CSPAN - Washington Journal 05/07/2025

All Episodes

Previous Next

May 7, 2025 07:00-10:00 - CSPAN

02:59:51

Washington Journal 05/07/2025

Participants

Main

mark harris

rep/r 08:35

mimi geerges

cspan 29:40

Appearances

brian lamb

cspan 01:28

donald j trump

admin 04:59

jd vance

admin 02:59

mark carney

can 02:44

scott bessent

admin 02:45

steve scalise

rep/r 02:24

Clips

barack obama

d 00:02

bill clinton

d 00:02

george h w bush

r 00:02

george w bush

r 00:04

jimmy carter

d 00:03

joe biden

d 00:03

jonathan fahey

00:10

kristi noem

admin 00:26

marco rubio

admin 00:14

patty murray

sen/d 00:04

rachel maddow

msnow 00:07

ronald reagan

r 00:01

todd robbins

00:12

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Show episode speakers

Speaker	Time	Text
unidentified		Oregon Democratic Freshman Congresswoman Maxine Dexter and Kerry Davis, President and CEO of the American Association of Port Authorities on President Trump's tariffs and their impact on ports.
		Also, North Carolina Republican Congressman Mark Harris discusses tariffs and the GOP budget, including possible cuts to Medicaid and other government programs.
		And Barron senior economics writer Megan Lenhart previews this week's Federal Reserve meeting and Fed Chair Jerome Powell's news conference.
		Washington Journal starts now.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good morning.
		It's Tuesday, May 7th.
		Canada's Prime Minister Mark Carney met with President Trump yesterday.
		We'll show you portions of their remarks this first half hour of the program.
		And we'll take your calls and comments on the U.S.-Canada relationship.
		Do you think that relationship is still important?
		What's your opinion of President Trump's stance towards Canada?
		Here's how to call us.
		Democrats 2027488000.
		Republicans 2027488001.
		And Independents 202748802.
		We have a line set aside for Canadians and Canadian Americans.
		You can share your perspective at 202-748-8003.
		You can use that same line to text us, include your first name in your city-state.
		And you can post your comments on social media, facebook.com/slash C-SPAN and X at C-SPANWJ.
		Welcome to today's Washington Journal.
		A few headlines and updates before we get back to our topic, and that is the front page of the Washington Post: India hits Pakistan in retaliatory strikes.
		Response to militant attack in Kashmir in April raises fears of war.
		We'll continue to update you on that story throughout the program.
		Also, this, here's the Washington Times with the headline, Trump Halts U.S. strikes, says Houthis have, quote, capitulated.
		Israel still fighting Yemeni terrorists.
		And finally, the New York Times breaking the story, Trump administration plans to send migrants to Libya on a military flight.
		Human rights groups have called conditions in the country's network of migrant detention centers, quote, horrific and deplorable.
		Back to our topic of the U.S. relationship with Canada.
		Let's take a look at President Trump and Prime Minister Kearney in the Oval Office yesterday, taking questions from reporters.
unidentified		Is there anything the Prime Minister can say to you today to change your mind on tariffing Canada?
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		Tariffing cars?
unidentified		Tariffing Canada.
		Is there anything he could say to you in the course of your meetings with him today that could get you to lift tariffs on Canada?
		No.
		Why not?
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		It's the way it is.
mark carney ▲ ● ▼		It's the way it is.
unidentified		If Canadians don't want it, would you respect that?
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		Sure, I would.
		But this is not necessarily a one-day deal.
		This is over a period of time they have to make that decision.
		Yes, go ahead.
mark carney ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, if I may.
		Well, respectfully, Canadians' view on this is not going to change on the 51st date.
		Secondly, we are the largest client of the United States in the totality of all the goods.
		So we are the largest client in the United States.
		We have a tremendous auto sector between the two of us and the changes that made have been helpful.
		You know, 50% of a car that comes from Canada is American.
		That's not like anywhere else in the world.
		And to your question about is there one thing?
		No, this is a bigger discussion.
		There are much bigger forces involved.
		And this will take some time in some discussions, and that's why we're here to have those discussions, and that is represented by who's sitting around the table.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		See, the conflict is, and this is very friendly.
		This is not going to be like we had another little blow-up with somebody else.
		It was a much different conversation.
		This is a very friendly conversation, but we want to make our own cars.
		We don't really want cars from Canada.
		And we put tariffs on cars from Canada, and at a certain point, it won't make economic sense for Canada to build those cars.
		And we don't want steel from Canada because we're making our own steel, and we're having massive steel plants being built right now as we speak.
		We really don't want Canadian steel, and we don't want Canadian aluminum and various other things, because we want to be able to do it ourselves.
		And we, because of past thinking of people, we have a tremendous deficit with Canada.
		In other words, they have a surplus with us.
		And there's no reason for us to be subsidizing Canada.
		Canada's a place that will have to be able to take care of itself economically.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And you heard the Prime Minister say that Canada was the largest client of the United States.
		Let's go through the numbers of the top countries that the U.S. exports goods to.
		This is 2024 numbers.
		Canada being at the top at nearly $350 billion.
		That's top countries that the U.S. exports goods to.
		That's the value of goods.
		Followed by Mexico at $334 billion, China at $144 billion, and then the U.K. and Japan at $80 billion.
		And we are taking your calls on the U.S.-Canada relationship.
		We'll start with Alan in Brooklyn, Democrat.
		Good morning.
unidentified		Hello.
unidentified		Good morning.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good morning.
unidentified		Thank you for taking my call.
		I have a number of strong feelings about Canada because we have many cousins who live there, some who have been prominent.
		One an engineer in the Expo 67, another one, an entrepreneur who started a famous cookie company there, kind of as large there as famous Amos was in the U.S.
		Anyway, there are so many angles to this in terms of the way Trump has been treating Canada, Greenland, Panama, trying to create a bully relationship with people in our hemisphere in a way that seems to try to make Putin's aggression in Ukraine seem pale by comparison.
		So I think that's part of the reason why he's bullying Canada with the suggestion they become part of the U.S. Another angle here is that his tariff policy in general has been used as a means for graft to allow himself opportunities for rises and falls in the markets that allow insider trading that we haven't identified yet in particular, but we know is probably going on.
		And the relationship with Canada is fraught with climate issues because here they are one of the world majority of democratic countries working to fight against climate change.
		And they're suffering a greater level of change as they go closer to the poles than we are.
		The polls warm more rapidly than the rest of the world.
		And a lot of the cooling that we're experiencing here in the winter, extreme chills, is coming from the melting of Arctic ice, which absorbs heat while it's melting and anomalously seems to cause more cold during the period of that melt.
		So we're victimizing Canada.
		If anything, the relationship is them being victimized by us.
		And they're being very polite about not emphasizing that yet.
		But if tariffs are going to be Trump's tool here for gaining power for himself, other countries can start using tariffs to punish us for not doing our part against climate by putting a tariff on our emissions of carbon.
		So I really don't know what he expects to be doing.
		If they ever did become part of the U.S. with their population larger than much of the rest of the continent of the United States, they'd never become just one other state in our electoral system.
		They'd become a collection of other states.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, Alan.
		And here's Nate in Franklin, Indiana, Republican.
		Good morning.
unidentified		Yes, good morning.
		You know, we're in a very bad place.
		And you can see it in the conversation that, or the press conference that he had yesterday.
		The president has no understanding of tariffs.
		He has a wrong understanding.
		For instance, he made the statement yesterday that countries, that we are a marketplace, and countries should pay a premium to buy in our marketplace.
		Tariffs, the point is, the tariffs is supposed to cause people to buy American.
		And he is talking the other side of the coin, charging other countries to buy American.
		It makes absolutely no sense.
		And also, he believes, and he said this multiple times, he believes that when he charges a tariff, the other country pays that tariff.
		That is absolutely not true.
		The American people pay the tariff.
		It is a tax.
		And he believes this.
		You can tell he was talking about Norway the other day, where he said, you know, Norway can afford to pay our tariffs because they have $1.7 trillion in their piggy bank.
		That statement is absolutely wrong.
		Pray tell me, how does Norway pay our tariffs?
		They do not.
		If you look, call up on your phone, how is the tariff paid?
		It's paid by the businesses in the United States at the U.S. port of entry, and it's paid to the United States government.
jonathan fahey ▲ ● ▼		They then have a choice to either go out of business or forward those tariffs on to you, the consumer.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Yep, got your point, Nate.
		And Facebook Matt is in support of President Trump's handling of Canada.
		It says Canada will no longer be allowed to enjoy a profitable trade imbalance with the United States.
		A country of $42 million does not get to dictate economic terms to a country of 335 million people.
		And oops.
		Anyway, this is the Wall Street Journal.
		Take a look at these numbers here.
		The U.S. Balance of Trade in Goods, this is 2024, among the top regional trade partners for the Americas.
		This is the U.S. trade deficit.
		So the U.S. trade deficit, it's $172 billion with Mexico, $63 billion trade deficit with Canada there.
		And this is Douglas in Manchester, New Hampshire, Independent Line.
unidentified		Yeah, I just want to tell the last couple callers they might not know that every other country tariffs us.
unidentified		And so, what Trump is trying to do is to get rid of tariffs all around.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And you think this is the best way to do that, Douglas?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		You're in favor of this method?
unidentified		We have.
unidentified		How else are you going to do it?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		And here is Arthur in Winter Garden, Florida, Republican.
		Good morning.
unidentified		Yes, ma'am.
		Basically, I agree with the notion that we've got to protect the jobs in this country.
		And if these other people ain't going to play straight with us, we've got to let them know that there is dared a consequence.
		All right.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Yep.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Sorry, go ahead.
unidentified		Yes.
unidentified		If they're going to be dumping their goods on the United States for an RPL work, we've got to let them know there is definitely going to be a consequence to that action.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		We've got that.
		And here's another portion of that Oval Office meeting between President Trump and Prime Minister Kearney about this concept of Canada being the 51st state.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		No, I do.
		I mean, I believe it would be a massive tax cut for the Canadian citizens.
		You get free military, you get tremendous medical cares and other things.
		There would be a lot of advantages, but it would be a massive tax cut.
		And it's also a beautiful, you know, as a real estate developer, you know, I'm a real estate developer at heart.
		When you get rid of that artificially drawn line, somebody drew that line many years ago with like a ruler, just a straight line right across the top of the country.
		When you look at that beautiful formation when it's together, I'm a very artistic person, but when I looked at that beautiful, I said that's the way it was meant to be.
		But, you know, I guess I do feel it's much better for Canada.
		But we're not going to be discussing that unless somebody wants to discuss it.
		I think that there are tremendous benefits to the Canadian citizens, tremendously lower taxes, free military, which honestly we give you essentially anyway because we're protecting Canada if you ever had a problem.
		But I think, you know, it would really be a wonderful marriage because it's two places that get along very well.
		They like each other a lot.
mark carney ▲ ● ▼		Well, if I may, as you know from real estate, there are some places that are never for sale.
unidentified		It's true.
mark carney ▲ ● ▼		We're sitting in one right now, you know, Buckingham Palace that you visited as well.
		That's true.
		And having met with the owners of Canada over the course of the campaign last several months, it's not for sale, won't be for sale ever.
		But the opportunity is in the partnership and what we can build together.
		We have done that in the past.
		And part of that, as the President just said, is with respect to our own security.
		And my government is committed for a step change in our investment in Canadian security and our partnership.
		And I'll say this as well: that the President has revitalized international security, revitalized NATO, and us playing our full weight in NATO.
		And that will be part of the US.
unidentified		They have.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		I must say, Canada is stepping up the military participation because, Mark knew, you know, they were low, and now they're stepping it up, and that's a very important thing.
		But never say never.
		Never say never.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And that was the Prime Minister of Canada and President Trump in the Oval Office who are taking your calls for the next 15 minutes on this question of the U.S. relationship with Canada.
		If you support or you oppose President Trump's handling of that, the numbers are on your screen.
		You can also reach us on social media.
		This is Cathol on Facebook who says, oh, give me a break.
		Trump trolls everybody and he trolled Canada really well.
		It's kind of sad when you think Canada's lost the ability to be peaceful and becoming a very controlled thinking country.
		And Dave says he opposes.
		Never has any leader of any country in the history of the world mishandled relations with a friendly neighbor as thoroughly as the senile, authoritarian, malignant narcissist.
		And Larry says Canada owes the U.S. for their defense.
		And here's Rick calling us from Philadelphia, Independent.
		Good morning.
unidentified		Good morning.
		And I was listening to the other callers had some good points.
		I only want to make two points.
		Number one, this is something that should have been thought out, discussed, maybe brought together some strong minds and came to a cohesive manner of moving forward.
		You don't put something like this in place without the proper thought and leadership.
		It will hurt the average American.
		The other thing is it will hurt more the blue state, excuse me, the red states.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		When you say this will hurt, what exactly?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		The tariffs or the talk of Canada becoming absorbed into the United States?
unidentified		No, the tariffs.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		The tariffs.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Okay, go ahead.
unidentified		Yeah, because they could have simply, all those billionaires that was at the inauguration could have begun to bring their businesses back and do so.
		They're not doing so.
		It will hurt us because the red states are the ones who depend more so on federal benefits such as SNAP and the other benefits because of the non-jobs.
		They will feel this when they take away the SNAP programs and don't have the food stands.
		They will feel all this.
		You have the blue states in the Upper East supporting the red states in the lower east.
		And these are the things we should be working on, working on kind of evening out things, not trying to create more disruption.
		When I saw the president, who I honor, he is our president, regardless of how we feel.
		But he was actually babbling on and on and on, talking about himself and praising himself.
		And I said, for 30 minutes, it took 30 minutes for him to begin to talk about the tariffs and the problems.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, Rick, and let's talk to Frank in Savannah, Georgia, Democrat.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Frank.
