,f that is the just a matter of a body count, then do not put it on their. -- not put it on there. host: because? caller: it will force some people not to address that because they may fear some kind of retribution. if it is just to know how many american citizens are here, that i have no problem with putting it on. if what you say is true, do not put it on because you will not get an accurate representation. census data is used beyond reapportionment for congressional district. it is used to determine how much federal money should go for infrastructure, health care needs in different counties
across the country. it is used for all sorts of -- businesses use it to decide where they should move, where should they sell certain products, etc. caller: it is kind of a hard decision to say because if you are not here legally, you are here illegally, then why should the states or me or anybody else that pays taxes, why should i pay that money for those individuals who are not here. that question to me, i could care less about. host: the argument being it would hurt you. if there is more people where you drive on the road and they're not being counted, you do not get as much money for the roads you drive on. i do not know if it is a matter of how many people are here in the county where the state or the city i drive on.
if the road is messed up, they will fix it. look at it this way. how many of those that are here driving on our roads are not paying any taxes? host: george in tennessee. justin in pennsylvania. you say no. caller: isaiah know because of does go reasons. nost off, it will -- i say because of does go reasons. first off, it will exclude people. here's another question. how many guns do you have? most people do not want people mohammed guns they have. -- most people do not want people to know how many guns they have. the opposite should be done. put a gun question. then people would realize how discriminating those questions are. it is very frustrating regarding some people. if you cannot take into proportion what questions might
you not answer, then you cannot understand how someone might be against answering certain questions but not against answering all questions. there should not be certain questions like that. think abouthey having a gun question on the census? that is the question i need to know regarding the republicans. host: sadie in silver spring, maryland. good morning. tell us your opinion. caller: good morning. yes. it should be on the census. ,'ve been a census enumerator 1980, 1990, 2000, 2014 was a special election. hopefully i will be in the 2020.
host: what is your job? .aller: a census enumerator that is not a new term. because back to 1790. a census enumerator is the person who goes out to homes or and has the document and asks the question of the person when they knock on the door. listedstions are already , so you ask those specific questions. this is done all over the nation. on one day, on one day it is done. not everybody answers the question, even if you are standing in front of them because they do not know the answer. it asked your ethnic group and the person said they did not know.
what do you do if the person you are talking to, the person who gives you information, they do not know the answer, you have to put what you see. if youhat would you do are involved in the 2020 census and the question we were showing to our viewers, this immigration question is asked? what do you think is going to happen? caller: if the citizen question -- you would like to give the person the actual census document. sometimes you cannot because when you visit the homes those are the people who have not returned the census. host: ok. caller: when you have to visit their home, you might have gone to her three or 45 times. when you finally get -- you might have gone two or three or four or five times.
that is a great question. i guess we would have to leave it blank. you cannot tell it someone is a citizen or not a citizen. that is something that needs to be debated, i would guess. there are a lot of people that do not answer the senses. if no one answers the door, you've been there three or four times, you ask a neighbor. one time i had to go to the apartment complex management times thissay, 10 has been here and i have this record of people. .an you tell me any information how many people live in the household? how many children? they will fight you all the way but this is mandatory. these questions have to be answered. you asked a very good question. host: how much do you get paid to do this work? caller: the last time i did it was a special census in 2014.
i think it was around $20 an hour. every 10 years. you have to swear. you have to swear when you get the job. you stand up and raise your hand. it is a very important job. you are fingerprinted. census enumerators take the job very seriously. i don't know how i started, but i love it. host: why do you love it? caller: i love it because i feel i am participating in the federal government. i am a participator as a citizen, an american. nobody has asked me that question before. it is not something i brag about. it is not something i talk about. it is something i take seriously. citizenship, a lot of -- the
whole nation, county, state, government uses information from the senses. that determines everything for this country. it is not going to make any difference with the citizen question. i will tell you that it. there will be a number of people that will not return the senses. -- census. withut the best you can all the information you can gather from that neighborhood. thank you for calling in this morning. we will be following up on earth day yesterday. we will be following up on the issues of the environment and energy and how they make play -- they may play in campaign 2020.
we will be discussing the findings of the mullah report related to russia's -- mueller report related to russia's interference in 2016. >> when we think of 2020, we think of the presidential election, but also house races need to be decided. announced he was retiring. there is a new entry into that race. the founder of the nonprofit organization entered the race monday with the pledge to bring the perspective of an outsider, businesswoman, and a mom. campaign with a aoc andof clips from tlaib. [video clip] ocasio cortez.
>> that ideology is not sustainable. >> all of us are ready. that is the best they can do in washington? if your kids behaved like these women, you would ground them. we need more women in office with conservative values, common sense, and real-world experience. here is my story. i'm a businesswoman and the mom of four. depot. my way up home i have started nonprofits to strengthen our community. i am ready to lead by example. i am running for congress to strengthen our economy, make sure families have affordable health care, and american values are celebrated, not attacked.
i will work with president trump to make america stronger and will take on career politicians from both parties to get results for you. we need results, not resistance. together we can change washington and start solving problems again. join me. also highlighting when it comes to this race the former nfl player joe profit and state senator looking to join. democrats looking at this district as one of their top targets. eaves, and, john brenda lopez will soon announce apparently. if you go to the cnbc website, it highlights some of the close
senate races in 2020. it highlights the reelection campaign of doug jones. out the 2017 special election, doug jones had the benefit of facing a flawed republican candidate who lacked party support. his reelection bid could hinge on whether he faces chief justice roy moore, who faced allegations of sexual misconduct with teenagers decades ago. by defending his seat in the higher turnout presidential election year in a state the president carried by nearly 30 percentage points will prove a tougher task for the senator, saying his political survival might come down to who he faces next year. bradley byrne, a mainstream
thep republican has entered offer a mored significant challenge then roy considerings entering the race. annualbrought another morning from social security and action is needed by congress to alter the financial trajectory of those programs. medicare faces a substantial financial shortfall. the trustees recommend lawmakers address the shortfall in a timely way. neither medicaid nor social security have enough money to continue paying current benefits for the millions of americans who use those programs. today from a program the american enterprise
institute looking at the trustees report and giving analysis. if you are interested in finding that can we invite you to go to our website at c-span.org. not only for that event, if you are interested in the status of social security and medicare, go to the box at the top and type in those words and it will show you everything we have taken in on our network for more information on social security and medicare. host: at the table this morning, timothy cama, a reporter with e&e news and zack colman with about campaignk issues in 2020. how big of an issue is the environment on the democratic side? guest: there is pulling that suggests it is the second most important issue in iowa.
the des moines register suggests 80% of caucus-goers want to see something about climate change. monmouth university put out another full that said second again climate change. it has elevated up the platform for democrats. the question is whether it will remain there. host: has this ever been number two for voters? guest: this issue has always been further down for voters. different than a lot of previous elections. president trump has been very divisive. his policies have been very divisive in terms of the environment, rolling back regulations, stopping policies, things of that nature. seen alast year, we have number of reports about climate change from the federal
government, from the united nations and otherwise. they are raising the alarm bell, especially among young voters. that is fueling this increased attention. host: we want to ask our viewers this morning if this is an important issue to you in campaign 2020. dividing the lines from republicans (202) 748-8001. democrats (202) 748-8000. independents (202) 748-8002. let's show our viewers what the president has said on climate change. there is movement in the atmosphere, no question. as to whether or not it is man-made or whether the effects are there, i don't see it? do we want clean water? absolutely. the fire in california, they did no forest management, and it is a massive problem. zack colman?
guest: there is no doubt that americans value clean air and clean water. if you look at the democrat side, they want climate change. yesterday made no mention of climate change. if you want clean air and clean water, you have to clean up how you produce energy, how you turn on the lights. a lot of the things that make our air dirty and water dirty affect the climate. there is a disconnect. maybe you can get at the problem by addressing both, but his policies do not get at climate change at this point. host: on the democratic side, talk about governor inslee's b id. it seems to center on climate change. guest: jay inslee of washington his campaigntered on climate change, practically a single issue. he thinks this is the largest issue facing the country.