unidentified		Good morning.
		Thank you for taking my call.
		And as always, I say thank the universe for C-SPAN.
		It's the One Essential News Network.
		And Has for Trump and Canada.
		I think, at first, I thought he was just joking around.
		He likes to joke.
		He likes to talk.
		He likes to run his mouth.
		I thought he was not serious about Canada and Greenland.
		But apparently, it looks like he is serious, which means he will, if it necessary, he will order the military to take some sort of military action against Canada or Greenland or both.
		Now, both those countries, Greenland is actually part of Denmark.
		They're both NATO allies.
		So obviously, he has not thought this out at all.
		He has not thought what will happen to him personally if he does this.
		I don't know if the military will go along.
		Maybe they still have no choice but to go along since he is the commander-in-chief.
		He still is.
		Okay, so what will happen if they do that?
		Will he be able to stay in power very much longer?
		I mean, really, suppose the Congress becomes overwhelmingly Democrat, which is a real possibility now.
		He will definitely be impeached.
		I know they have to die by 6%.
		They could get that.
		Alternatively, there's the 25th Amendment where Vance could and the CAD could step in and have it removed.
		He obviously has some mental problems.
		I know.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, Frank, and you did mention Greenland.
		I just want to mention that this is on the front page of the Wall Street Journal this morning.
		U.S. steps up Greenland spying.
		It says intelligence push shows seriousness of Trump's designs on the Arctic island.
		If you'd like to read that, that's in the Wall Street Journal.
		Back to our conversation on Canada.
		Here's Paul in Plymouth, Connecticut, Independent.
		Good morning, Paul.
unidentified		Beautiful.
		Yeah, Trump blew it.
		He blew it during in the lead up to the Canadian election because the Canadians resented Trump so much, rightfully so, that they rallied behind the liberal candidate Kearney.
		And in the presser, if you want to call it that, another ambush by the Trump administration, he made it sound like that he was in support of the winning candidate, and that's Trump.
		And then the conduct of the way that he bullied Carney, but the photograph that I saw that was really illustrative was when they got into the car, when the Canadian delegation arrived and Mark Carney held up his fist to Trump, the scowl on his face was telling.
		And it'll go down in history, just like the Zelensky affair.
		So the Canadians now have rallied.
		They didn't mess around with the tariffs.
		They pulled the American products off the shelf.
		Kearney has stood for developing, when he called Trump the transitional president.
		What that means is Canada is in transition.
		Supply lines, new products from new countries.
		And when Trump was slapped down and Carney said, well, we have our sacred places that are not for sale.
		And I believe he said Buckingham Palace.
		And it's very important for Americans to realize that Canada is a constitutional, is governed by supremely constitutional monarchy, a sovereign state.
		And they're not messing around.
		They're hunkering down.
		What Trump did with them was stab them in the back.
		And most Canadians realize it.
		And I'll let you go on this note.
		Two province leaders, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Green Moe, Scott Moe and Smith, Alberta, Saskatchewan, the two provinces to watch because of Trump's bluster.
		Secessionist talk is alive and well in Canada.
		It won't go anyplace, but that's the conservatives.
		And even Pierre Polyev is getting his seat back because one of his compadres in the conservative movement there has stepped down.
		Something to watch.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, Paul, we will certainly watch that.
		But regarding what Canadians think of the United States, this is a YouGov poll, and it says two-thirds of Canadians consider the U.S. to be unfriendly or an enemy.
		61% say they have started boycotting American companies.
		That's a recent YouGov poll.
		And this is Maxine in Batesville, Indiana, Democrat.
		Good morning.
unidentified		Good morning.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		What do you think, Maxine?
unidentified		Well, I think it's terrible the way that he is doing Canada.
		Canada has been a great neighbor to us forever, always.
		And for him to want to put the kind of tariff he's put on Canada to try to force them, I believe what he's trying to force them to do is to become our 51st state.
		They don't want to, and that's their prerogative.
		They're good people.
		I wouldn't want to become the belong to Russia or China.
		And I can understand exactly how they feel.
		And I feel like he is doing nothing but making enemies with all these companies by trying to bully them with the terrorist thing.
		And it's going to hurt the American people just more so than it will the foreign countries.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		How do you think it'll hurt Americans?
unidentified		Because we're the ones that's going to be paying for the prices are going to go up.
		They will go up because we're not going to, we'll be the one that pays for the tariff he put on there.
		And I see it every week when I go to the grocery store.
		Our prices keep going up every week.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, Maxine.
		And a couple of headlines from the Canadian papers.
		This morning, here is the Globe and Mail.
		Carney's meeting with Trump yields no breakthroughs and no blow-ups.
		This is the star, the Toronto Star.
		Mark Carney tells Donald Trump Canada is, quote, not for sale in historic meeting at the White House.
		And finally, here is the National Post with an opinion piece, Carney and Trump, Friends Without Benefits.
		And here is Brent in Terre Haute, Indiana, Independent Line.
unidentified		Hello.
		Hi.
		Yeah, what do I think of Trump's treatment of Canada?
		I think it's kind of arrogant to talk insofar as people are talking about Canada as a 51st state.
		I mean, come on.
		So that sounds like what Putin wants to do with Ukraine in a way.
		And that poll that said two-thirds of the Canadians consider the U.S. unfriendly, I think that says a lot right there.
		Two-thirds, that's a pretty good percentage.
		And, you know, you don't want to be on those kind of terms with neighbors.
		I think Carney's handling it like a pro, saying Canada is not for sale.
		And then Trump says, never say never.
		You heard that line, right?
		Would Trump say, I'd never sell the White House?
		So here's a rhetorical question.
		Has he already sold it?
		Would Trump sell Maine or Vermont?
		You know, as far as tariffs go, the businesses at the ports, like a caller earlier, said, you know, they pay those percentages of the incoming goods to the government.
		And that's hurting their business.
		And I think those, you know, the percentages are starting to get a little bit crazy, a little bit unhinged over the edge.
		Okay, that's about all I have to say.
		Thank you.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Here's Aaron, Mount Vernon, New York, Democrat.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Hi, Aaron.
unidentified		Hi, Mayor Greg.
		Good morning.
		I don't understand where we're going with this.
		This is supposed to be the heart of the deal, gentlemen.
		I mean, what's the end game here?
		In the campaign, somebody, I think there was a vice president, Kamala Harris, who said, this is not a serious man.
		This entire administration is not very serious.
		Scott Besson can't even say who pays tariffs.
		It's us.
		It's the people.
		Because when you get to the port with whatever goods you're bringing in, they collect the tariff at the port.
		So I don't understand why these so-called brilliant men, art of the deal, can't figure that out.
		For 30 years, it's been running on tariff, tariff, tariffs.
		The only people who's going to pay the tariff is us.
		And the fact that he wants to, I don't even understand why we're talking about annexing Canada.
		This is a sovereign state.
		Canada, they purchase more stuff from us than pretty much everybody else.
		They fought against with us side by side.
		What is the issue?
		Why can't we move on?
		Why can't he or this administration move on from this?
		This is not getting us anywhere.
		And I think somebody needs to get in his face and scream at him.
		Maybe they would lose their job.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, Erin, and this is Prime Minister Carney.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		He took questions from reporters after his meeting with President Trump at the Canadian Embassy.
unidentified		I was watching your face through the meeting in the Oval Office, and I wondered what was going through your mind when the President talked about re-erasing the artificial border and how he criticized your predecessor and Madame Freeland.
mark carney ▲ ● ▼		Well, thank you for, I guess, for your question.
		I'm glad that you couldn't tell what was going through my mind as that was going through.
		Look, with respect to the first point, the president has made known his wish about that issue for some time.
		I've been careful always to distinguish between wish and reality.
		I was clear there in the Oval Office, as I've been clear throughout on behalf of Canadians, that this is never going to happen.
		Canada is not for sale.
		It never will be for sale.
		Some things, as I said in the room, some things are never for sale.
		And he agreed with that.
		So I distinguish between the two.
		And then with respect to the importance of reestablishing a constructive relationship for negotiations of a partnership, of an economic and security partnership, which is what we were here for, I look forward, not back, and I think we established a good basis today.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		That was a Prime Minister yesterday.
		If you'd like to see that full press conference as well as the Oval Office meeting, that's all on our website, c-span.org.
		At the top of the hour, we'll turn our focus to how the trade war is impacting America's maritime ports.
		That discussion with Carrie Davis, head of the American Association of Port Authorities.
		But after the break, we'll talk to Democrat Maxine Dexter of Oregon.
		She'll talk about Republicans' budget plans and how Democrats plan to respond.
unidentified		We'll be right back.
brian lamb ▲ ● ▼		Carthyism, Whitaker Chambers, Alger Hiss, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, Paul Robeson, House Un-American Activities Committee, the Smith Act, the Hollywood 10, the Joint Anti-Facist Committee, the Truman Loyalty Program, the Blacklist.
		Book Burning, and Communism.
		All subjects of controversy during the 30s, 40s, and 50s here in the United States.
		Clay Risen, a reporter and editor at the New York Times, has a fresh look at all this in his book, Red Scare.
		Mr. Risen writes in his preface that his grandfather was a career FBI agent who joined the Bureau during World War II, and he recounted stories of implementing loyalty tests for the federal government in the late 1940s.
unidentified		Author Clay Risen with his book Red Scare, Blacklists, McCarthyism, and the Making of Modern America on this episode of Book Notes Plus with our host, Brian Lamb.
		BookNotes Plus is available wherever you get your podcasts and on the C-SPAN Now app.
		As Mike said before, I happened to listen to him.
		He was on C-SPAN 1.
		That's a big upgrade, right?
		But I've read about it in the history books.
		I've seen the C-SPAN footage.
steve scalise ▲ ● ▼		If it's a really good idea, present it in public view on C-SPAN.
rachel maddow ▲ ● ▼		Every single time I tuned in on TikTok or C-SPAN or YouTube or anything, there were tens, if not hundreds of thousands of people watching.
unidentified		I went home after the speech and I turned on C-SPAN.
unidentified		I was on C-SPAN just this week.
patty murray ▲ ● ▼		To the American people, now is the time to tune in to C-SPAN.
unidentified		They had something $2.50 a gallon.
		I saw on television a little while ago in between my watching my great friends on C-SPAN.
		C-SPAN is televising this right now live.
		So we are not just speaking to Los Angeles, we are speaking to the country.
		Washington Journal continues.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Welcome back to Washington Journal.
		We're joined now by Representative Maxine Dexter.
		She is a Democrat of Oregon and a member of the Natural Resources and Veterans Affairs Committee.
		Welcome to the program.
unidentified		Good morning.
unidentified		Thanks so much for having me.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And the Congresswoman is not going to be with us for very long, so if you'd like to talk to her, you can please start calling in now.
		Democrats are on 202-748-8000.
		Republicans are on 202-748-8001.
		And Independents, 202-748-8002.
		Congresswoman, last month you joined three other Democratic representatives on a trip to El Salvador to push for the release of Kilmar Obrego-Garcia.
		Can you tell us about that trip?
unidentified		Yeah, the trip was really intended to make sure that we were standing up for due process and for every person within our borders rights to due process.
		And Kilmar Obrego-Garcia was a key figure because the Supreme Court in a 9-0 ruling had ordered the president and the administration to facilitate Mr. Obrego Garcia's return.
		The lack of action to that end should be concerning to every one of us because it appears that the president and this administration does not value the right to due process that all people have, not just citizens.
		Every person in our borders has that right and we are not abiding by that right and we wanted to make sure that we were advocating and showing up as leaders at the legislative level, federal level, to make sure that it was clear that that is not in line with our values as Americans or with our Constitution.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And were you able to meet Mr. Abrego Garcia?
unidentified		No, we were not.
		We suspected that that might end up being the case.
		We did not go there, you know, expecting that everyone was going to make sure that we had access.
		We were on a no-dell.
		It was not an official congressional delegation trip.
		So we knew that there would be more challenges, but we wanted to make sure that we went to El Salvador.
		People saw that we were advocating and that we, frankly, had press coverage that would elevate this in the public's eye, and I think we were successful.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And when you say it was a no-dell, who paid for the trip?
unidentified		We all did out of personal expenses.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And were you able to go to the prison itself?
unidentified		We also requested through the U.S. Embassy an opportunity to see at least one of the facilities, and those were denied.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		The Hill reports that minority leader Jeffries was pushing back against criticism of Democratic representatives going to El Salvador.
		You know, initially it said that he didn't want you guys to go and then push back against that.
		And I mean, what have you heard from your leadership on the Democratic side about these visits and whether or not they're distracting from the agenda of focusing on the economy?
unidentified		You know, I'm just going to address what is true.
		Our leadership knew we were going.
		They did not tell us that they wanted us or didn't want us to go.
		They believed that what we were doing was in line with representing our districts.
		They absolutely agreed that due process is an issue.
		We got back and I've gotten nothing but support from our leadership.
		So any other conjecture is beyond what I should be mentioning.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, let's talk to callers on the line for Republicans in Salinas, California.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Don, good morning.
unidentified		Hi, good morning.
		Yeah, my thing on all this stuff is like she's talking about she's all for due process and all the poor guy down in El Salvador.
		You know what?
		Set up a Zoom call.
		Have him look at the judge in the eye.
		Have the judge raise and lower his hammer and say goodbye.
		You can't come back.
		Is it that hard?
		Is it brain surgery?
		These guys make a big deal about going to another country and pretending that Trump is this evil dictator and all this stuff.
		Out here in America, we see something else.
		We're seeing a bunch of selfish people.
		We're seeing a bunch of hateful people who want us to hate our president and try everything in the world to make him look bad.
		Like these trade wars, you're going to talk about these trade wars.
		The Canadian prime minister said Canada's not for sale.
		Well, who's trying to buy Canada?
		Not Trump.
		That's a stupid thing to say.
		That's a dumb statement.
		That's not a noble statement.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, Don.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Go ahead, Congresswoman Maxine Dexter.
unidentified		Yeah, let me just cover what I really believe is important here.