he does not have many specific plans he has rolled out yet. he has been teasing that going forward. this is his number one issue. a lot of the other candidates on the democratic side are also making this a priority. apartets governor inslee is he is talking about this constantly in terms of national security, in terms of health, in terms of the filibuster reform in the senate. all of these things. host: he says it all comes back to climate change? guest: for him it is all about climate change. he has a record of trying repeatedly in the state to get real policies forward on that. he had a victory in recent weeks with the state committing to 100% clean electricity in the future. that is valuable to him in this
campaign to have a victory like that. this is issue number one for him, practically a single issue candidate. host: zack colman, the new york times asked all the candidates to answer issues on climate change. what were the results? guest: every single candidate said they support getting back into the paris climate accord, which the house is going to take up next week. that was a significant step to get the world into a climate agreement. the world ford decades. but it is also a low bar in terms of addressing climate change. how much farther would you go? a handful have said they would support new regulations. pretty much all of them have said they would reinstate the clean power plan, which was obama's plan to reduce carbon dioxide emission from power plants.
cory booker said he would support a carbon tax, pete buttigieg said he would. jay inslee says from his state where they put it on the ballot twice, it got defeated. it is a hard thing to do. it is politically difficult to justify sometimes. host: how would a carbon tax work? what would it do? guest: the basic premise is that you price the damage that is done from emitting carbon dioxide in the air. you're talking about future climate change, future generations having public health problems, asthma from particulate matter in the air. these are things that you can monetize. there is disagreement over the cost and how quickly you rip it up. p it up. -- ram you want to make it harder to
put pollution in the air. askinghe new york times candidates this question, all of them say they think we should be in the paris agreement. seven out of 18 supported carbon tax. does that matter to all of you? let's go to mike in white plains, new york. good morning. caller: mi on the air? host: you are. caller: put it this way, the earth is about ready to run out of water. we are wasting fuel. we waste food. 2020, it is what we do now. we need to have tough environment laws, clean up the water, clean up our earth, preserve public lands. we have a lot of things to do, and we are running out of time. in the words of winston
churchill, it is too late, and it may be too little. host: when you go to vote in 2020, where will climate change rank for you? will it be in the top five? caller: what did you say? host: when you go to vote, where will the issue of climate change be for you? caller: i vote every year. i'm a democrat. i think we should protect the threat to keep population under control -- protect the air. keep population under control. protect our food and water. host: where does this issue fall for republican voters? from a congressman in florida yesterday saying gop millennial voters are asking for legislation, action to combat climate change. it is stratified by age.
younger voters in both parties demand some sort of response to climate change, you are not seeing that across the republican party as a whole. it is near the bottom of issues that republicans care about. does not animate them in the same way that it does democrats were they have connected it to social inequality, national security, food insecurity. host: are there any potential challengers to president trump that would put climate change on their agenda? guest: bill weld, the former governor of massachusetts, just enter the race last week as a primary challenger against president trump. he is widely considered to be a long shot candidate. president trump enjoys very high popularity in the republican party. governor weld is very vocal about caring about climate change. he says he even wants to keep the u.s. in the paris agreement,
which is notable as a republican because very few republicans in power agree with that. wasknow, governor weld governor of massachusetts in the 1990's. at the time he was very progressive among republican governors, protected a lot of land and water. he made this a big issue. this is part of how he is trying to differentiate himself from president trump, on the environment. host: let's listen to the former massachusetts governor at an event in new hampshire in february. [video clip] >> with respect to climate change, the approach of the current administration is antithetical to every principle of conservation and conservatism and every tenet of theodore roosevelt's grand old party. whether it is stewardship of
god's creation can take your choice. the u.s. must rejoin the paris climate accords and adopt ofgets consonant with those other industrialized nations. we must protect our economy, yes, but we must also recognize that increased natural disasters and unfamiliar weather patterns threaten to strip the snow from our white mountains and to melt the mountain glaciers worldwide upon which hundreds of millions of people depend for their only water supply. europe has its cathedrals and monuments. we have our mountains, canyons, valleys, rivers, and streams, and we had better take care of them. host: let's go to our next caller, a republican. he lives in michigan. what did you think listening to
the former governor? caller: i think it is insanity. with respect to the paris treaty, the u.s. was the only large nation to reduce emissions. we did so significantly. the rest of the world, including european union nations, increased emissions. co2 is not a poison. the last time i checked, the woolly mammoths and sabertooth tigers did not drive suvs. [inaudible] host: i am going to apologize because it is difficult to hear you. you are breaking up. i am going to let you go. u.s.ys that it was the that lowered emissions, and no one else was. guest: first of all, i love hearing from fellow
michiganders. it is true the u.s. has committed to curbing their emissions a lot faster than india and china, that it does not take into account the historical perspectives of where the u.s., china, and india have contributed to the current problem of climate change. the u.s. is an almost postindustrial nation at this point with a per capita income that is much greater than india and china. why penalize countries that are now modernizing and gaining wealth when we built our economy on the back of cheap energy that has contributed to this problem? that has always been a sticking point in this climate debate. india and china are powerful economies. they are our economic competitors in many ways. that is not line up with the economic goals of republicans and democrats. it is a sticky issue. it is not just for the u.s., it
is a lot of countries that are in that same position. yes, the world has been hotter, in hered on where we are position relative to the sun, it should be much cooler than it is. our parts per million in the atmosphere should be much lower. there is very much a correlation with the industrial revolution on man's impact concentration of co2. guest: zach is absolutely right on that. it is notable that in terms of per capita emissions of carbon dioxide in greenhouse gas emissions, the u.s. is far and away above the other countries of the world, and the paris agreement is another way to look at it, maybe per capita the u.s. should be emitting less. it is worth noting that in 2018 the u.s. greenhouse gas
emissions likely increased just over 3%. for the last two decades, they have been on a downward trend, largely due to coal plants retiring and other reductions in the use of fossil fuels. last year, it is estimated that the u.s. increased emissions by about 3.4% over the previous year. host: we will go to bob next in massachusetts, independent. is this an important issue to you? caller: absolutely. in fact, i was at the first earth day event in washington, d.c., in 1970. there was like over 100,000 people there on the mall. now birthday goes by with no fanfare -- earth day goes by with no fanfare. 4/20 is a bigger day, smoking
pot. it is crazy. the climate, i believe, is changing. you can see it. the -- the -- thus in he snowcaps are dirty. water is getting dirty. host: when you are looking at the field so far as an independent, is there a democratic candidate that you like the most because of their agenda on climate change? believe all the candidates, their agenda on climate change is wrong. we have to be preparing.
that means one world government, one people. we have to change with it. host: we need to do something now to adapt? caller: yes, we have to prepare ourselves like the people who built the pyramid's of egypt and in central america. climate change came upon them, and they chose to become nomadic hunters all over again. host: i will leave it there. have any of these candidates laid out specifics of how they want the u.s. to adjust to climate change? guest: all of these candidates want to reenter the paris climate agreement. they overwhelmingly also want to reinstate the climate change regulations that president obama had put in place, almost all of which president trump is working to repeal or significantly
weaken. a lot of them want to go much further than that. for example, elizabeth warren from massachusetts came out with a comprehensive plan for dealing with the federal land the u.s. owns. that would include, she has promised on her first day in ,ffice if she becomes president to stop all new leases for drilling for oil or natural gas or mining for coal on federal land. that is significant because federal land fossil fuels and offshore is responsible for about one quarter of the greenhouse gas emissions in an annual basis from the u.s. that would put a significant dent in the u.s. greenhouse gas emissions. host: let's go to john from pennsylvania, republican. caller: how are you doing? host: morning. caller: pardon? host: good morning.
go ahead. caller: i would like to know if our gentlemen have ever heard of photosynthesis. we have the forest it 30 billion trees in the world 2018. and grasso have trees to have oxygen. that is called photosynthesis. that is part of the world leading. thank you. guest: he is right. this is where a lot of republicans, at climate change -- republicans come at climate a conservation perspective. one way to stop climate change is to plant trees. you can use markets to encourage that kind of conservation. it is an effective way to help. caller,ilip, democratic
oklahoma. good morning. is it that thee u.s. is the only one that has to cut their gas? china and russia and them have dirtier air then we have. they have to walk around with masks to breathe in china. the u.s. is the one who has to pay for china's smog pollution. host: is this an issue for you, climate change? it does not sound like you agree that the u.s. should be taking action? caller: find that big oil democrat. as far as i'm concerned, they can deport all the communist democrats down to the countries they support. host: who do you support? caller: none of them. they are all communist democrats
as far as i'm concerned. i have no use for either. we want to show what mayor in indianaieg said during his presidential announcement speech. he brought up climate change. [video clip] >> we saw it right here in the city where we had to fire up the emergency operations center in the city twice in two years, first game a 1000 year rainfall, and then a 500 year flood, 12 months apart. thaty math, the chance of happening is about 125,000 to one. either we should all be heading down to four wins later to try to re-create those odds on the slots, or something is changing around us. a contesteven having
about his private plane is better is only one side brought forth any plans at all. [cheers and applause] if you don't like our plans on climate, show us yours. [cheers and applause] line.onomy is on the our future is on the line. lives are on the line. let's call it what it is, climate security, a life-and-death issue for our generation. host: do you think that issue at the end plays well with potential independent voters, blue-collar or blue dog democrats? if you frame it in the way of visiting national security? being national security? guest: a number of other candidates also focus on the security aspect.
seth moulton, congressman from massachusetts, enter the race yesterday. , in addition to mayor pete. he puts it in security terms. this is a big theme among some of the democrats that this is a national security problem. mayor pete also mentioned the extreme weather issues. that is another thing a lot of candidates are talking about a lot, especially out in the midwest, wildfires in california. they seem to think this is something voters will care about more if they see it, they know that it happened to them or somebody else today. host: this is costing taxpayers a lot of money, this extreme weather. in the washington post, taxpayers spending on the u.s. disasters fund is exploding.
as global temperatures rise, the federal government has faced far more billion dollars disasters. from 1980 to 2018, the u.s. faced on average only six in a given year. in the five most recent years, 13 u.s. has seen on average billion dollar disasters per year. is the argument a lot of advocates make. you are paying for this. reason to stop committing out because there is damage, there is a cost. host: welcome to the conversation, jerry. caller: thank you. my question is, are people willing to give up their automobiles and go back to horses? you are talking modernization
where steel is involved, electricity was made. you look at the time. .hat was all done are we willing to go back in time to the conditions, the inventions that we have? are we going to give up our cell phones and electricity? how are we going to heat homes? are we going to go back to bring trees? host: we heard the point. let me ask zack colman to , if changes were made to address climate change, what would our life look like? guest: that is a false choice at this point. there has been a lot of technology advancement. you're talking electric cars. there are real problems with how do you get the energy input to produce that kind of material,
produce steel, how are you going to replace that? those are questions that can be answered down the line. right now, there are very low hanging fruit in terms of how you do better. it is not about cutting off electricity and ending the missions tomorrow or even 12 years. that line that the world is going to end in 12 years is not what people are saying. it has been convoluted and distorted. we need to get on a path which is significantly reducing emissions in the next 12 years in order to keep to this 1.5 degrees celsius goal, which most scientists don't believe we will meet anyway. left any candidate on the appeal to that color? -- caller? are trying. of them a lot of people are concerned we are going to try to cut off
fossil fuels immediately. nobody is talking about cutting off all fossil feel use or production immediately. that is a significant concern among a lot of people and more centrist or conservative people. john hickenlooper, for example, former governor of colorado, who is one of the candidates, he is seen as one of the most friendly to fossil fuels among the candidates. he still wants to greatly reduce emissions. he has said greg pence about the green new deal. he wrote an opinion piece recently in the washington post criticizing the green new deal for unreasonable goals. he is seen as the candidate who to peopleto appeal who do not want to see the cut off of fossil fuels. host: beto o'rourke, is he in that same vein? guest: he is from texas, and oil
heavy state. he has not completely endorsed the green new deal or complete decarbonization of the energy sector. he also wants to greatly reduce emissions pretty quickly. still faster than what president trump is doing or what our current trajectory would be under current policy. the former listen to congressman in his own words. [video clip] years, after the limit, we can still listen to and believe the scientists, and i do, who tell us that thanks to our own emissions and our own inaction, this planet has warmed one degree celsius since 1980, and the fires and floods and i this planet warms another degree
celsius, and this is our moment to do everything in our power to free this economy from a dependence on fossil fuels, greenhouse gas emissions, and to ensure as we made the investment in new technologies and renewable energy that everyone has the chance to benefit from this new economy, especially low income and communities of color that have borne the brunt of climate change so far. host: that is what the texas lawmaker has said about climate change so far. take a look at senator sanders, who is also running as a democrat in 2020. this is his platform, past the green new deal invest in infrastructure and them is to protect vulnerable communities, endce carbon emissions,
exports of coal, natural gas, and oil, do any of those ideas appeal to you? let's go to tom, independent. caller: thank you for taking my call. i consider myself a true earth lover. it is a special day to me. i want to give a couple big suggestions that each of us can do. number one, by american food grown in america, grown locally, that way you are not polluting the earth by bringing tomatoes from mexico. grow american, buy american. one thing that disturbs me about the movement is all the hypocrisy. i called them ecopigs. they have the platform. they talk about saving the world, and we are supposed to turn our thermometers down, but they don't do it. for example, bernie sanders.
he owns almost three homes. he just bought a home with 500 feet of beachfront. can you believe that? you have al gore, whose home uses 20 times more electricity than the average home. then you have people like opera, the biggest hypocrite of all, these hollywood elitists that have to say turn down the thermostats, use less gas. oprah winfrey has six huge mega-mansions she flies around with her jets to. all you democrats out there, get real. tell these people to be quite good host: what about that argument? guest: this is a frequent argument that people make when they look at activists or politicians who want to take dramatic action on climate change. there is something to be said
about setting an example, be it bernie sanders, al gore, what have you. , thed setting the example more important thing, the more dramatic reductions in greenhouse gas emissions come from more wide-ranging action, be that government action, policies, things of that nature that can bring about economy wide reductions. in the 1990's, for example, people were big on the individual actions people could take, recycling or turning down your thermostat or what have you. since then, it has shifted a lot to what people can do collectively as a country, as a world to put a dent in emissions. host: everett, ohio, republican.
caller: good morning. how are you? i usually call in on tax issues, but i could not resist this morning. good morning to everybody. host: good morning. caller: it is a complicated issue, the environment is. i have been an environmentalist. snowfallhas had great this year. i worked in a lumber know when i was young. i have been to mount saint helens to see what happened after that happened. first of all, if these guys would look at is carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide heavier than air? it is heavier than air. photosynthesis, the fellow is right about that, rain absorbs some of the carbon in the air. or first fires,
.hey contribute i watch a lot of nature shows and science shows, how the universe works. cycles,goes through every 14 years or so. have carbonat deterioration have a landslide that disrupts the basis of that late, carbon comes up as bubbles. there have been two incidents that i am aware of, and it killed 2000 people because they were close to the ground. it was ground moving fog of carbon monoxide or carbon dioxide. it goes on. host: what is your point? understandpoint is i the fellow on the side
saying replant trees. if you would go to mount saint helens, they replanted trees after mount saint helens blew up and destroyed all those trees. colorado, kill in when i was working as young man , the between school years beetle kill was just starting. host: what should be done? you are giving us examples. what should be done? caller: i believe everybody ought to take care of the environment the best weekend, but i think the issue is bigger than that. a lot of it is natural. ok. we heard the point. let me go to jim, new york, democratic caller. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for your time.