		We went because due process is guaranteed within the U.S. Constitution.
		That is not something that we can control directly.
		How due process is carried out is not within the legislative branch's interest.
		That is the judiciary.
		What we had to do was stand up for the rights that are guaranteed to all people in the United States.
		How Donald Trump is perceived is Donald Trump's doing.
		Donald Trump may be perceived as good in some areas and not in others, and that is just for each American to decide how they feel about the leadership.
		I personally am very concerned about the authoritarian-like actions by this administration.
		Ignoring a Supreme Court 9-0 ruling should be a wake-up call for Americans.
		So how people are perceiving this, we are a divided country right now, and that is really part of the problem.
		Centering kindness and centering compassion for all people is absolutely something that I would continue and will continue to advocate for and making sure that people have their basic rights is core to that.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		There's a local newspaper in Oregon that quotes you as saying that chaos and cruelty is the point of President Trump's actions.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Can you explain that?
unidentified		Yeah, I really think that that is the point.
		I think people are normalizing cruelty and chaos keeps people on their toes.
		Not knowing what to expect is part of Donald Trump's brand.
		And that chaos is creating real harm.
		Our business community has no idea what the next tariff is going to be or how to plan for their businesses.
		Chaos is disruptive, but it's also destructive.
		And we are in the midst of chaos.
		And it is based on cruelty to the last caller's point.
		Normalizing, dehumanizing behavior is not something that any of us as Americans should be standing up for.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Here's Elizabeth in Eau Claire, Michigan Independent.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Elizabeth.
unidentified		Good morning.
unidentified		Good morning.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Go right ahead.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		You're on.
unidentified		Okay.
		You know, we're all getting lost in the chaos and it's so exhausting.
		I can't even stand the thought of having to vote in another election because it's not doing any good.
		We've got some good legislators, but they are not, they're not making the point anything worthwhile.
		It's all talk.
		When I saw Schumer answer a question last week, and I can't even remember what the question was.
		It was a ballot question, and he had a one-word answer.
		And I thought, okay, that does it.
		We need some new leadership.
		We need some lawsuits.
		This guy down in El Salvador, aren't there some lawsuits, something that the legislator can do?
		But there just seems like they're just, I don't know, we're not a one-party system anymore.
		They say, okay, the Democrats are the only one that's doing what's normal or trying to be honest.
		Well, honestly, it's like they're doing it in a half-assed way.
		Excuse my language.
		It's not consistently proactive.
		It's like, sit back and whine.
		Okay, let's do something.
		Sit back and, I mean, it's just like we're lost.
		This country deserves feeling the burn with these tariffs.
		The people don't, but the country, led by a bunch of, I don't know what their agenda is, but it's not good.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, Elizabeth.
		Congresswoman, what do you think?
		Are Democrats just sitting back and whining?
unidentified		You know, the first thing I want to reflect back is our callers' frustration and sheer fatigue.
		I think that is really relevant to what I'm hearing from my constituents.
		People very much are exhausted by all of this.
		And they also are really concerned about what they think is a lack of clear leadership.
		So what your caller is saying is very much what a lot of people are feeling.
		But what I also want to say is Democrats in the minority are doing what we can for our districts.
		And centering our districts is what we all are here to do.
		My title and my job description are one and the same.
		It's representative.
		And so I am being very responsive to my district.
		And I think when you do that, there isn't the same message coming out of the Democratic Party right now because we all have different districts.
		And that is frustrating, I think, right now.
		When the country wants a leader with clear direction, we absolutely have a leader with some clarity of what he's trying to do in the executive branch.
		And what we are doing is trying to hold steady to American values and our constituents and make sure that people know that we are responding.
		In my district, people demanded that I go to El Salvador.
		They are concerned about democracy.
		That is out and above everything else in my district, what people are concerned about.
		So I am responding and acting with them at the center.
		And I have every reason to believe that my colleagues across the country are doing exactly the same.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		You're also a medical doctor and you've just joined the newly formed Democratic Doctors Caucus.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Can you tell us about that caucus and what the purpose is?
unidentified		Yeah, absolutely.
		So I am a pulmonary and critical care physician.
		I'm also very importantly a mother.
		Those are the two most important roles I've had until coming to Congress.
		And when I came, what is clear is there's a GOP doctors caucus that's been around a long time.
		And there's been predominantly more Republicans in office who are also physicians.
		We as Democratic physicians, there's now six of us, felt that we needed to have a collective response, especially in these times where things like Medicaid are really in jeopardy, where reproductive rights are being eliminated across this country.
		We have to have a voice that centers patients, which we have done our whole careers as physicians and brings our patients to the center of policymaking, which is not what Congress is necessarily well known for.
		Our health care system does not serve the people.
		It serves special interests and different groups who have something to gain from the system.
		It should be centering people.
		And that is what we are failing to do, and it's what the Doctors Caucus is here to work on.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Here's Clarence in Halethorpe, Maryland.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Democrat, good morning.
unidentified		Good morning.
unidentified		Good morning.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Go right ahead, Clarence.
unidentified		Mike?
		Oh, yeah, thank you.
		First time caller, long-time listener, just for FYI.
		But my question was more so in regards to the tariff.
		I wanted to know that once, would you guys be able to do a petition or something of that sort to make it so that this does it become the new norm and baseline so that now everything that we're arguing for is not put in like Dane and whatever?
		So, oh, sorry.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		So, Clarence, sorry, you want to know if the Congresswoman can do anything about stopping the tariffs?
unidentified		No, no, no, I'm not worried about the tariff being stopped.
		I understand the tariff is going to do what the tariffs are going to do.
		But my question is, once this becomes a new norm and becomes a new baseline for companies, would she be able to put something in act to make it so that companies cannot say this is their new baseline, that they have to go back to like lower prices?
		Because if not, then everybody arguing about having tariffs and trying to lower the prices is not going to happen because companies are not going to go and say, hey, we've got this record high of money.
		Now let's go ahead and make it so we can go back to the good old-fashioned times when things were cheaper and all.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		We got your question.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Go ahead, Congresswoman Maxine Dexter.
unidentified		Yeah, so Clarence, you're a first-time caller.
		I'm a first-time participant, so I'm glad to be in this with you.
		And the thing that I would say is what Clarence is articulating is what I'm hearing everywhere: that people want predictability.
		It is the disruptive chaos that's really hard.
		So Clarence is saying, if this is where we are, it's where we are.
		Can we just know that this is where we're going to be?
		What I think is really critical in my role as a legislator is to take back our role as being in charge of tariffs.
		This is one of the founding issues of our republic.
		It certainly propagated a lot of rules around who gets to decide what.
		And tariffs being in the hands of the presidents of the president without legislative oversight is a very relatively recent evolution.
		And I would strongly assert that Congress is thoughtful and deliberative and bipartisan in nature when it makes policies, not when we're at our worst, but when we're at our best.
		We need to get back to that, centering the American people and making sure that tariffs are doing what they need to do, which is supporting our economy, supporting our businesses, and supporting our people.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Joseph is in Point Pleasant Beach, New Jersey, Republican.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Joseph.
unidentified		Hey, good morning.
		How are you?
		Just listening to your guest.
		I'm pewing here.
		I'm a grandson of an immigrant from Italy and Ireland.
		So I'm not anti-immigrant.
		I'm pro-legal immigration.
		And what she's talking about is going to El Salvador to see a gang member that is a gang member labeled a terrorist by our president.
		It's almost treasonous to go out there.
		Did she go to Lake En Riley's funeral?
		She's taking non-Americans over citizens of our country.
		And she talks about being exhausted.
		I was exhausted for four years when we had a senior president let 20 million people come into my country, kill fellow Americans, and nobody said nothing.
		But she's up in arms about a gang member that had no due process.
		If you're a citizen and you commit a felony, you can't vote.
		You'll lose certain rights.
		This man had no rights at all to come in here, and she's worried about having rights.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Go ahead, Congresswoman.
unidentified		Yeah, so the anger and the frustration, you're not alone.
		I very much have been hearing that from a lot of folks.
		And we know that immigration was a very important issue to the American people.
		It's part of why Donald Trump is our president.
		So people want legal immigration.
		And to your point, most of us are here as descendants of immigrants.
		So we have always been a pro-immigration country.
		The challenge that we have come to is that we lost control of it.
		We need good opportunities for people.
		Our visa programs need to be much more efficient.
		We need to give people the ability to work in our country.
		We have workforce shortages.
		We're looking at this across all sectors right now.
		We should be having people come in legally and have borders that are secure.
		Fentanyl, gang violence, these things are absolutely top concerns, and I in no way condone them.
		Now let's pivot to the due process question.
		Mr. Obrego Garcia, I am not here advocating or sharing what I think he is or what he is not.
		What he is is a person who is in the United States borders, had gone through due process and had actually been said by a judge to be unsafe to be sent back to El Salvador.
		He was here and checking in, following the law to make sure that when it was appropriate to send him back to El Salvador, that he would be sent back.
		What happened is not following due process.
		And every person, it doesn't matter if you're a citizen or not, if you are a criminal or not, you are supposed to have your day in court.
		And that court then decides, to your point, if you are a felon, you have to pay the penalties for being a felon.
		But it is a court of law that decides that, not Donald Trump.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And Congresswoman, I know you need to leave, but I wonder if you have a little bit of time just to tell us about your amendments to the natural resources markup to the GOP budget.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		If you could just outline that really quick.
unidentified		Yeah, I'll just be very quick.
		So, we had an exhausting long markup yesterday in the Committee on Natural Resources in the House.
		I offered several, well, I offered seven amendments.
		I discussed three.
		And what we really are trying to do is make sure that the public has a voice.
		We should not be charging citizens and interest groups $150 just to have the ability to engage in public discourse that is supposed to be guaranteed.
		We had multiple amendments fighting back on selling federal lands and how we erode the protections that we as Americans have enjoyed and expect for our public lands and the people who are supported by those lands.
		So, I won't go into detail.
		There were over 100 amendments offered yesterday.
		We had lots of concerns, and the foundational issue is that this is the worst bill that has ever left the Natural Resources Committee.
		It is going to do harm to our environment.
		It is going to negatively impact Americans.
		Over 70% of Americans want their public lands protected.
		That is not what happened last night, quite the opposite, and we should all be concerned.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, Representative Maxine Dexter, a Democrat of Oregon, and a member of the Natural Resources and Veterans Affairs Committee.
		Thanks so much for joining us.
		I know you need to go to another event.
		We appreciate it.
unidentified		Thank you so much for having me.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And we are still with you with Open Forum.
		You can give us a call until the top of the hour.
		Democrats 202-748-8000, Republicans 202-748-8001, and Independents 202-748-8002.
		We'll hear from Dennis in Fayetteville, North Carolina, Democrat.
unidentified		Good morning.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Morning.
unidentified		Thanks for having me.
		I wanted to ask the representative a question, but I've missed her.
		But since it's an open forum, I'd like to address the meeting between the Canadian Prime Minister and President Trump.
		And I couldn't believe my eyes and my ears.
		Imagine two world leaders sitting down, and one is telling the other, I'm going to take over your country.
		My God, how outlandish can that be?
		This president has no decorum, has no manners, has no diplomacy.
		How in the world can you sit down in front of the public and tell a leader, somebody who is in level with you, that you're going to take their country over?
		I want to applaud Mr. Carney for the way he handled it.
		He behaved like a world leader, and our president did not.
		Thank you.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		This is the cover of the New York Post.
		Yes, Week Canada.
		It says PM Poutins up a fight as Trump insists to his face that great white north will be ours.
		And this is Andrew, Port Monmouth, New Jersey, Independent Line.
		Good morning, Andrew.
unidentified		Yes, good morning.
		I watch C-SPAN, and I want to thank you for C-SPAN.
		First of all, when that Congresswoman was talking about due process of law, now, most of these gang members that were rounded up to go to El Salvador, they created crimes in this country, killing people without recourse.
		We can't have people like this.
		But as far as immigration goes, okay, like she said, we're all children of immigrants.
		But I believe the immigration system is broken, okay?
		Because why go for coffee in the morning?
		They have immigrants working in the kitchen as short-order cooks, as dishwashers.
		They are taking years to get the path to citizenship in this country.
		And it's costing them money.
		Now, these people want to be citizens of this country.
		I believe this system is broken.
		Thank you.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And here is George in Prestonsburg, Kentucky, Republican.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Hi, George.
unidentified		Good morning.
unidentified		How are y'all doing today?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Go right ahead.
unidentified		I'd just like to say I have a pick trip to the VA today.
		And over the last year, a couple years, the VA has been just excellent, absolutely excellent.
		But things have really started to change since Doge.
		People are nervous, which it's obvious to see.
		And it's hard to get anything done.
		They're already short people on their manpower, I guess.
		And more cuts, it's not going to help anything.
		It's just going to hurt the veterans.
		And other people are hurting, too, with a lot of things going on.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Be specific, George.
		When you go to the VA for care, what kind of, how is that affecting you?
		What kind of cuts are you seeing to the care?
unidentified		Well, I've been in it for 30 years now.
		And first 20 years, wait times, just between appointments.
		You might have two appointments 15 minutes apart.