i am wondering if anyone has thought of the exponential effect of global warming, you turn off the air conditioning, you have to burn more fossil fuel, then it is going to happen a lot faster than 12 years. that is what i am trying to get at. host: go ahead. take that. guest: one thing for the first caller, there is no doubt that there is carbon in our world. that is a fact. what is also a fact is the concentration of carbon dioxide can which is a thin that -- dioxide, which is a thing that triggers climate change. this layer of carbon dioxide is increasing. the fact that there have been trees that have been burned by mount saint helens corrupting, irrelevant in the
larger picture. we know we are out of whack with where we should be. that is what is causing these changes. to the most recent caller, there is a chance that our emissions could increase. they already are. there is a study that showed by8 co2 emissions increased 22%. when you take the eye off the policies, and the economy is growing more. do inis a lot you can your own backyard. you could buy local. that will reduce the carbon footprint of the food that arise in your kitchen, but there is a need for policy. it is more than what you can do in your own backyard. it is setting expectations and goals and living up to them. host: ray in texas, republican. caller: i sit here and i love the program. i am enjoying it. i have to laugh because i hear
your guests and callers saying pretty much the same thing. this is a redistribution of wealth. run back to the paris climate accord, all it is going to take money from the population and redistributed it across the world instead of just the democrats here in the u.s. absolutely nothing in the paris climate deal is going to do anything to reduce these parts per million of co2 in the atmosphere. none of that is going to change except for here in the u.s. the rest of the world, the majority of the population of the world will continue to after we hadorld been taxed. host: i'm going to have timothy cama respond. caller: -- guest: one thing he touched
on is what the u.s. does when the rest of the world cuts emissions. the u.s. did have more stringent emissions goals then a lot of the other nations. china only pledged to peak its emissions in 2030, not increase emissions after 2030, but not necessarily decrease. the paris agreement was the first time that all the countries of the world, nearly 200 countries made some commitment to reduce emissions or put a ceiling on their emissions, which is something the u.s. has wanted and has been seeking for decades, to get other countries to make pledges and not just the u.s. to make pledges. a lot of countries committed to reducing emissions and to putting a ceiling on their emissions. it is harder to enforce that.
it is much harder to enforce that when the u.s. exits and says it is not going to meet its own goals that we laid out in that agreement. robert, independent. question or comment? caller: comment. climate change, as vital as it is, is essentially a symptom of overpopulation. the carbon footprint of the u.s. or china or the human species as a whole equals the carbon footprint per capita times the population. technology can help reduce the carbon footprint per capita, but as long as you have a continually increasing population, it is going to be shoveling against the tide. we have to address the population question if we're ever going to address the pollution question of climate
change. thank you. host: zack colman. a line oft was argument that was popular in the 1970's. it stems from an influential book called the population bomb. some debunked theories. we have grown in population, and we have figured out how to feed people. there are more efficient ways to do things. is true that if we have more people, there is a chance to add more emissions. but now you can have solar, wind, battery storage. these are things that are expensive on the front end, but we know how to do it. the idea that we can not grow anymore, there is debate about that. there are ways to do it if we are willing to pay for it. host: we will go next to michigan, democratic caller. help you with your name. caller: hello, greta.
you're such a wonderful, beautiful woman. hello, c-span. alternative suppressed technology. do you know they can make hydrogen and oxygen out of water? we get a lot of technologies from other worlds. i worked in area 54. we have technology you would not believe. you should look into alternative energy like hydrogen. thank you. host: ok. increasing federal funding for technology research is something that has wide bipartisan support. all of the democratic residential candidates have said something about that. republicans in congress usually go on board with that with increasing research funding. it has had a lot of very
concrete results in terms of reducing emissions and improving the environment. for example, hydraulic fracking for natural gas had a lot of help from the federal government at one point. the cost of solar power has reduced a lot in the last 10 to theargely been investments from the federal government. that can have real results. host: jerry, texas, republican. you are on the air. caller: i would like to say that i think it would be great for the nation if they start burning more natural gas and propane gas in cars. gas puts out almost zero hydrocarbons as fuel. assetk that would be an to this country. we have just about an unlimited supply of natural gas in this country.
host: zack colman. guest: he is right that we converted our transportation sector to natural gas, it would be better than running on gasoline and oil. there are questions on how you do that. we do not have the fueling infrastructure in most of the country to do that. the same reason we don't have a lot of electric cars. there is not a lot of charging for structure. there are companies that are running on natural gas. its fleet toverted natural gas. it has half the carbon content of coal. there are some benefits. host: neil, independent. caller: thank you for taking my call. a couple things i have been thinking about is there is a lot of emphasis about individual responsibility, but we are not discussing how insignificant individual carbon footprint is when it comes to the broader picture and large national
companies are responsible for of vast majority emissions. it is not negate the fact that individual responsibility plays a role in increasing awareness, but why is there no interest in holding corporations accountable? it seems disappointing that the conversation always comes back to money as to the reason why we're not taking action. it seems shortsighted when considering the fact that in the projections in the next few decades is that on sustainability for human life is a very real reality. money will not be reserved in a situation like that. i'm interested in hearing why that is the situation. host: timothy? guest: a lot of the emphasis used to be more on individual orions, eating local food
driving less. that a lotis right of productions happen through -- reductions can happen through large-scale policies, collective action and whatnot. when you target industries and target companies that turns a lot of people off because it can increase costs, and that does go to the individuals, the consumers. as we have seen with a lot of these technologies and changes in the past, that does not have to be the case. thata lot of the policies the democrats are talking about forly, the green new deal example, they are not talking about it in terms of costs because a policy like that would be a large-scale rejiggering of
the economy in a way that the u.s. has not seen before and in a way that people who support these policies say is the only way you can get the emissions that are necessary in the next few decades to avoid the most catastrophic results of climate change. host: this viewer on twitter wants to know, explained the biggest issue of co2 emissions, and what do you think the state of ohio or any state can do to reduce emissions with policies like governor markell line? guest: the issue with co2 is it warms the planet. youe are other pollutants release into the world. co2 comes from hydrocarbons. there are pollutants like articulate matter, which get
into your lungs and blood stream, and they can cost significant health effects. the trump administration has changed the way in which those are calculated, saying if you have a rule that goes after co2 emissions, you cannot also count the benefits from reducing particulate matter in justifying that rule. when you burn coal, you get co2 and particulate matter, which affects the health and the planet. host: let's go to carlton, democratic caller. caller: i think it is an issue education of the individual. i live in a relatively conservative area, south carolina. barroominto the discussions, and it makes me cringe hearing people talk about, well, you are burning your campfire, you're adding carbon or co2.
you are barbecuing, you are adding co2 i wish that they it and make itme simple for people to understand that hydrocarbons are buried way beneath the earth. they are under salt flats and rock. thatre introducing carbon has not been in our ecosystem for millennia. the moment is we are burning here in ouras not ecosystem. hydrocarbons are from millennia ago that we are introducing. is inod, everything that our ecosystem burning is part of the stabilization. the disruption comes from bringing something millennia ago , introducing that. host: i want zack colman to pick up on that.
guest: the caller is right. that is the issue. we are dredging up things that have been sequestered underground over millions of years. we are putting them in the atmosphere. we found a way to dig them up. where a lot of callers and people have said is, right, you are a hypocrite because you drive a car. you have a campfire. these are facts that when you put your key in the ignition and turned it, if you don't have an electric car, you are contributing to climate change, but it is irrelevant. unique collective action to address climate change. this is a global problem. it is a collective action problem. host: larry, indiana, republican. .aller: i just have a statement i would like to read something to you.
while the earth remaineth, summer and day and night shall not cease. climate change, god is in control of everything. you can talk climate change all you want, but god is the final arbiter. , ok. larry there are republicans and democrats who talk about climate change in religious terms by saying what? caller: -- guest: a lot of people who are religious, such as that caller, believe the bible can debunk climate change or say that action is not necessary to stop it, but a lot of religious people also believe that curbing
emissions, fighting climate change, trying to keep the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases low is part of taking care of your and living up to the charge that god gave to the people to take care of the earth that he created for them. host: to take care of them. everybody.d morning, the u.s. constitution was originally made out of hemp,, a my correct on that? be made into clothing, plastics and anything? >i would appreciate your comment on how many states are trying to grow this plant. itt can we do, isn't recyclable, biodegradable? guest: yes, there are some states working on that.
in kentucky, there are a lot of appalachian states looking into hamp is an industry. it can be made into clothing. it doesn't quite get us into the transportation emissions in terms of climate change. but it is a replacement input for other inputs. host: if our viewers want to follow the reporters, you can go follow timothyo cama and politico.com to follow zack colman. coming up next we turn our attention to the mueller report in the report of the report that focuses on russian interference in the campaign in 2016. we will talk to heather conley, former secretary of state for your reagan and -- for european affairs.ian but first come out more on the president fighting subpoenas from capitol hill. former whiteat
house counsel donald mcgahn will appear in a hearing next month, and another of the president staffers will attempt to resist appearing before congress, the from a official who oversaw security processes in the white house, after a whistleblower told the committee that 25 clearances have been reversed after being denied. he will appear before the panel tuesday. by the white house counsel said the house oversight something a request is unconstitutional and infringes on executive branch interest. he says his client sides with the president saying -- we will follow the instruction of the branch of government that employs them. the washington examiner saying that the house judiciary committee chairman said that he could face arrest. when it comes to the
race, there are interviews with something the legislators talking about concerns over what they see as sexism in the 2020 race. jayapaltative pramila -- i feel frustrated because i don't feel like a women candidates are getting the same kind of coverage. some female candidates receive short attention when they're allowed policy proposals. whereas milk edited do something that get on a countertop and they get coverage for days. she was referring to their own or that she was referring to beto o'rourke. you can see more of that at mcclatchy d.c.. on the pages of roll call this morning, if you know or watch this program, you hear the term h street, in reference to a lot
of lobby shops that reside on that street in washington, d.c. one founder of the client group, adc public relations crime saying, if you pete, he is super energized, it is hard not to be impressed for the d.c. strategist lobbying class, it is not, to say the primary outcome was i think it is noble that many people are getting on board early. he is not a registered lobbyist and helped to raise money for president obama, but he says he is part of the pete buttigeig circle. as always, you can go to our website at c-span.org. one of the events we are taking in today will feature larry kudlow, he is set to speak at the national press club at 12:30 this afternoon. you can see that on c-span and
follow along with it at c-span.org or you can download our c-span radio app and listen to it there. host: we turn our attention now to the mueller report and russia's interference in the campaign 2016. here is heather conley, former citizen secretary of state for european and eurasian affairs under the george w. bush administration. she is the vice president for the center for strategic and international studies' europe program. thank you for being here. away?s your take guest: i think it is important to take a big step back. i think this story begins in 2014. let us start there. remembering in 2014 the russian government had annexed crimea, had attacked eastern ukraine and the u.s. had deployed three companies to the three baltic
states to defend nature against russian aggression. as they were attacking ukraine, they began to make plans to attack the united states doing the 2016 residential election. so i want people to understand that what russia did, i will keep us focused on russia, this is military doctrine come of this is called new generation warfare. the russian chief of the general staff has created a doctrine designed to basically crash us or influence us from within. you don't have to invade us, you don't have to cross our borders, ,ou are changing us from inside changing americans view about our democracy and helping americans fight each other. you are sewing those divisions. what this 448-page report did was map out, at least the first part of it, how russia did that. it is so important for americans
stop.w that this will not they did it again in 2018 in trying to shape perceptions and they will do it again in 2020. eight may be a guest the republicans the next time rather than the democrats. we have to prepare and protect our country from this influence whether it is russia today, or other adversaries who see this playbook working very successfully and may try to do it again. host: adam schiff wrote an opinion piece in "the washington the special counsel's investigation began after an investigation of the f.b.i. into .n attack yet the report on the describes this in a paragraph, talking about how the special counsel's office met regularly with the f.b.i., and even embedded counterintelligence agents for of -- these
work of those agents and her findings is not detailed in the report. what do these agents under mueller's supervision recover? americans present an acute counterintelligence risk, and what steps if any have been taken to address these threats? guest: this is again where the story began, concerned that a foreign power was attempting to influence our elections and our particular campaign. this is why we need to protect the country. to make sure that in the future, every candidate, potential presidential candidate, understands that it is unacceptable to accept help from a foreign adversary to help pursue an election. that basic ground truth that we need. the counterintelligence and perhaps speculation of what it is not in the report, it was
such a level of concern that we had to have our national security team make sure that a foreign adversary was not trying to unduly influence a campaign and ultimately an election. host: adam schiff right -- a candidate, he writes -- if a foreign power presents come from is an information on a government official, that is a counterintelligence risk. if a foreign power provides influence over the president, that is a counterintelligence nightmare. guest: absolutely. when any official takes their oath of office, they swear to defend and protect the constitution. this is not act, to protect the constitution and the integrity of the united states. so it is very serious. it does not presume guilt, it presumes that would have potential he and adversary that is trying to do us harm and have to protect ourselves.
we would protect u.s. men and women in military service if they are defending our nation. this is a different type but equally important of defending our country and our constitution. host: i want to invite our viewers to call and participate. heather conley here to take your questions about russia, the tech six, the tools, and why they are inivated to interfere camping 2016 and also in 2018. republicans, 202-748-8001, democrats, 202-748-8000, 202-748-8002. when it comes to tactics, let's talk about the social media campaign -- the mueller report says, the internet research gency carried out the earliest operations identified by the investigations, a social media campaign designed to provoke political and social discord.
they also used social media accounts to sow discord in the political system through what is termed information warfare. the campaign involved from a generalized program designed in 2014 and 2015 to undermine the electoral system through a targeted operation that favored president trump and disparaged candidate clinton. thet: absolutely, this is military doctrine, new generation warfare. to use a strategy of influence to basically disarm the enemy from within. . divisions, they exploit the them.sses presented to i have watched how russia has used its influence across europe. ,hether it is in western europe central and eastern europe, the western balkans. it takes on different patterns. it sees the divisions within the society. sometimes they are religious, ethnic, whatever creates discord in a population. they send messages that amplify
them. they are interested in having that society attack one another. because while you are so confused in fighting one another, best consumed in fighting one another, you will be less likely to protect the country from what russia is trying to do. what we are seeing in the information warfare using what divides america -- our political polarization, our partisanship. that is a huge exploitation. the more we are not unified and working on issues in the bipartisan manner some of that is an area of division. racial tensions --their social media implication was definitely on black lives matter. religious tensions, you could see that is played in economics. anything that divides us. they are not creating that, we are. there are just using incredibly powerful social media tools to amplify that. what became apparent throughout report, and i can
come of the footnotes are the richness, you have to dig through them because it gives you a sense of how it evolved. you good sense the more awkwardness ofe their use of vocabulary, but certainly, they were getting a little better and becoming more american voices that were harder to distinguish. it was like an american providing these messages and that it is hard, because then, it is free speech, if it is an american expressing their opinion. so it gets very difficult. but it is to amplify our divisions. and the only way we fix those divisions is if we fix ourselves. host: do so shall we give companies have a responsibility? guest: they do. i think this has been one of the outcomes of the investigation, the social media companies understanding that they are part of the battlefield. we saw a big leap from pre-2016 in the midterm
elections of 2018, the social media companies had their own literal war rooms where they were monitoring traffic, taking down these automated bots, taking down the fake facebook accounts. but this is a catch up game, we are trying to catch and keep up. we don't have an office in , bipartisanunified message coming out of washington and going out throughout our communities. we have to watch out for this. . we have to eliminate how we think. as president putin's advisor recently said -- this is not about election interference, it is about getting into our brains and rewiring how american people think. . that is how serious it is. it takes us working to help make sure we understand why these adversaries are attacking us, but we have to have confidence in our own democracy, our institutions and our elected
leaders. and right now, the majority of the american people don't have that confidence. host: surely from hot springs, arkansas, republican. caller: good morning. so glad i got to call. this is my third time to call about this. this has gone on and on and on, and i just don't understand why, i side documentary two times on c-span and it was an investigative reporter, seymour hersh, reporter. his team was in a new york library, and he did this .ocumentary about journalism , andres about all of this he said, that and of it, the reason i am so aggravated about