		And you'd be at the VA from 8 in the morning till 8 in the evening.
		And last year, the appointments, you go in, have two, three appointments, be done with them in 15 minutes.
		And it just, everybody seemed to stay busy.
		And the care was a lot better.
		But just in the last couple of months, you can really tell a big difference, a really big difference.
		The people that are there, you know, they don't say it, but you can just tell, you know, and it's a distraction.
		And people, like when I was in the Air Force, you don't want people distracted that work on very important things, you know, especially a physician, your doctors, your surgeons.
		And, well, I go to mental health, and even those people, maybe they need to go to mental health.
		I'm sure they're stressing things now.
		You can tell it.
		All right, George, it just lowers the quality of care, I believe.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		Thanks for sharing that.
		And this is David in Swainsboro, Georgia, Independent Line.
		Good morning.
unidentified		Good morning, Miss Mimi.
		It's a pleasure to be on.
		I'm going to bring up two quick points.
		One of them is that just to show where the tears have already kicked in, at Wally World, you now pay $12 for a small container of coffee, which used to be $9.
		And now it is $18 for the large container of coffee, which used to be $12.
		And that's just one.
		Now, number two, I would have loved to have talked with Miss Maxine, doctor representative, about the health care marketplace.
		It is the bang of all the robocalls we get.
		Now, they know it's insurance companies doing this, and they passed a law saying that they would go after the insurer or go after the people who are brokering these companies into business to make all these robocalls.
		And another point about the health care marketplace, we saw the greatest amount of fraud being committed since it was enacted by no other than Mitch McConnell.
		He put the place in Lexington, Kentucky, his hometown.
		If that ain't pork barrel, there ain't no pork barrel.
		That's $1.4 trillion of our payroll tax money that's being thrown away.
		I watched it with my ex-wife now because she was giving me bad help from the people who were coming to help her.
		And it's ridiculous what they're letting be done.
		And now they want to cut the benefits.
		It's already been cut for $1.4 trillion.
		Where are they going to wake up and we're being charged more already?
		Our taxes are going up.
		And now they want to give our tax money back to the wealthiest people on this planet.
		Now let's make one little point about that.
		If we took all the money, the extra cash that's laying around for the top 10,000 wealthiest people in this country, that's cash that's just laying around.
		We could pay off the national debt.
		Thank you, Miss Mimi.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, David, here's Eric, Northvale, New Jersey, Democrat.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Go ahead, Eric.
unidentified		I think I was the architect for the American with disabilities acts.
		And I think we should work together as human beings.
		Like, look, little kids play human beings.
		Let's start acting like this.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And coming up at 8.30 a.m. Eastern this morning, we'll talk to Republican Mark Harris of North Carolina.
		He joins us to talk about his priorities when it comes to the GOP agenda and the president's tariffs agenda.
		But after the break, we'll turn our attention to how the trade war is impacting America's maritime ports.
		That discussion with Kerry Davis, head of the American Association of Port Authorities.
unidentified		Stay with us.
		Celebrate Mother's Day with our C-SPAN Shop sale going on right now at cspanshop.org, our online store.
		Save up to 20% on our Mother's Day collection of apparel, accessories, drinkwear, mugs, and more.
		There's something for every C-SPAN mom, and every purchase helps support our nonprofit operations.
		Scan the code or visit c-spanshop.org during our Mother's Day sale going on right now.
		Democracy.
		It isn't just an idea.
		It's a process.
		A process shaped by leaders elected to the highest offices and entrusted to a select few with guarding its basic principles.
		It's where debates unfold, decisions are made, and the nation's course is charted.
		Democracy in real time.
		This is your government at work.
		This is C-SPAN, giving you your democracy unfiltered.
		There are many ways to listen to C-SPAN radio anytime, anywhere.
		In the Washington, D.C. area, listen on 90.1 FM.
		Use our free C-SPAN Now app or go online to C-SPAN.org slash radio on SiriusXM radio on channel 455, the TuneIn app, and on your smart speaker by simply saying, play C-SPAN Radio.
		Hear our live call-in program, Washington Journal, daily at 7 a.m. Eastern.
		Listen to House and Senate proceedings, committee hearings, news conferences, and other public affairs events live throughout the day.
		And for the best way to hear what's happening in Washington with fast-paced reports, live interviews, and analysis of the day, catch Washington today, weekdays of 5 p.m. and 9 p.m. Eastern.
		Listen to C-SPAN programs on C-SPAN Radio anytime, anywhere.
		C-SPAN, Democracy Unfiltered.
		Washington Journal continues.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Welcome back to Washington Journal.
		We're joined now by Carrie Davis, President and CEO of the American Association of Port Authorities.
		Kerry, welcome to the program.
unidentified		Mimi, good morning.
unidentified		Great to be here with you.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		So tell us about your organization, the mission, and the ports that you represent.
unidentified		AAPA is the American Association of Port Authorities, and we're 114 years old.
		We're one of the oldest trade associations in Washington, D.C.
		And we were founded because there were fires breaking out at the docks at seaports 114 years ago when there were no building standards.
		Even today, fast forward 114 years, we work on a lot of the same sorts of issues, creating building standards and work standards at the seaports.
		But we're fortunate to play in some of the largest public policy debates when the President and Congress are making decisions about national security, trade, infrastructure.
		And so we have the opportunity to tell the story of the seaports here in Washington.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		So who owns and operates those ports?
unidentified		That's a great question.
		We're a hemispheric organization.
		So we actually have members from Canada, U.S., Latin America, Caribbean, 150 seaports all across the Western Hemisphere.
		Every country kind of does their seaport system a little differently.
		And here in the U.S., we don't really have a federal standard.
		Port authorities are the major owners and overseers of the port infrastructure.
		And they're chartered by cities, by counties, by states.
		And in about half the cases of the ports, including some of the largest, they lease out the operations of those facilities to third parties called marine terminal operators.
		You could almost think of a port like a mall owner.
		The port owner owns the superstructure and the parking lot and leases out all of the stalls to marine terminal operators.
		Some ports do operate all their facilities soup to nuts.
		They're called operating ports.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And how is your organization funded?
unidentified		Well, we're a membership-based organization.
		So all of the seaports pay into our organization to help be their collective voice and to work on collective issues.
		And then we're also really fortunate to have all sorts of other companies across the maritime supply chain be parts of our organization.
		Companies that have a stake in well-funded, well-functioning seaports.
		Truckers, rail companies, ocean carriers, workforce development groups.
		More and more we're seeing tech companies, supply chain digitization companies, environmental resilience organizations and companies.
		So as you can see, it's a very wide membership base.
		But day in and day out, we always focus our work and our advocacy on the direct needs of port authorities, the owners of the port facilities.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Well, let's talk about ports when it comes to tariffs.
		This is a CNN article from yesterday.
		The first boats carrying Chinese goods with 145% tariffs are arriving in LA.
		Shipments are cut in half.
		Expect shortages soon.
		Break that down for us.
		How are the ports kind of the canary in the coal mine when it comes to the impact that tariffs are going to have?
unidentified		Yeah, you said it great, Mimi.
		In many ways, we serve as the bellwether for what's about to happen in the economy.
		And that's because as businesses, retailers, consumers stock up their inventories and prepare for the summer consumption season, the holiday consumption season, they're making purchasing decisions now, which are going to affect what the shelves look like weeks and months from now.
		And what we saw in the early months of the year was an explosion of imports and exports, record-breaking imports and exports in the first few months of the year as businesses and consumers were pulling forward a lot of their buying decisions,
		knowing that the tariffs were probably going to take place because President Trump, even before he took office, was telegraphing that he was going to renew a lot of the tariffs that he put in place in his first administration, which I actually worked on as an advisor to President Trump in his first administration.
		So first few months, explosive numbers, very large.
		We are now basically facing a cliff.
		You cited the number 50%, possibly.
		If you look at the average cargo fall-offs of the 10, 15 largest ports in the country, we're probably looking at less than that.
		Some good reporting, public reporting on that yesterday, perhaps around 20, 25%.
		But yes, some of the largest gateways that do the most trade with China and Southeast Asia on the west coast of the United States, their cargo, imminent cargo fall-offs are going to be upwards of about 40, 45%.
		And that will obviously have an impact on inventories and shelves in coming weeks and months.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		It says in the same article, the Port of LA had expected 80 ships to arrive in May.
		20% of those have been canceled.
		Customers have already canceled 13 sailings for June.
		So what happens when those shipments get canceled?
		I mean, are we going to start seeing, when are we going to start seeing that on the shelves?
		And I know that like Walmart and Target had kind of gone to the president and said we're going to have empty shelves.
		What do you think is happening?
unidentified		Of course, inventories are going to differ from industry to industry based on buying habits and what the commodity or the goods are.
		So you could look in differences of construction materials versus cars versus toys.
		They're all going to have different timelines.
		But overgeneralizing here, I think most business analysts are saying between five and seven weeks from now, we'll probably see significant price increases and shortages in household consumables that customers are expected to buy during the summer season.
		So overgeneralization, but we're looking at about a month and a half to two months before we start seeing shortages per se.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		So do we know what we should be buying now and stocking up?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		I mean, is this going to be the kind of the pandemic shortages all over again?
unidentified		I think businesses have probably been very smart and have planned for the current situation and have requisite inventories for the things they think consumers will be buying in early summer.
		And look, whether it's the ports or the business community generally or the markets, we all feel pretty confident that this president does know what he's doing and what he's driving at with renegotiated trade arrangements and trade deals with some of our largest trading partners.
		I come back to my experience in the first Trump administration when we first imposed tariffs on China.
		We had a very sophisticated analysis that we used to determine what we wanted to get out of China with our phase one trade agreement, which President Trump was able to get.
		We looked at what American companies were selling in China and Southeast Asia, whether it was soy products, pork products, advanced manufacturing machinery.
		We said if China weren't blocking our exports through tariffs and non-tariff barriers, very creative ways to keep American goods out, this is about the level of what we'd be selling.
		In total, that was about $30 billion.
		And through a lot of fast and hard work, we were able to get them to agree to that.
		Now, the pandemic hit, president lost reelection, so that deal kind of got shelved for a while.
		But the point is, They're very smart and aggressive trade negotiators in the government right now that are using the same sorts of analyses.
		They know what India, Brazil, China should be buying from the U.S.
		And I know they're working diligently on that.
		Just this morning, we saw the announcement that China would be sitting down at the table in Switzerland with the top highest trade negotiators in the U.S. to try to de-escalate the situation.
		So I don't think we need to worry about any panic buying right now.
		I think we're headed towards a positive resolution of the angst that we might be feeling in the trade community.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		If you'd like to talk to our guest, Carrie Davis, about the ports in the United States, the impact of tariffs on those ports, you can give us a call.
		Our lines are bipartisan.
		So Democrats are on 202,748-8000.
		Republicans 202-748-8001.
		And Independents 202748802.
		I want to ask you about the uncertainty and the effect that that might be having.
		This is a Bloomberg article.
		It says, one ship, $417 million in new tariffs, the cost of Trump's trade war.
		So this ship was en route when the tariffs took effect.
		How does that uncertainty that this is how much the tariffs are, no, we're going to get a deal?
		No, we're not going to get a deal.
		It's 145%, et cetera.
		How does that play in when it when it how does that affect the ports and the economy as a whole?
unidentified		Yeah, it's a great question, Mamie.
		I don't envy the amazing women and men who run seaports and are trying to make daily when the when the goalposts seem to be changing.
		They're trying to make daily calculations as to what sorts of import taxes or tariffs their customers are going to face.
		And seaports are major, critical infrastructure.
		And so owners, managers of seaports are making literally billion-dollar decisions on a monthly and yearly basis about how to recapitalize the infrastructure at their facilities.
		It's really hard to make those decisions, A, when the trading landscape is uncertain, but B, when there's inflationary pressures on construction and you don't necessarily know what the final bill of constructing a new dock, a new piling, a new pier, a new berth, a new dredging project might actually cost 12 months out, 16 months out, 24 months out.
		Yes, it might seem on the surface like the carriers, that is the large ship-owning companies, are making the decisions about whether or not to sail.
		But it's a collaborative decision that's made with the owners of the cargo as well, the beneficial cargo owners or the shippers, the people who actually own the stuff that's in the boxes or in the hull of the ship.
		And in some cases, it's the shippers or the businesses that are shipping the stuff that are making the decision, hey, let's hold off on actually bringing that to shore because 30 months hence, situation might be different.
		One thing that we're seeing an explosion of interest in is free trade zones.
		These are geographical areas often co-located in the ports where businesses can bring inputs or goods into a zone.
		You don't bring it into the economy.
		kind of just leave it there sitting until you have a better sense of what the tariff rate is going to be and then you can bring it into the country.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		So you just store it there?
unidentified		Yeah, basically we're seeing a, you know who's doing really, really, really well in these situations?
		The warehousing industry, just like they did really well during the pandemic as well.
		When the consumer, the downstream and the tax situation is uncertain, there are all sorts of facilities, bonded facilities, free trade zones.
		They all kind of get at the same thing, which is that businesses can hold their goods at bay until they have a little bit of a clearer picture of what the playing board's going to look like.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		I want to play you a portion of a cabinet meeting from last week.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		President Trump commented on the decline of the number of ships coming in from Canada, and then I'll have you respond.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		I know that China is doing very poorly right now.
		I just saw some reports coming out, and I don't want that to happen to China.
		I like the president a lot, President Xi.
		I don't want it to happen.
		I was actually saddened to hear it, but they are getting absolutely hammered in China.
		And, you know, they're sending boats, the biggest boats in the world carrying cargo like nobody's ever seen before.
		These are the biggest boats in the world, biggest cargo ships in the world.
		And they're coming, and they're turning around in the Pacific Ocean.
		They're doing a big U-turn and going back because they don't want the goods because 145% tariff.
		But at a certain point, I hope we're going to make a deal with China.
		We're talking to China, but their factories are closing all over China because we're not taking their product.
		We don't want their product unless they're going to be fair with us.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		What do you think?
unidentified		Yeah, there's so much I read into the president's ultimate goals from that.
		He clearly wants, he clearly does not want to fully decouple from the U.S.'s third largest trading partner.
		And I underline the word third because China was the U.S.'s largest trading partner, but Canada and Mexico both surpassed China in the last 14 months or so.
		So let's keep perspective about who the United States does the most trade with.
		But it's clear that the president doesn't want to fully decouple from China.
		He just wants more fairness.
		This is a word I was just sitting with the president's advisor, Kellyanne Conway, who helped him get elected in 2016.
		And she could not have spent more time underlining how much the president cares about correcting past wrongs and fairness.
		And sometimes that's tariff rates and sometimes that's non-tariff barriers saying, well, we don't, these American imports into China don't live up to Chinese standards, so we're not going to let them in.
		Those are the types of unfair trading practices that the president's getting at.
		So it's clear to me that he ultimately wants to rectify these past wrongs and ultimately keep a healthy trade relationship there.
		But another thing is that the kind of flip side of that coin is while the president and his advisors and frankly so many political leaders on both sides of the aisle right now would love to see a renaissance in American manufacturing, whether it's ships or pharmaceuticals or chips Other nationally important and strategic items.
		I don't think the president's averse at all to having other countries, most especially allied countries, come invest in those manufacturing facilities here in the U.S. Korean, Japanese, German, Austrian, Spanish, Italian.
		So I don't think the president is so singularly focused on America owning all of American manufacturing.
		There's a lot of great technology and trading partners that we can attract, even Chinese, that we can attract FDI foreign direct investment into the United States as long as those jobs are here and as long as we retain control over our supply chains for these critical goals.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And as you mentioned earlier, the U.S. and China, this is Reuters, U.S.-China to hold icebreaker trade talks in Geneva on Saturday.
		So we will watch that and see what happens with that.
		Let's take some calls.
		We've got Walter in Baltimore, Maryland, Independent Line.
		Hi, Walter.
unidentified		Good morning, C-SPAN, and good morning, America.
		To your guest, I thank him for his observations, but does the person in the White House really, do you believe he knows who Mao was?
		Do you think he really understands that the Chinese 5,000-year history beats our 250-year history?
		Do you think he has a consciousness other than his own personal aggrandizement and a sense that these tariffs are not helping America?
		I don't care about a child with $2 over $30.
		That's a lie.
		As he lies continually and consistently, I'm begging your guests not to get C-SPAN canceled as PBS and NPR are under threat by the clown.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Walter, C-SPAN is not funded by the government, but we'll take your point and have Kerry Davis respond.
unidentified		Hey, Walter, thanks for that question.
		I noticed you were from Maryland.
		The first thing I do in any conversation with a decision maker or someone who's interested about the healthy state of seaports is I cite the number of jobs and their state GDP that's supported by ports.
		And the Port of Baltimore is one of the best that we have in the country.
		It went through a pretty tough time with the Key Bridge collapse, but it's back up and running, frankly, due to a lot of great assistance from the federal government, the Coast Guard, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and that port is back up and running.
		Walter, there are 20,000 jobs in the state of Maryland and $1.8 billion of state GDP, which is supported by that port of Baltimore.
		So a great shipping and port state.
		Does the president know 5,000 years of Chinese history, as you point out?
		I don't know.
		I'm not sure he really cares either.
		I think he knows who the trade negotiators are sitting across the table from him.
		He's a deal maker and he wants to get something done to, again, right past wrongs that have been done to American exporters.
		And there's been a lot of reporting on this lately, Walter, but the president has been very consistent about talking about the power of tariffs and protective measures to assist American jobs.
		He's been talking about that apparently since the 80s and 90s.
		So I would say he's been rather consistent about his position on that.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Here's Jack in Hamilton, Ohio, Republican.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Hi, Jack.
unidentified		Yeah, hey, Mr. Davis.
		What's the busiest port in America?
		Jack, that's a great question.
		And I didn't quite catch where Jack was from because I'd love to see.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Hamilton, Ohio.
unidentified		Hamilton, Ohio, Ohio, the state of Ohio, the great state of Ohio, 17, you wouldn't necessarily think of it as a maritime state, but it's got a lot of Great Lakes ports.
		The state of Ohio, 17,000 jobs in the state and $2 billion of state GDP is supported by the ports of Toledo, the ports of Cleveland.
		So a lot of good maritime trade happening in Ohio.
		And the question was?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		The busiest port in the United States.
unidentified		The busiest port in the United States.
		Great question.
		There are a couple ways to measure this.
		You could measure it by dollars.
		You can measure it by volume.
		But basically, the answer is flip-flopping back and forth between ports of LA, Long Beach, and ports of New York, New Jersey.
		And there are a few reasons why that happens.
		But this really, New York, New Jersey took the lead a few years ago when the West Coast longshore workers were negotiating for their new contract.
		And a lot of cargo was shifting to the east coast of the United States because of uncertainty in that situation.
		The Panama Canal, of course, which is all over the news, has a lot to do with the shift of cargo from east to west.
		But it basically goes back and forth between LA, Long Beach, and New York, New Jersey.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, Jack, does that answer your question?
unidentified		Yes, but I've got another question.
		With all the goods that are coming in through these ports, and it's demand and supply, whatever the good is.
		I'm going to go out and buy some golf balls today.
		Isn't it really good for America's manufacturing retail and the goods that we create here in America?
		If there's a shortage, it only goes to common sense that Yankee ingenuity is going to step up and make that.
		So if we're getting golf balls from China and all of a sudden we can't get golf balls, somebody that's a manufacturer who makes golf balls here in America is going to create jobs and money for America.
		Jack, that's a fantastic question and something I think about all the time.
		I have a few reactions to your really good question.
		One, hit them straight, buddy.
		I am obsessed with golf and I can only hope that you do well today.
		Two, if you're buying Titleist, those are American-made.
		They're made in New Bedford, Massachusetts, right next to one of the best ports in the country in New Bedford.
		I don't know about the other brands where they make their balls, but Titleist has been making in America for a long time.
		And that speaks to your question, I'm not here to, I think you know what brand of ball I play.
		I'm not here to shill for any company, but they probably are the best.
		And that is based on American ingenuity, just like you said.
		I have to be very careful saying that we want to self-inflict shortages or price increases in order to bring that business back home.
		There are probably smarter, more gradual, nuanced ways to bring manufacturing back to the United States.
		And we also have to make a decision as policymakers, as a society, what should or needs to be made here versus what textiles, other commodities, maybe foodstuffs are okay to be made abroad.
		So I mentioned certain things like weapon systems or airplanes or chips or yes, certain foodstuffs.
		It's very important for America to retain control over those supply chains.
		But given our labor costs, given competitive advantage, it makes sense for us to trade with other countries that can do it more cheaply or arguably even better than us.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Also in Ohio, this is an Atwater, Pam on the line for independence.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good morning.
unidentified		Hey, Carrie.
		Just have a question, a couple questions actually.
		So I don't believe these tariffs were targeted as they could have been.
		And because of that, you're probably going to see small businesses, I would think, a lot of business because they don't have the capital to stock up on the merchandise, the material they need to make their product.
		I guess what I'm asking, it sounds like you were in favor of the tariffs in his first term.
		Do you feel these tariffs are maybe not the way they should have been handled?
		Maybe if you had stopped with just China, for example.
		What are your thoughts on that?
		Pam, great question.
		You know, I had an obligation and a sworn duty to work for the policies that the president was advancing in his first term.
		So that's why, while working at the Department of Commerce, I worked in support of tariff policy.
		But to be clear, on net, on net, for American middle-class consumers, just like me and you, and small businesses, tariffs are taxes and tend to have a deleterious or harmful effect on prices and the ability for households and businesses to get the types of things they need.
		I'm going to be very clear about that.
		That's the position of the seaport industry.
		And frankly, that should be the position of anyone who cares about the middle-class American in the United States.
		You brought up a very important point, and I'm glad you did, about targeted tariffs.
		That is, deciding which specific products or industries are important to either keep out or tax more highly or try to reshore back home.
		And there's a very specific issue that we're facing in the port industry where both President Trump in his first term and President Biden decided, hey, there's a critical piece of equipment that we need to allow to come into the country and not put tariffs on.
		And those are those big, beautiful ship-to-shore cranes that you see dotting the skyline anytime you see a large seaport.
		It's like the iconic thing that you think of when you see a port, the big cranes that are often moving the containers off the ship and onto land or onto a truck or onto a railroad.
		And we haven't made these types of cranes in the United States in 50, 60 years.
		We are working.
		The industry is working with the government to see if we can build them here again.
		But right now, we don't source them anywhere but China and Europe.
		And it's critically important that to prevent inflationary pressures and to make sure that our supply chains are moving the way they should, that we keep using the cranes from trusted suppliers overseas until we can reshore their manufacture here in the United States.
		That's a very specific example of a targeted tariff exemption that we really need to see here in the U.S. Kerry Davis, what's the current state of infrastructure at America's seaports?
		Oh, that's a great question, Mimi.
		Now you've got me started.
		We are in a wonderful time, and all politicians across all parties deserve a pat on the back for the great work that they've done over the last few years in recapitalizing a lot of the aging seaport infrastructure, much of which was built just after World War II.
		We think of Eisenhower-era highways.
		Well, a lot of our seaports were built post-World War II, Eisenhower era as well.
		So with the bipartisan infrastructure law, which was passed by Congress, and with the Inflation Reduction Act, there was a massive, desperately needed infusion of about 20 billion US dollars in seaport infrastructure.
		And that includes the dredging and the waterside infrastructure to make sure the navigable waterways are well maintained and are safe.
		And also the landside infrastructure.
		Many of the things I've been talking about, like the cranes, like the docks, like the pilings, like the piers, like the on-dock rail, like the truck gates, like the mobile harbor cranes, etc., like the warehousing, all the sorts of things we've been talking about.
		A great infusion of money into that infrastructure.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And are those projects underway?
unidentified		Yeah, absolutely.
		There are shovels in the ground.
		Frankly, both parties have been working with our industry and with all sorts of others to speed up a lot of the permitting and to cut through a lot of the red tape to get those projects moving faster.
		This is yet another, I'll be honest with you, I don't think this is a particularly sexy issue, permitting reform and cutting red tape, but well, for C-SPAN, it is.
		And everyone across the aisle can get behind it.
		I mean, it was Democratic Senator Joe Manchin who kind of led this effort last time.
		President Trump has been talking about this for years.
		So we're definitely hoping for some really good advancements in this Congress on a bipartisan basis for permitting reform as well.
		But to get to your question directly, shovels are in the ground to expand the capacity at the ports to recapitalize a lot of the aging infrastructure and to make America a trading superpower, just like the way the country was built, the modern country was built.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, that's Carrie Davis, president and CEO of the American Association of Port Authorities.
		You can find them at aapa-ports.org.
		Thanks so much for coming in.
unidentified		It's been a great honor.
unidentified		Thank you, Mimi.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		We'll get to more of your phone calls in open forum in about 15 minutes.
		But first, we're going to talk to Republican Mark Harris of North Carolina to talk about GOP budget plans and the president's tariffs agenda.
		That's after the break.
unidentified		Looking to contact your members of Congress?
		Well, C-SPAN is making it easy for you with our 2025 Congressional Directory.
		Get essential contact information for government officials all in one place.
		This compact, spiral-bound guide contains bio and contact information for every House and Senate member of the 119th Congress.
		Contact information on congressional committees, the President's Cabinet, federal agencies, and state governors.
		The Congressional Directory costs $32.95 plus shipping and handling, and every purchase helps support C-SPAN's non-profit operations.
		Scan the code on the right or go to c-spanshop.org to order your copy today.
		Get C-SPAN wherever you are with C-SPAN Now, our free mobile video app that puts you at the center of democracy, live and on demand.
		Keep up with the day's biggest events with live streams of floor proceedings and hearings from the U.S. Congress, White House events, the courts, campaigns, and more from the world of politics, all at your fingertips.
		Catch the latest episodes of Washington Journal.
		Find scheduling information for C-SPAN's TV and radio networks, plus a variety of compelling podcasts.
		The C-SPAN Now app is available at the Apple Store and Google Play.
		Download it for free today.
		C-SPAN, democracy unfiltered.
		If you ever miss any of C-SPAN's coverage, you can find it anytime online at c-span.org.
		Videos of key hearings, debates, and other events feature markers that guide you to interesting and newsworthy highlights.
		These points of interest markers appear on the right-hand side of your screen when you hit play on select videos.
		This timeline tool makes it easy to quickly get an idea of what was debated and decided in Washington.
		Scroll through and spend a few minutes on C-SPAN's points of interest.
		Washington Journal continues.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Welcome back to Washington Journal.
		We're joined now by Representative Mark Harris.
		He's a Republican of North Carolina and a member of the Agriculture Committee and the Judiciary and Education and Workforce Committee.
		Sarah, welcome to the program.
mark harris ▲ ● ▼		Thank you, Mimi.