it, he said, in the future, it be a fable that is agreed upon. it looks like the fable is none ending. the one that began was the f.b.i. host: thank you, shirley. the c.i.a. and brendan started this one? started.a. and brennan this when? caller: i don't know, i saw the documentary. host: ok. guest: this is very confusing, that is the bottom line, it is hard to understand the complexity of this. this is actually quite historic. what russia has been doing is what they were doing during the soviet union. we used to call it "active measures." anything to discredit a real confidence and credibility in the united states. it makes us look less attractive as leaders in the world, it
makes our allies question us. it is in fact something that has been very established practice. but in today's world, we have, the american people are not completely convinced that they are at war. the ask most people, we are at war in russia, this war is not happening on our country, on our social media feeds, so there is a lack of awareness. but it is extremely serious. i would like to take the partisanship out of this. we have to treat this seriously and protect ourselves. host: is it an act of war? guest: it is a nectar war, i believe. the comparisons many of us have made after september 11, we understood we were at war, we understood we were under attack and we changed the entire u.s. government. we created the department of homeland security the 9/11 commission,, a bipartisan commission, we changed the way
we collected intelligence, changed our approach. nothing similar happened after an attack that you can't see the manifestation of it, but is equally as serious. what has happened is we have become very partisan about this, pointing fingers at one another. i fear that we haven't changed government organization and strategies. this is not going away. other powers are being emboldened. they see something that is actually very cheap and effective. they can't meet the united states militarily. our strength is great. but they see where our weakness is. and that is our division in our own country. and if we don't know what is happening, this can be a very big thing to exploit. this is where we have to act together to protect ourselves in the future. host: from vermont, jack on the democratic line. caller: when you have a
putin,nt who sides with and says how powerful and great he is, there should be more putin, andke pu thise have division in our country and those who will follow him no matter what, it just makes us appear, as you just said, week around the world -- weak around the world. it is a joke, what is going on right now. i am a an marine from the vietnam era, i know a lot of career marines who stayed for 30 years who think this guy is a joke. and for them to say that, is big. until missiles thing with best until this whole thing with russia, as you are saying and
addressing, i really appreciate you, is addressed in a way that we come together as a country, that is politically, as politicians and do something, we are at high risk, a real high risk. thank you so much for your work. host: so what should happen? at just come together in bipartisan spirit, but how should the united states react to russia? guest: what we have seen over the last two years, you're right, certainly the white house has not taken the leadership of this issue to organize and coordinate the entire u.s. government to approach this very serious issue. that has not happened. but in the absence of that, we are seeing the different departments, the intelligence committee, the state department and others, understand the seriousness and are doing everything they can, the department of homeland security and others, to make sure the
nation is protected as possible. we saw that in the run-up to the 2018 elections. it is not where we should have priority, it is not organized by the white house, we don't have strong bipartisanship in that sense. congress has also played a very important role. i know right now this is a very divided congress, now that they have received the redacted mueller report, but i think we are seeing when it comes to russia policy that would have the partisanship on sanctioning backed -- it judge it sanctioning russia for its morality of activities. i don't want people to think that we are totally disarmed, there is good work happening, but i think what the caller was speaking to, and this is setting aside this report, it is the moral authority of the commander in chief in the white house. reading the news today, i was reading that president trump will be traveling to london for the anniversary of d-day.
that is american leadership against great tyranny, fascism. that is what the world looks up to, that is what ronald reagan said, that shining city on the hill. but when we equate ourselves to leaders that don't support democracy or that harass their own people than we lose our moral authority i can't put that into an equation, but that is a message of hope to people we have always stood for and we have been losing our luster in that department for a while. host: very from petersburg -- larry from petersburg, illinois, independent. caller: good morning. make a like to comment, then ask a question. mayberetty concerned that we are going to see the media try to get our eyes off this
focus on this investigation, being into the trump campaign, and try to make it look like it all involved from russia being the central reason they started. i think we really need to know who all was involved, why this happened, and is it true, ms. conley that it wasn't just an attempt to bring discord toward hillary clinton, but there was also information they were putting out to work both sides of this equation? guest: thank you. wonderful question. i would just step back -- what is so important about the report, the hallmark of a democracy is it transparency and accountability. you don't have that in an authoritarian regime, whether that is russia or china, they themselves.
so the fact we can do this, as difficult as it is, and getting to the truth and facts, absolutely essential. what we know of. influence, inn the beginning, quite frankly, it doesn't really make a choice. and wants to sow discord within the democracy, make democracies look unattractive. because, my goodness, the russian people do not enjoy democracy. maybe they would start your for something different other than president putin. just making democracy look less attractive. and right now, they don't look attractive. we don't look like we can take control and manage localization and immigration. it makes your head in. you sort of want that takes control moment -- it makes your head spin. site is making both sides look bad. in some ways, in typical ways, they may not have a preferred candidate. when i see a candidate, the individual that supports the
kremlin's interests or perhaps lifting sanctions against russia, or perhaps for giving what they have done in syria, ukraine, or venezuela, what have you. trying to get back into positive relations. so they tried to discredit democracy first and foremost. it was clear in the u.s. election, when secretary clinton, she was very outspoken about russia's lack of democracy and how it was suppressing its own people, that there was a very clear preference behind the kremlin against secretary clinton and then again once there was an apparent republican primary winner, then you can start to see where that began to change, and there was a preferred outcome. but not always. sometimes it is just simply to make democracies look so unappealing that you really think mr. putin is the right kind of leader for our age, and you admire him, you certainly
would not admire washington, anyway. so it is a challenge. and a changes for the situation they find themselves in. if they see an opening that surprises them, they will go after that opening. they may just find that it is just creating the tensions and divisions that is worth what they are trying to do. host: brad from international falls, minnesota, republican. caller: good morning. the first thing i would like to come but is the termination of the actual report. and who is supposed do and who has the right to begin it. i quote -- at the completion of the special counsel, where he or she shall by the attorney general with the confidential report explaining the prosecution decisions reached by the special counsel. that means that he was never supposed to go to congress at all from the start.
so when mueller actually wrote in the report that he was supposedly had to hand it off to congress, he is out of bounds, he can't do that. is that of having him rewrite the report, they didn't. he shouldn't have been able to say that, for one. number two, the actual dossier that was used was paid for by hillary clinton. when you spend $6 million on opposition research, you know who is getting their money. fusion gps did not get the $6 million, i bet you they didn't get to percent of the $6 million. the money went to russia and they knew it. on top of that. that obama campaign fund he still probably has millions of dollars left in those coffers, they went and spent $972,000 themselves to pay the russians. and the new where this money was going. so when you talk about
colluding, that is collusion. the back part of it all, they thought they were getting a bag of gold, and all they really got was a bag of dirt. now, they are really crying, they are going off the rails. host: ok, a lot there. heather. guest: my understanding, the special counsel's office was to look at two specific questions, interference in the election and the second question, of obstruction of justice. in the other issues that would arise during -- and any other issues that would arise during the investigation. in my view, mr. mueller has completed his task. he wanted to provide that report general.torney i would reemphasize the two words, transparency and accountability. people, andamerican members of congress, to have a full sense of what happened and what did not happen. i think as much as we can do that, that is all good.
authoritarian regimes would never have this requirement. we need to hold ourselves to a higher standard. certainly, the parts of the , there are 12 more investigations, again, not exclusive to these two questions respond to. had to those investigations go on. we don't know what they will provide, but in my view, it is an asked and answered issue. he was given to specific issues and he addressed them within the legal confines and now it is up to congress to make the decisions of what they want to do with that information. host: does it matter if the dossier was triggered by a republican, conservative newspaper, or later bought by hillary clinton's campaign, does that matter to this investigation? guest: for me, the dossier just needs to be set aside.