mark harris ▲ ● ▼		It's great to be with you.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		I want to start with your work on the Agriculture Committee.
		Punch Bowl News reported that Republicans on the committee met privately to discuss the future of the Trump agenda.
		What can you tell us about that meeting?
mark harris ▲ ● ▼		Well, I can tell you that we are continuing to make progress and looking forward to next week.
		As I understand it, we're going to be doing our markup for our part of the reconciliation bill, the one big beautiful bill.
		And really, we're continuing to have conversations.
		All things are on the table as we look to make some decisions.
		So we've got some serious decisions to make, some targets that I think are going to be important for us to hit.
		And I think what I sense from the meeting is most everyone is on the same page, and we're going to get to where we need to be.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And I'll just remind our callers, we don't have Representative Harris for very long.
		So if you'd like to talk to him, please start calling in now.
		The numbers are Democrats 202-748-8,000.
		Republicans are on 202-748-8001.
		And Independents 202-748-8002.
		Congressman, you said everything's on the table.
		I want to ask you about SNAP benefits, which is, of course, an anti-hunger program.
		Is that on the table for cuts, and what are the plans for that?
mark harris ▲ ● ▼		Well, I think we're just looking at really more adjustments to really what the program needs to be.
		We've got a situation with errors, SNAP overage by 10%, an underpay by 1%.
		So we're having on average about 11% error rate that I think is something that we'll look at.
		But there's just a number of issues that I think really the management of it, it has exploded.
		I mean, we have some serious issues in this country for us to be able to maintain.
		And I think that we're going to be looking at issues that will probably allow us to work with states.
		Right now, as you know, this program is 100% federally funded.
		The states administer it, and I think we'll be looking at different options of how we're going to be able to work together going forward.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Well, there's been a lot of discussion about Medicaid that's in the Energy and Commerce Committee.
		$880 billion needs to be cut from that committee.
		What's going on with that?
		The President has said there will be no cuts to Medicaid benefits.
mark harris ▲ ● ▼		Well, I think it's very clear that we're going to be careful to make sure that the services, you've got to remember, we were sent here to Washington back in November of 2024.
		We were elected to do government differently, and that's exactly what we're trying to do.
		And this administration has obviously inherited a situation where there's some real problems that have with the expansion and just the major growth.
		In fact, Obamacare, if you really get down to it, really focused more on taking care of people that were capable adults, as opposed to when Medicaid was really started, it was meant to take care of those that were really in bad situations, taking care of children, taking care of single moms, taking care of those with disabilities.
		And I think what we've got to really do is look at how we're going to be able to bring that program back to its foundation, just so it's sustainable.
		I think that's the whole key message that people have got to hear.
		Programs like this can't be sustained unless they are reformed in order to get back to the foundation with which they were started.
		And I think that that's really the work that this Congress wants to do, this administration wants to do.
		And I think that's where you're going to see things go in the next week.
		Obviously, I'm not on energy and commerce, so I don't know all of the ins and outs.
		But again, I'm just giving an overall picture.
		When you look at these programs, we've got to make sure that we get them back to what they were intended to do.
		I mean, when you've got a 30-year-old person living in their parents' basement and not working, and the federal government's supplying 90% of his health care, and yet you've got an impoverished mom with a second child on the way, and the federal government's only paying 50 to 70 percent of her situation, then you've got a real problem.
		And these kind of things are what have developed, and it's going to be up to this administration and this Congress to work to fix these issues.
		And I think that's where we're headed.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, let's talk to callers.
		We'll start with Deb in Chippewa Falls, Wisconsin, Independent Line.
		Good morning.
unidentified		Good morning.
		I'm concerned about the cuts to SNAP or to Narcan and drug treatment programs.
		I think everyone is touched by someone with addiction or alcoholism.
		And I know that I hurt a lot of people.
		It's taken a lot of time to clean up my life.
		But I'm alive because of Narcan.
		I'm 69 years old, 29 years old.
		20 years ago, somebody used Narcan to keep me alive.
		And if you want hope, I think you need these drug treatment programs.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Congressman Harris.
mark harris ▲ ● ▼		Well, first of all, let me just say I'm very grateful for those that have been successful at coming through those programs.
		I've been a pastor for more than 36 years, and I understand.
		I've seen people that are dealing with addiction, and these programs that work are important.
		I think, again, there's no intention to cut programs as much as it cuts services, I should say, as it is to find those programs that are working, make sure that we're able to keep them going.
		But again, we've got to look at the local, the state, and the federal, and we've got to recognize what is going to be the federal government's role here and how that we can help and work together.
		But as far as programs, I commend the caller for understanding and finding a program that would literally save her life.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Here's Linda in Corning, New York, Democrat.
		Hi, Linda.
		Linda, are you there?
unidentified		Again, there's no intention to cut the program.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And here is Galen in Nixa, Missouri, Republican.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good morning.
unidentified		Good morning.
		Yes, my question is: you know, we listen to congressmen all the time.
		I'm Republican, and they never really talk anything.
		Oh, it's a begin here, 100 billion here.
		I would like to know for them to get on television and break it down like Medicaid.
		I'm not on Medicaid, but if you're cutting Medicaid for people, tell us why you're cutting it.
		And is it fraud?
		Because I believe there's more fraud in the government than anything else.
		And just be more specific about the tax to reach more.
		How much money, if you tax them more, would it bring in?
		That's all I'd like to know.
		It's real dollars.
		Thank you.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Congressman, go ahead.
mark harris ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, I mean, that's a real question and a good question, and that is that I think as ENC works with this, they're going to be looking at real dollars and what the adjustments they can make and the reforms that they can make that are going to be most important.
		Again, if you want to get down to the hard facts, by 2035, Medicaid is going to cost taxpayers $1 trillion.
		Again, it comes back to that word, unsustainable.
		We've got to be able to look at things that we can put in place, and even the work requirements that we can put in place will actually lead to real dollars.
		We count on the Congressional Budget Office to run those numbers and let us know what each individual adjustment or spending savings is going to actually save.
		And so that's the whole deal in a nutshell: we've got to get to cuts or get to adjustments, if you will, that are going to produce those real dollars that the caller talks about because we just can't keep taxing and spending, taxing and spending.
		It just isn't going to be sustainable.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Congressman, Agriculture and Agribusiness contributed more than $111 billion to your state of North Carolina in 2024.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Can you talk about the impact that you are expecting from tariffs on that business in your state?
mark harris ▲ ● ▼		Well, we're certainly one of the things with the Agriculture Committee that we're looking for is to eventually get a farm bill through, and that's going to be important to us.
		And I'm certainly hopeful that we're going to get there once we get this reconciliation package done.
		But I think that we're going to be able to undergird the farmers and get our ag industry where they need to be.
		And that's kind of our goal as we go.
		Again, it's sometimes misleading to people when they look at the Agriculture Committee and we think about it.
		I think it's 82%.
		I mean, I'm a freshman, I'm new to this, and I'm still learning, but I think it's 82% of the farm bill is actually spent in SNAP, which leaves only about 17-18% that actually goes to the ag and farm.
		So I think that's important for folks to recognize, and it's a concern that all of us have.
		And I think that we're trying to manage it the best we can at this point.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		One more call.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		This is Janice, Democrat from Chassis, New York.
unidentified		Hello.
		Thank you for taking the call.
		I would like to know what they do about taking these college kids one by one out of colleges when they could go to these big farms and these big plantations and round up people by the hundreds.
		Stop picking on the college kids one by one as far as the agriculture is concerned.
		Without SNAP and Medicaid, the country would be into a traumatic state.
		These Republicans only care about the rich.
		Cut the billions and leave the people alone.
		Thank you.
mark harris ▲ ● ▼		Well, I'll simply respond to that, that that's not a really fair statement that Republicans only care about the rich.
		Again, we're working to extend the tax cuts that are in place right now because the reality is if we don't extend or make permanent the Trump tax cut, every American from the richest to the poorest is going to feel a significant increase in taxes.
		And again, going to removing college students, I happen to serve on the education and workforce, and quite frankly, we're having a hearing today.
		And where we're dealing with the most pressing issue right now is with what's happening on our college campuses with anti-Semitism.
		And we're going to be having several college presidents sitting in front of us today that are having some issues at their colleges.
		And we're going to hopefully get to some answers about what they're planning to do to make sure that this anti-Semitism is not tolerated.
		And we just got to get back to wondering why these universities are inviting students that hate the American way of life and hate America and are violent in many cases to our college campuses.
		And I think that's what we're doing right now.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		So, and Congressman, some of the critics of President Trump's deportation policies point to that there's a level of cruelty involved in the way that that is being carried out.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And I wonder, as a pastor, does that give you pause from a moral perspective?
mark harris ▲ ● ▼		Well, from a moral perspective, and as a pastor, let me be very clear.
		The Bible teaches about law and order.
		The Bible makes very clear that there are countries that have their lines of where their nation is founded.
		And if we don't maintain our borders, which are taught all throughout the Bible, then these people are breaking the law.
		And I think that what this administration is seeking to do, and particularly going after criminals who are dangerous and have come into this country illegally, is rounding them up.
		I mean, when you're talking about MS-13 and you're talking about Trandei Aragua, it's kind of hard for anybody to talk about something being cruel to load these folks up and send them out of our country.
		And so, again, it's being done from everything I'm seeing about it in the right way.
		And I'm certainly supportive of what's happening right now with this administration and the deportations.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, Representative Mark Harris, Republican of North Carolina, member of agriculture and judiciary and education workforce committees.
		Thanks so much for joining us.
		I know you have to go to another event, so we appreciate it.
mark harris ▲ ● ▼		Thank you so much, Mimi.
mark harris ▲ ● ▼		Pleasure to be with you.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And from now until the end of the program at 10 a.m. Eastern, we will just take your calls.
		It will be an open forum.
		You can dial in now with any news or public policy issue that is on your mind.
		The numbers on your screen: 202-748-8000 for Democrats, 202748-8001 for Republicans, and 202748-8002 for Independents.
jimmy carter ▲ ● ▼		Democracy is always an unfinished creation.
ronald reagan ▲ ● ▼		Democracy is worth dying for.
george h w bush ▲ ● ▼		Democracy belongs to us all.
bill clinton ▲ ● ▼		We are here in the sanctuary of democracy.
george w bush ▲ ● ▼		Great responsibilities fall once again to the great democracies.
barack obama ▲ ● ▼		American democracy is bigger than any one person.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		Freedom and democracy must be constantly guarded and protected.
joe biden ▲ ● ▼		We are still at our core a democracy.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		This is also a massive victory for democracy and for freedom.
unidentified		Nonfiction book lovers, C-SPAN has a number of podcasts for you.
		Listen to best-selling non-fiction authors and influential interviewers on the Afterwords podcast and on QA.
		Hear wide-ranging conversations with the non-fiction authors and others who are making things happen.
		And BookNotes Plus episodes are weekly hour-long conversations that regularly feature fascinating authors of non-fiction books on a wide variety of topics.
		Find all of our podcasts by downloading the free C-SPAN Now app or wherever you get your podcasts and on our website, c-span.org/slash podcasts.
		Celebrate Mother's Day with our C-SPAN shop sale going on right now at c-spanshop.org.
		Our online store.
		Save up to 20% on our Mother's Day collection of apparel, accessories, drinkwear, mugs, and more.
		There's something for every C-SPAN mom, and every purchase helps support our non-profit operations.
		Scan the code or visit cspanshop.org during our Mother's Day sale.
		Going on right now.
brian lamb ▲ ● ▼		Carthyism, Whitaker Chambers, Alger Hiss, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, Paul Robeson, House Un-American Activities Committee, the Smith Act, the Hollywood 10, the Joint Anti-Facist Committee, the Truman Loyalty Program, the Blacklist.
		Book Burning, and Communism.
		All subjects of controversy during the 30s, 40s, and 50s here in the United States.
		Clay Risen, a reporter and editor at the New York Times, has a fresh look at all this in his book, Red Scare.
		Mr. Risen writes in his preface that his grandfather was a career FBI agent who joined the Bureau during World War II, and he recounted stories of implementing loyalty tests for the federal government in the late 1940s.
unidentified		Author Clay Risen with his book Red Scare: Blacklists, McCarthyism, and the Making of Modern America on this episode of BookNotes Plus with our host, Brian Lamb.
		BookNotes Plus is available wherever you get your podcasts and on the C-SPAN Now app.
		There are many ways to listen to C-SPAN radio anytime, anywhere.
		In the Washington, D.C. area, listen on 90.1 FM.
		Use our free C-SPAN Now app or go online to c-span.org/slash radio on SiriusXM Radio on channel 455, the TuneIn app, and on your smart speaker by simply saying play C-SPAN Radio.
		Hear our live call-in program, Washington Journal, daily at 7 a.m. Eastern.
		Listen to House and Senate proceedings, committee hearings, news conferences, and other public affairs events live throughout the day.
		And for the best way to hear what's happening in Washington with fast-paced reports, live interviews, and analysis of the day, catch Washington today, weekdays at 5 p.m. and 9 p.m. Eastern.
		Listen to C-SPAN programs on C-SPAN Radio anytime, anywhere.
		C-SPAN, Democracy Unfiltered.
		Washington Journal continues.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Welcome back to Washington Journal.
		It is open forum until the House gavels in at 10 a.m. Eastern.
		So we will be taking your calls.
		You can call in now.
		A few things for your schedule.
		So also at 10 a.m. Eastern, but on C-SPAN 2, we've got Energy Secretary Chris Wright taking questions about energy costs and his agency's 2026 budget request.
		It'll be the Secretary's first congressional hearing since he was confirmed.
		That's live on C-SPAN 2, also on the app and online, c-span.org.
		Also at 10 a.m., but on C-SPAN 3, Treasury Secretary Scott Besant is on Capitol Hill to testify on the president's tariffs and economic agenda.
		That's before the House Financial Services Committee.
		And we will be, you can go ahead and watch that.
		And also today at 6.15 p.m., Chief Justice John Roberts sits down for a conversation with U.S. District Judge Lawrence Velardo.
		That's part of a celebration to mark the 125th anniversary of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York.
		Again, that's live coverage on C-SPAN 3 starting at 6.15 p.m. Eastern.
		All those programs are also on our app, C-SPANNOW and onlinec-SPAN.org.
		We'll go to your calls now to Tim, Hubbard, Ohio Republican.
		Hi, Tim.
unidentified		Hey.
		Open forum.
		Yes.
todd robbins ▲ ● ▼		My question and my concern is I run a small business and these phones we use today, these cell phones, I get between 80 to 160 spam calls a day.
unidentified		It's a total distraction, and this has continually gotten worse in the past four years, and it's really bad now.
		It just, I don't understand how they can allow this to continue.
		How do I my area coach 330?
		They'll call me out of 330.
		I've got to answer it.
		Could be a potential customer for the power wash.
		And it's nine times out of ten, it's just the spam call.
		How can we get rid of this?
		This needs to be outlawed.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		And here is Howard, Fort Lee, New Jersey, Independent Line.
		Good morning, Howard.
unidentified		Good morning.
		My call is about Social Security.
		Insolvency is suggested maybe about 10 years from now.
		When Social Security law was passed, you had to work 10 years or 40 quarters to get Social Security.
		It has never been changed.
		So there are millions of people who work 10 years, especially from Mexico, southern countries, as well as Portugal, Spain, and Italy.
		They come here living with relatives.
		They go back to their home countries, and they collect not only pensions from the United States for Social Security, but their own countries.
		And so that law has to be changed so that most congressmen believe you have to work a lifetime.
		No, you don't.
		All you have to do is work 10 years or 40 quarters.
		And that's the big problem.
		If they change that to 20 years, at least more money would come into Social Security, would make it solvent for many, many more years.
		Why the Congress has never changed it?
		And they did it in 1935 for 10 years because they wanted people, men particularly who were in their early 50s to mid-50s, to get Social Security payments of maybe $30 or $35 a month.
		So that has to be changed because there are millions of people who just work 10 years.
		And unfortunately, most of these congressmen are delusional and they think you have to work a lifetime.
		No, you don't.
		It should be changed.
		And I just suggest double the 10 years to make it at least 20 years so that more money would flow in into the Social Security system from people who have to work at least 20 years.
		That's my comment.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Got it, Howard.
		Here's Miles, a Democrat in San Angelo, Texas.
		Good morning.
unidentified		Good morning, Mimi.
unidentified		How are you doing?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good.
unidentified		Good.
		It's great to see you as always.
		I don't have a lot of brains like these callers calling in about immigrants and getting money from the United States after they move to their home country.
		That seems a little odd.
		But I guess, you know, if someone says it, it's got to be true.
		But all I can say about the ports being empty is that this is not normal, and we are going to have a real issue when people need things that they actually need.
		You know, if there's no, you know, if there's no stuff that we get from China that we don't need, that's one thing.
		But China makes everything.
		If you look at everything in your house at the label where it's made, it's going to say made in China.
		You know, now made in Mexico and Canada, and there's other places.
		But President, what's his phrase, Donald, has definitely caused us to be on the edge of financial collapse.
		And I just hope people will remember that when they go to the voting booth because they sure have enjoyed being part of this movement, and it's really scary.
		Hopefully he'll be gone somehow, someway.
		Fingers crossed.
		Mimi, you're the best.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, Miles.
		And update on the situation in India and Pakistan.
		India strikes Pakistan, but is said to have lost jets.
		This is the New York Times.
		Officials and witnesses said that at least two Indian aircraft had crashed after India struck Pakistani targets, escalating the conflict between the nuclear powers.
		And President Trump reacted briefly yesterday.
		Here's what he said.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		No, it's a shame.
		We just heard about it just as we were walking in the doors of the Oval.
		Just heard about it.
		I guess people knew something was going to happen based on a little bit of the past.
		They've been fighting for a long time.
		You know, they've been fighting for many, many decades.
		And centuries, actually, if you really think about it.
unidentified		No, I just hope it ends very quickly.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And here is Mick in Demote, Indiana, Independent Line.
unidentified		Good morning.
		I was calling about the parade that Trump wants to put on for the Army, but basically for his birthday, it's going to cost nearly $100 million.
		And my perspective is we've got all these disabled veterans, and they've been cutting the VA.
		They want to, you know, and I would like to see all our disabled veterans line up in their wheelchairs on this parade route and let Trump have a good look at the people who really sacrificed instead of his BS.
		And thank you.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And Mick, here is PBS with this headline.
		It says, Army parade plans for Trump's birthday.
		Call for 6,600 soldiers, 150 vehicles, and 50 helicopters.
		And this is William in Miamisburg, Ohio.
		Democrat, good morning.
unidentified		Good morning, Mimi.
		This is the old dumb knocking on 90-year-old Hillbilly.
		I think it's a shame of what has become of our great government.
		I went to work at 12 years old, paid Social Security until I was 77.
		And then some of these political idiots say that's an entitlement.
		I feel I am more entitled to it than what them idiots that sits up there makes laws and do nothing except to protect their own pockets.
		For example, there's our great giveaway president, so-called president, who bankrupts everything that he touches.
		I used to live in West Palm Beach.
		I know his thinkings.
		My wife's sister was in school the same time that the idiot was.
		He lasted three days in Palm Beach County schools.
		Mimi, I get so disgusted and upset.
		I feel so sorry for my little 11 great-grandchildren.
		It's just a shame.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		William, what did you do when you were what did you do for work when you were 12 years old?
unidentified		I worked at a dairy.
unidentified		Disgusting.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Doing what?
unidentified		Putting the milk bottles in the washer.
		And then when I was 14, I started paying into Social Security because I would get up at 2 o'clock in the morning and go down to the dairy and pull the orders for the five routes that we had.
		And then after school, I would go and work at the dairy, finishing up bottling of the milk and everything.
		And then, God bless my dad.
		He helped me get a truck when I was 21 with Pepsi-Cola.
		And from there, I went into the beer business and I spent my last 19 years in the produce business.
		I've worked all my life, so I don't feel I owe the government a thing.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, William.
		Here's Michael in Beacon, New York.
		Democrat, good morning.
unidentified		Hi, David.
		I wanted to know: can you guys do a segment on the corruption with the crypto?
		Because Trump and his family are raping us blind right in front of our eyes.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Sorry, corruption.
		Corruption and what, Michael?
		I didn't catch what you said.
unidentified		Crypto.
unidentified		Crypto.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Oh, crypto.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Crypto.
unidentified		Okay.
		Yeah.
		Have you guys done anything at that point yet?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		You know, I'm not sure, but you can check on the website.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
unidentified		Okay.
unidentified		I hope you will do something because it's really horrible corruption.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And here is Bob in Sacco, Maine, Independent Line.
unidentified		Yes, good morning.
		Thank you.
		I want to talk a little bit about the lack of daylight between the Republican Party.
		Because me being an independent, I vote Republican, I vote Democrat.
		But I don't see any daylight anymore between the Republican Party and Donald Trump's policies and actions.
		And I find a lot of Donald Trump's policies and actions to actually be cruel and inhumane.
		For example, firing federal employees arbitrarily, but giving them a letter saying that they were fired for poor performance, knowing that that letter is a lie, and that the Republican Party is okay with lying and ruining people's careers.
		People have mortgages based on their income.
		And for them to get a letter of poor performance makes it harder for them to get another job in the federal government to serve the American people.
		Also, our policies in Gaza of allowing Israel to cut off water and food and medicine to the people of Gaza, basically trying to starve them so that they either leave or die off.
		And Israel is bringing up reservists in order to further enhance the operation in Gaza.
		I mean, I don't understand how cruel and inhumane America can be to be on the sideline.
		Just so Trump has stated that he wants to put hotels on the coast of Gaza, and to be so cruel and inhumane to those people is disgusting.
		And I also want to talk about how his policy of revenge and vengeance and using the DOJ and how he's taking migrants who have done nothing more but advocate for the Palestinian people and taking them off the streets and putting them in jail.
		I just don't understand how the Republicans can stay on the sideline and think that they're any different from him.
		Because unless you speak up about it and you're complacent, that means you're going on with it.
		And the Democratic Party can pivot off the transgender issue, which is holding them down, and they can just say America is not ready for that type of policy.
		But the Republicans cannot pivot off the cruel and inhumane actions of Donald Trump because I don't see any daylight between Republicans and Donald Trump at this time.
		And I think it's going to really hurt.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And Bob mentioned the war in Gaza.
		This is the Guardian that says Gaza will be entirely destroyed, according to an Israeli minister.
		He says Palestinians will, quote, leave in great numbers to third countries, raising the fears of ethnic cleansing.
		You can see that at the Guardian if you'd like to read more about that.
		And here's Laura in Wilton, Connecticut, Republican.
		Good morning.
unidentified		Hello.
		This is the story that I have to give.
		I voted both ways.
		I vote for the man.
		I voted Republican.
		I voted Democrat.
		But I am sick to see this man in office.
		He's a loser.
		He's having a birthday party when he's taking food away from our old people.
		They have to do something about him.
		How the hell did he become president?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Did you vote for him this time, Laura?
unidentified		No, I couldn't vote.
		I see what he's doing.
		He's not a human being.
		He's really, there's no words to put on the agenda to name him.
		He's a very sick man, and his children, I was at a group and they said his children got a billion dollars.
		I thought it was a million, like 10 million, but then they're saying, and I'm confused, what did they get?
		The family is just like him.
		They're looking to take money from the poor people who have to take care of families and children.
		And Trump wants a parade.
		He's really off the wall.
		He's a sick, sick man.
		And how the hell did the Supreme Court let this go?
		Why didn't they put him in prison for what he's doing to our beautiful, beautiful country?
		I always adored this country.
		I was so proud to be an American.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, Laura.
		And this is Treasury Secretary Besant was asked about when the government runs out of money, the so-called X date.
		Here's what he said.
unidentified		I'm going to ask a question that I'm sure you've never been asked before, but I'll give it a try here.
unidentified		When is X date?
scott bessent ▲ ● ▼		Congressman, we are, as I said earlier, we still take in a large amount of the paper returns.
		So every Friday, I get a summary.
		And if you can believe it, as you know, tax day was April 15th.
		We are still tallying that.
		So that we don't have, we will share with Congress when we believe we are approximating that date.
		So that will be forthcoming.
		But I will tell you, just as an outfielder running for a flyball, we are on the warning trek.
		And when you're on the warning trek, it means the wall is not far away.
unidentified		So it's not today.
unidentified		May not be next week, but it is fast approaching.
scott bessent ▲ ● ▼		And of course, the United States government will never default.
		That we will raise the debt ceiling, and Treasury will not use any gimmicks.
		We will make sure that the debt ceiling is raised.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And the previous caller talked about, a couple of previous callers talked about the crypto issue, and this is what Axios is reporting.
		Democrats target Trump family's crypto empire.
		It says that Senate Democrats are unveiling a sweeping new proposal to ban presidents, lawmakers, and their families from issuing, endorsing, or sponsoring crypto assets.
		Senator Jeff Merkley, a Democrat of Oregon, will introduce the End Crypto Corruption Act on Tuesday, that's yesterday, which would ban the president, vice president, and members of Congress and their immediate families from issuing digital assets such as meme coins and stablecoins.
		Earl is in Kissimmee, Florida, Independent Line.
		Good morning.
unidentified		Good morning.
		You know, I have been a viewer of C-SPAN since 1982.
		And I have seen how emotional this society has become.
		You know, every time there's, like, for example, C-SPAN, you are also complicit in this.
		You all use this terminology, anti-Semitic.
		You know, I remember the same terms was used when people come, university students complained about apartheid in South Africa.
		Now you hear these students complaining about what is going on in Israel, and then you all want to call it anti-Semitic.
		The issue is, according to the Bible, that most of these bumper sticker Christians and Jews came to believe in, Yahweh, the God that they call, the Jews call his name Yahweh.
		The Christians call him Jehovah.
		He condemns what's going on in Gaza as murder.
		The killing of innocent people is called murder.
		You all allow them to change the language and call it genocide.
		It's not genocide.
		According to Jehovah or Yahweh, you all are committing murder, murder in living color, and you all is condoning it by allowing them to claim anti-Semitic.
		Every time someone speaks against what the God of the Bible, their so-called God, call it murder.
		And C-SPAN, you allow the students, I haven't seen you all yet, interview none of the students about their stance for this claim of murder in Gaza, but yet still you all allow people to come over here and talk about anti-Semitic or freedom of speech.
		It has nothing to do with you all and the Christians, you all are so complicit.
		Jesus is nothing like this.
		If you all claim to be Christian, I can't imagine Jesus condoning such behavior.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, Earl.
		And we will take a little break from our calls for open forum, but stay on the line if you're already on the line because we're going to talk about the Federal Reserve meeting today with senior economics writer for Barrons, Megan Lenhart.
		Good morning.
		Welcome to the program.
unidentified		Hey, thanks for having me.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		So today is the second and final day of the U.S. Federal Open Market Committee meeting.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Explain what that is and who attends it.
unidentified		So the Federal Reserve has the Open Markets Committee, and they actually have a mix of governors and regional Fed presidents that do attend the meeting.
		Everyone attends.
		And then, you know, about more than half end up voting for whatever decision that is on the ballot, if you will.
		So it is one of those things they meet about eight times a year.
		And they really look at rate policy, but they also look at things like their balance sheet and other agenda items that they have every single meeting.