when i read the investigation, this began in ever well before mr. trump a he was interested in running for president. -- wellan far back before mr. trump ever announced he was interested in running for president. mr. trump may not have been the republican primary winner, this could have been a very different thing, we don't know. it is so predated. i think that is a piece of information, some of its parts have been exposed to be truth, many parts are not. i just don't think it is relevant to what we are talking about in the attack against american democracy and our election, and how we as the american people understand ourselves. how russia is using a variety of tools to help us really not think correctly about american
democracy and its institutions and leaders. host: frederick from boston, massachusetts, democrat. caller: i was just calling to trump, the guy is a russian. he is not a democrat, he is a russian. he started talking all that trash the moment he started running. all the people in the republican party stood by and let him run them over like dogs and whatnot. he goes to have since -- he goes to helsinki and let's put in say anything. this guy should have never been president of the united states. host: thoughts? raisesi think the colla -- the caller raises an important issue about the president first bilateral meeting with president putin in year.ki last he had two other meetings on the
margins of different summits, the g20, in fact, i would expect the president will probably have a bilateral meeting with president putin on the margins of the g20 meetings in japan at the end of june. i think the helsinki summit, the press conference raised huge concerns about the president. did he believe his own intelligence agencies or did he believe mr. putin. i think for many of us, the conference was deeply disturbing. one president trump returned back to washington, he understood how the strength of the concern, bipartisan concern. is for republicans, and i have had to testify before congress, i find again great issue.sanship on this particularly the visit to russia, whether it is ukraine, chemicals weapons use in the united kingdom, the skripal
poisoning, or in syria, there is unity in that. but the president's comments and behavior continue to raise doubt and questions that he on one hand with a side, but then he reraises many times, so it is hard to's iphone all that out. host: before we let you go, it is hardd -- he to us iphone all that out. host: before we let you go, where people go to understand russian tactics. guest: the report is very dense, but there is a wealth of work out in the think tank community right now. at the center for strategic and international studies, we have offered to deb reports called the kremlin playbook which oatches -- we have offered twp how russiaat look at
operates. we have a span of work looking and trollsbots interrupt on particular issues, excellent work. it is helpful to understand particularly in the report, how many ways the russian government attempted to influence our election, how it had a preferred candidate, how it was so specific in what it wanted. the other part that is concerning is the russian implantation of malware in our election system, and tempering the results. why would they do that? anything to sow doubt in the democracy.of our it will, of course, continue to sow division within the united states. i would say, the first part of it, the first 50-60 pages gives you an opening example of how russia has done this. i would argue that there are lots of other really excellent work on how this has worked in europe as well.
the french presidential elections were tampered with, the german parliament elections were tampered with, even the brexit referendum had some russian funding hide some of that as well. so we are waking up to this brave new world and we have to work very hard to protect ourselves. host: heather conley, thank you for the conversation. for our viewers again, you can go to csis.org to learn more information. pedro: the supreme court today, a case taking a look at the desire by the trump administration to put a question about citizenship in the 2020 census the. box website sums up the case -- website saying that the administration once the census ask "are you a citizen of the united states?" a group of blue states led by california and new york prophetic way don't want the question because believe it will make the residents less likely
to return their census forms and thus hurt their apportionment in congress. it will be at 10:00 today that the supreme court will hear oral arguments. to give you a sampling of what might appear as far as questions, here it is, is this person a citizen of the united states, and it gives you a variety of options -- yes, born in the united states, born abroad, yes, u.s. citizen parent or parents? yes, u.s. citizen by naturalization, and the year, and then no, not a u.s. citizen. our supreme court producer highlights on her twitter feed this morning that when it comes to the mechanics of the case, for attorneys will argue before the justices and they will get a total of one hour and 20 minutes to get their case in commerce department versus new york. the remainder of our time on the
program today will be devoted to this idea of the citizenship question and whether it should be added to the 2020 census. if you say yes, call us at 202-748-8000. if you say no, 202-748-8001. you can also make your comments known on our social media site wj, and on facebook.com/c-span. whether or not the immigration question should be included on the 2020 census -- the citizenship question, take a look at this conversation between congress secretary -- commerce secretary wilbur ross about his motivation for including this question in the census. >> mr. secretary, you wrote to the committee a few months ago that the reason you did not mention all your efforts to add a citizenship question before d.o.j.'s letter was because
these efforts were merely, and i quote, informal and hypothetical discussions. , thatll due respect explanation does not pass the test. secretary ross: that is the fact, sir, i am sorry you are dissatisfied. >> you testified three times and each time he withheld critical information but congress needed to oversee preparations for the 2020 census. mr. secretary, will you take responsibility today for misleading congress, whether intentionally or not, about the process you followed to add the citizenship question to the 2020 census? secretary ross: i have never internationally misled congress or intentionally said anything incorrect undergrowth.
reppo clay mr. secretary, you have led to congress, you misled the american people and you are complicit in the trump administration's intent to suppress the growing political power of the nonwhite population. you have already done great harm to the census 2020 and you have zero credibility, and you should, in my opinion, resign! host: that is the argument made by democrats. this is a political motivation to suppress the vote. republicans argue that the trump administration, arguing that the commerce terry has the right to decide what questions should be on the census, and that this would give the government a better idea of who is in this country, and protect minority voting rights under the voting rights act. we want to know what you all think about this. and he in florida, you say no, don't include the immigration question. why?
caller: because it is geared towards identifying people as not being born in the united dissuaded will tend to the citizens that are naturalized or immigrants that are in the process of being naturalized from answering the census. the whole point has been to exclude those people and minimize their participation in a democracy, to maximize the white voters'impact, which by the way, i am a white voter and i don't like what is being done to our nation with this kind of approach. it is a heinous, heinous act that can only lead to extreme damage to the national security. that is all. host: andy, as you were talking, we were showing you and our viewers the question as pedro laid it out.
this question, according to the commerce department, would be at the end of the 10 year census in 2020. it would come at the end when he filling out the form document. columbia, maryland i think this -- caller: i think they should put the question on there. but the condition should be that gleaned from the census for apportionment, that noncitizens would not be a part of the apportionment, but as far as resources to the communities, it should be included. i heard the discussion on washington journal this morning, it seemed like they were throwing out -- if you have it on there, then you are not going to get the resources from the federal government that you need. so i think it makes sense to do it, and it makes sense to
it so that it is not just a way for democrats to increase their representation, but also, it is possible to get the resources where they are needed. host: but how do you respond to people who say this information will be used for the next 10 and then, if020, you don't count those people in representation, you are missing out on potential voters? as we read earlier, jorge vasquez who works for latino justice says, 32 million voters will be eligible to vote in 2020, the largest ethnic minority voting bloc in the thetry, and to undercut 2020 census could result in faulty data that the census bureau may not be able to correct before the 2020
elections. sent to of eligible voters that will not be represented for 10 years until the next census. caller: what i am not following what you're saying because i understand there is a 10 year lag between when the census occurs, but if somebody is here and there are not a citizen, they should not be voting. so if they check off that they are not a citizen, then, when it comes to apportioning representatives, that would not be factored into the representative apportionment. saying.hear what you're i am wondering what happens, though, if they are not legal at the time the census is taken but then they become legal citizens but attend the census is done? caller: that is the reality of life. that happens. 10 years is relatively a short period of time in the grand scheme of things, so, you know. host: ok.
elaine in washington, d.c., you say no. go ahead. caller: absolutely not. there is no real reason to try to identify who the noncitizens are. what we need to know is the number of people by location, demographically. with respect to apportionment, i agree with the last caller. time to vote, if noncitizens have completed the census, than if they become citizens and they are eligible to vote, that should be dealt with individually by the various jurisdictions, states, localities, election boards, however it is done in every state. many who may become citizens and state.t many who may become citizens and are not citizens may not even try to vote. ou don't even know --
host: not only provides authority for the work we do but also provides strong protection for the information we collect from individuals and businesses it goes on to say -- it is against the law for any census bureau employee to disclose any census or survey information that identifies an individual or business it is true even for interagency communication the f.b.i. and other government entities don't have the legal right to access this information in fact, when these protections have been challenged, title 13th confidentiality has been upheld good morning to you, what is your opinion my opinion is yes, it should be on the ballot we need to know who these people are and the number of people we have in this country. i live in sonoma county and we have been invaded since 1960 with these illegals. it is just getting ridiculous. we pay for them, we pay for
their kids at school. that employers don't take care of their workers. they let us do it. they go to our hospitals and we pay the bills. we need to do something about these illegals. i joined the army in 1965 not that i wanted to, but there was no work in sonoma county. we were so invaded with the illegals. in our jobst them and our construction fields, not out there on the farms, no, a lot of americans were out there working on those forms before and they did something about getting rid of them over time. i know people who worked 50 years in those forms. host: we go to carmen in san antonio texas, who says no good morning. yes, this is a count of people in the united states. it is kind of racist, all these people talking about legal and illegal. here on a lot of people
green card. there are not citizens, but they have a right to be here. not ak it would just be fair count of the people. we want to know how many people are in the united states. people that are here, that are not citizens, they are paying their taxes. this last caller that says you are taking over the jobs, the construction workers and all of that, there are people that are working and that want to better this country. i think there is a lot of racist people calling in, and i am very sad for this country. my people have been here in the united states even before this was the united states. i am calling from texas. we have a lot of people that are coming in from central america. i belong to a charge that we have a congolese congregation.
they are very hard-working people and they pay their taxes. people have to just chill out, you know, this is a count of people, and this question should not be there. thank you. host: phyllis in kansas city, you say yes? caller: yes, i do. i think it should be on there, we should know how many u.s. citizens and have, and that way, our states and stuff can figure illegals we got in each state and how much monday we are spending on them. host: ok. we go next to oregon. leeann, good morning. wendy say no? caller: because -- why do you say no? caller: it just should not be on there, it should become to the people. not these little busybodies that want to know if there are illegal or even go or legal, or
you know what, it should be no, it should become to the people. not their beliefs. host: chris in alexandria, virginia. good morning. caller: yes, i think they should be counted on the census. there are currently anywhere from 75 to 100,000 people crossing the border each month. so for folks who are supporting not having that on the census, there are essentially saying that citizens of central america who were on one side of the border just a few days ago should now be counted in the census. this totally corrupts and perverts the original intent of our constitution. thank you very much. host: ok. linda is next, in california. linda, why are you against including this language?
caller: because i think it all has to do with money. it means there is federal funds that will not be going into the larger states like california and new york, that really need the money, as well as other states. host: so for you, you think count everybody, so we have in a curate idea? caller: you absolutely need it because there are also other issues involved, like green cards, like people waiting for their citizenship. it has nothing to do with citizenship, but the number of people in the country, it is not -- if it is not done a portion to sincerely, we don't even need this thing. it means that we will not have the number of people to represent us that we need in each state. so everybody has to be counted. that is how it was always done. there might be an issue with the administration as it stands now,
that they want to keep the money in washington to divide it among the different entities in the government, and not give it to the states who are paying taxes. to have this money returned to us. that is how i feel. thank you. host: ok, we will hear from dale in hudson, florida. ? caller: how do you feel about it? caller: absolutely, it should be on the ballot. we need to know who is here and what division of who is here. somebody that is illegal under the law, you can claim everybody should come into the united states, open up the borders and let them in; but the problem is you have people here would you don't know who they are. you don't know if they are al qaeda, if they are isis, you don't know if -- i can't think of that one from honduras or whatever, the day we are kicking up left and right.
host: ms-13. caller: you don't know. host: ok, dale in florida. we go to mike in illinois. your thoughts. suggest that every time we talk to somebody, you ask them, are you a u.s. citizen? when you hire somebody, you ask if they are a u.s. citizen. host: ok, we will leave it there. as we said earlier, exciting news from c-span this morning. the latest book from the company is out -- "the president's: noted historians rank america's best and worst chief executives."here to talk about it is that adams, executive editor for public affairs. or can readers expect from this book? ben: good morning.
so what can they expect from the book, well i think one of the things we want to start with is that this is not just going to be caps on viagra phase of the president -- capsule biographies of the president, you can get that from everywhere. this book brings something fresh and original. they studied instead, the characters of the president, that was the kind of material they were trying to include, and i think the book really provides a much more nuanced understanding of who these men wore, and the conditions they were andwho these men the conditions they faced. host: who was involved, and how is the book structured? ben: it was kind of a committee decision. we talked about this in some detail. there are two obvious structures for a book that ranks the president. one is to do them
chronologically, the other is to put them in the order they are ranked. one,ought about the first that would have been nice in a way to end of see it as a kaleidoscopic american history. but ultimately, we decided that bothng them would be surprising and more interesting, and i think it allows certain themes to come out when you see the different kind of personalities that were ranked very highly by historians. they had certain qualities in, and there were reasons they handled the presidency well. the same goes for those who did not handle it quite so well. i think most things emerge by grouping them in this way. host: who are the historians in the book, and how do they go about talking about each of these presidents? well, there are some 40 plus historians involved including some really great ones
who have written books about the president over the years. thinkare, i am trying to through all the contributors, we forewords from douglas brinkley and others, people who studied every president from top to bottom. one of the interesting things that emerged from editing the -- was to see that everyone of the subjects, whether they were ranked in the top three by historians or in four, there was always a kind of affinity that the researcher had for their subject. even if they recognized their flaws, you might say they sort of rooted for them. i don't think that is an example
of poor research or anything, quite the opposite, i think it is what happens when you spend years of your life studying the person, and have an inevitable humanizing impact. it is kind of a fascinating detail of this experience. host: tell us who selected the image for the book jacket. -- [laughter] i want to give credit to our that on and just say his behalf, i think all book designers, it is harder than it looks. and i think another thing that is harder than it looks is being unbiased. there was a lot that went into eightver, which puts presidents on the cover. we were careful to split them evenly between the parties, careful that there were republicans who were in bigger stars on the logo, and democrats
who were in bigger stars, and also both in smaller stars. the size of the stars on the cover if you look at it reflects how they are ranked in the book. i think it is an example of the care that the whole c-span team really puts into not only being unbiased but also providing any appearance of it, the real commitment to a principal. host: so where can people buy it? c-span.org/theresidents is the managing page on the website. it has a ton of information about all the contributors, all the subjects, and other places you can buy it. it is also available on your favorite online or retail bookstore. host: and the proceeds for the book, most of them go to the education foundation here at the span. add them, thank you. ben: thank you. host: in notes for all of you
watchers tomorrow, tomorrow, douglas wrigley and other historians will be our guests here -- douglas wrinkly and other presidential historians will be our guest here, taking questions about the book,. that doesn't it for today's washington journal. thank you all for watching, enjoy the rest of your day to . ♪ announcer: today at 7:00 p.m. eastern, life coverage from george washington's home, mount vernon, talking about c-span's new book, the presidents. noted historians rank the
nation's best and worst executives with three historians. than on saturday at 2:30 p.m. eastern, book tv has live coverage from the museums historians cap ackerman and david o stewart talking about is, noted historians rank america's best and worst chief executives. today at 7:00 p.m. eastern and on saturday at 2:30 p.m. eastern on c-span two from the museum. >> also today, the chair of the white house council of economic advisors, larry kudlow, will be speaking at the national press club. live coverage is at 12:30 p.m. eastern, streaming live online c-span.org, and you can listen to the live audio on the c-span radio app. also live this morning in washington, d.c., a look at the u.s. supreme court hearing arguments on the trump administration's lan to ask about citizenship on the 2020
census. the census is held every 12 years and determines the number of seats each state gets in the house of representatives and the amount of federal funding states receive. the trump administration argues that citizenship questions have been asked her out history -- asked throughout history. but three courts have blocked the commerce department from picking up that question. arguments should be getting underway now and willing is aboutke with a reporter the case this morning on washington journal. ist: joining us on the phone a supreme court reporter with the washington post to talk more about this case. what are the legal issues in this case? guest: the legal issues, there are a couple. judges saidct court that secretary ross had violated the administrative procedures
act with the way he went about saying this question was going to be added to the form, acting against the advice of those who said it would cause an undercount. it of those judges said would result in a survey that was so inaccurate that it would fail to satisfy the constitutional demand that the population be counted every 10 years. the court has a lot of things to look at today. it has expanded the argument time beyond its usual hour is to hear from all the lawyers who want to be heard about -- >> who are the lawyers, who is our doing -- arguing for and against? >>