		The point of this is to really assess the health of the U.S. economy and determine whether or not they need to intervene in order to hopefully help stimulate the economy or pull back in order to start to balance their dual mandate, which of course is maximum employment and price stability.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Well, President Trump has been very vocal about wanting interest rates to be cut.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		What are you expecting will happen as a result of this meeting with regards to interest rates?
unidentified		So President Trump has been very vocal about wanting interest rates to be lower.
		But do keep in mind that the Federal Reserve is an independent agency.
		So they don't actually answer to the executive branch.
		And in this case, it is really widely expected that today's results of the meeting are going to be a continued kind of pause, if you will, for any kind of rate movement.
		So, you know, currently the interest rate for the federal funds rate is roughly around 4.25% to 4.5%.
		And that is expected to remain in place.
		And largely because the U.S. economy, while we are looking at some clouds on the horizon and, you know, it's been a bit bumpy in the first quarter for sure, it is holding up relatively well.
		And so there's not a huge impetus right now for the Federal Reserve to come in and try to stimulate the economy.
		Employment's holding up and inflation has been actually a bit more on a cooling trend that we'd like to see, but it's still above the Fed's 2% target rate.
		So this is going to keep things steady, at least for now, until we see some real deterioration in what Fed officials like to call the hard data.
		And that's things like your employment data, your retail sales, as opposed to things like consumer confidence, business sentiment, things like that.
		They're a little bit more of the, you know, how folks are feeling as opposed to how they're actually acting.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And what has Fed Chair Powell said about interest rates and about the president's tariffs agenda?
unidentified		So it's been interesting because the Fed has really been in a little bit of a wait and see mode even before President Trump was inaugurated.
		And then certainly after as some of these policies have ruled out, the Fed has been very, very clear that they are looking for the effects to actually materialize in the real economy of these policy decisions.
		And that includes things like tariffs, certainly, and the trade policy, but it also includes things like federal spending cuts, immigration reform.
		All of those different items do actually potentially have real economic impacts.
		And so the Fed's kind of in a bit of a pause, if you will, until they kind of determine what the outlook really ends up being.
		They've constantly said, you know, in many speeches, you know, that are being given by regional Fed presidents as well as the governors of the Federal Reserve, that things are a bit cloudy and it can be a little tricky right now to navigate this.
		And I think Fed officials are particularly worried about the S-word, which is stagflation.
		This is something that we've been hearing a lot about as of late.
		And what's concerning is, you know, in sort of economic theory, if you will, there's a pretty wide-held belief that tariffs will increase inflation.
		Now, whether that is a short-term increase, much like an oil supply shock, or something more persistent and lingering, if you will, that's really what the question boils down to.
		And in many cases, we are sort of also on the watch for a slowing economy.
		We did see actually a contraction of GDP growth in the first quarter.
		Now, that was due to imports being just at extraordinarily high levels because you had a lot of companies pulling forward orders to get actually around those tariffs and hopefully build up their inventories of sort of those tariff-free goods that they could continue to keep prices steady.
		But it is one of those situations where we could end up seeing slower economic growth and rising prices.
		And that, of course, brings out stagflation.
		Now, the key component to all of this is the employment situation, the labor market.
		Right now, it's actually holding really steady.
		We actually had 177 jobs added to payrolls, and employment unemployment is actually at 4.2%, which is really low and quite frankly, fairly close or certainly in range of full employment for the U.S.
		So at this point, what Fed officials have been saying is that they're actually fairly well positioned to really move and potentially move quickly if they need to to lower rates.
		Or on the flip side, if we do see a big persistent increase in inflation, they may have to raise rates down the line.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And Chairman Powell is going to be holding a news conference later today.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		What are you going to be listening for specifically?
unidentified		Yes, Chair Powell always does a post-meeting press conference.
		You know, very, very, very interesting.
		Lots of questions that are going to be asked.
		I think top of mind right now is that folks are looking for a little bit of clarity around how the Fed is sort of assessing the situation.
		Obviously, we've heard from Fed officials in the intervening weeks since the big tariff announcement at the beginning of April around sort of their concerns, what they're looking at.
		But it would be nice to get maybe a little bit more detail on sort of what exactly Fed officials are weighing in these circumstances, whether they've maybe perhaps moved closer to the idea of whether this is going to be a one-time price level increase for inflation or whether this is going to be more persistent.
		And they're going to be watching this very carefully.
		I think the other thing we're really looking for is obviously we're not expecting any kind of dramatic changes on rate policy today from the Federal Reserve, but that leaves the rest of the year fairly open.
		Now, markets, and you know, many folks are actually anticipating that the Fed's going to cut rates multiple times this year, three or four times.
		That seems, you know, a bit excessive, you know, by some standards.
		And so it is going to be interesting to see if maybe we get a little nod to whether or not we're going to start to maybe see that happen at the June meeting, or if this is something that Fed officials are really thinking is going to be at the back half of the year.
		If that's the case, it doesn't leave a lot of time for multiple rate cuts this year.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		Megan Lenhart, senior economics writer for Barons.
		You can find her work at barrens.com.
		Thanks so much for joining us today.
unidentified		Thanks for having me.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And we will be covering that news conference with Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell.
		That will be at 2:30 p.m.
		We're going to have that on C-SPAN 3, also C-SPAN Now, the app and C-SPAN.org online.
		And we'll get back to your calls.
		We're in an open forum until 10 a.m. when the House gavels in.
		This is Anthony in Miller Place, New York, Democrat.
unidentified		Hi, Professor Georges.
		I would like to request that C-SPAN have on a writer, humanist, named Amy Heckerling, to subscribe the accolades and achievements of women and womanhood.
		I feel that in these modern times, we've lost touch with the reality that women are the most important aspect of our existence on this planet.
		They spend nine months gestating us and giving us life.
		And now they've been expected to come out of the home and be in the workplace.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And here is Rob in Homo Sasa, Florida, Independent Line.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good morning.
unidentified		Good morning.
		It's Rob, R.O.B. Oh, Rob, sorry about that.
		Yeah, no problem.
		I get that all the time.
		Anyways, I just wanted to talk about the president.
		I think he's doing a pretty decent job.
		It's only been 110 days.
		Americans seem to have a lot of impatience, especially with Trump, because he's not a politician.
		He's a businessman.
		This is the whole reason why a lot of people, such as myself, voted for this guy back in his first term.
		And I think he did a damn good job during his first term, considering what he had to deal with and what he went through.
		And then his second term here coming along, we're only talking 110 days.
		Let's come to this, let him do some things.
		He's run circles around Biden.
		It's not even close as far as how much input and how much he's at work doing things.
		The border, I think that's a great thing he's done in 110 days.
		He's working on the economy.
		He's working for America first.
		All these Democrats and so forth that call in is still calling for impeachment and so forth.
		We heard this story before.
		On and on and on, we go.
		And how many times did they get defeated back in his first term with all these so-called things that he comes up against Trump?
		I'm not saying the man's perfect, but you have to give, he's not a typical president, politician that you see that doesn't speak to the people in this language that sometimes they don't understand about taxes and so forth.
		Let's let this man get his agenda out there more than 110 days.
		If it's after a year and we're going through this economy like we are right now, then yes, something needs to be said, something about it.
		But you're not going to be able to do it.
		You didn't build Rome overnight.
		All right.
		The same thing here.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Got it.
		Neville in Newark, New Jersey, Democrat.
		Good morning.
		Neville, are you there?
unidentified		Yeah, good morning.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Morning.
unidentified		Yeah, I got a suggestion that the president, I would say that no man, whether Republican or Democrat, the president should be in the military.
		He should be a military man to be a president of this country.
		I think so.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And why do you think that?
unidentified		If you want to be the chief of the all world, you should be a military person.
		Whether Democrat or Republican, you should be a military man.
		The Democrats should put a man to run this country who is in the military.
		The Democrat should do so also.
		And Trump has never been into the military.
		He does the military.
		His father paid his way out of the military.
		So why he become the president?
		He cannot run the military.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Got your point on the line for Republicans in Chenectady, New York.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Steve, you're next.
unidentified		Good morning.
		Please give me a minute.
		I would like black people to understand: every movement that black people have ever started, the opposition was the white conservative movement.
		The opposition to women advancing was the white conservative movement.
		The opposition to the gay community today is the white conservative movement.
		So I don't understand how throughout history the white conservative movement has been the antithesis of all things, well, most things bad against people who want better.
		But for some reason, they are continually given the benefit of the doubt.
		Donald Trump was the president, and he had a negative 33% GDP.
		And you had a Baron's writer on, they don't talk about that and tie it into his first quarter being negative.
		So I don't understand why the white conservative movement is given the benefit of the doubt and allowed to do the things that they do.
		And they are the opposition to everything moving forward.
		Thank you.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Here is James, New Hampshire, Independent Line.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Hi, James.
unidentified		Hi, Mimi.
		I just want to say, dear, you're aging very gracefully, I want to say.
		But anyhow, just a few points.
		I don't want to take the time of other people's calls.
		But I think the Federal Reserve, I'd love to see a good show on that.
		I don't think I understand enough about it.
		I don't know how many other people do with the interest rates and how they tend to keep especially the poor people, people, middle class even, on a treadmill.
		You know, we go buy a car, the interest rates, the price, we go buy a house, the interest rates, 30 years.
		We go to time for retirement.
		It's like where are we now?
		So it's like a treadmill with the Federal Reserve.
		And as far as I think, personally, what the Trump administration is doing, I like the idea that they are listening up the carpet and see how much is dirt under there.
		I think it's good for all of us.
		I don't care if you're Republican, Democrat, or Independent.
		It is waste fraud and abuse.
		We need to expose it because that is the taxpayers' money of this country, and people work very, very hard for their money, more so now than ever.
		So, I just want to say once again, Mimi, you do a fine job.
		And Brian Laminal.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Appreciate that.
		Daniel in St. Petersburg, Florida, Republican.
		Good morning.
unidentified		Yes, good morning.
unidentified		How are you today?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good.
unidentified		I want to take a moment to thank, ask the American people: is it uncommon knowledge that we're an oil-based economy?
		And if the answer to that is yes, and we're watching our country being handcuffed from developing our natural resources, such as oil and gas, like in Anwar and other places,
		because the people carrying out an agenda for global warming and guys to basically shut down our ability to take this oil and gas from places like Anwar and other places,
		and by litigation and regulation and red tape, and to keep it from being able to be used to help unleash our potential to be able to sell oil to our trading partners like Japan, like China, like Korea and other Asian countries, such as even India.
		Why should these countries buy their oil from Russia?
		Why should these countries, our trading partners, buy their oil from Iran and countries that don't like us?
		Why can't we use this oil that sits in the ground off the coast of Florida, Alaska, and get rid of these regulations?
		Can the President of the United States not maybe martial law but stop these fanatical environmentalists that have just destroyed the ability to use this oil wealth to make America great?
		All these things like welfare, SNAP programs, and treatment for drug treatment and mental health that has been ailing in this country can be cured if we address this problem.
		So I encourage Trump to continue.
		I would encourage the Democrats and independents to get behind this administration to make America great by unleashing American energy dominance and shipping our oil abroad and making our country rich.
		Thank you.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, Daniel.
		And I want to show you this U.S. Vice President to attend Munich leaders meeting on Wednesday.
		That's today.
		It's actually going on right now.
		He is participating in a discussion with Ambassador Wolfgang Isinger.
		He's the president of the Foundation Council of the Munich Security Conference.
		This is happening in Washington, D.C.
		We are covering it live on C-SPAN 2, and we will just take a look.
unidentified		Which confronts us together.
		So thank you again for making yourself available.
		We don't have a great deal of time, so I'll not come up with a long introduction.
		And I just want to get us started.
		The first time you came to Munich, you were still a senator from Ohio.
		What I associate with Ohio is the Dayton Agreement.
		30 years ago in 1995, I was at that time actually the German negotiator.
		So I actually lived in Dayton, Ohio for one entire month.
		And why is this important?
		Because It was through U.S. intervention that peace was brought about in Europe, in the Balkans at that time.
		So if I may, let me ask my first question about the U.S. and Europe.
		A distinguished former U.S. diplomat, Richard Holbrook, wrote almost exactly 30 years ago in a Foreign Affairs article that the United States is and should remain a European power.
		Today, 30 years ago, my question is, do you think that the United States should continue to see itself as a European power?
		In Munich, remember, you actually said, and I quote, we are still on the same team.
		Are we?
		And what does that mean for the U.S. presence in Europe and relationship with Europe?
		First question.
jd vance ▲ ● ▼		Sure.
		Well, first of all, thank you.
		And I'm sorry, my microphone apparently is broken, but we have another one, so that's good.
		So everybody can hear me now, right?
		Everybody can hear me?
		Great, good.
		Yeah, so first of all, thrilled to be here and thrilled to have this conversation.
		I've been looking forward to it.
		And yeah, I do still very much think that the United States and Europe are on the same team.
		And I think that this is, you know, sometimes I've been criticized as a hyper-realist, right?
		I think of foreign policy purely in terms of transactional values.
		What does the America get out of it?
		What do the rest of the world get out of it?
		And try to focus so purely on the transactional value of it that we ignore sometimes the humanitarian or the moral side of it.
		And I think at least with Europe, that's actually not a full encapsulation of my views because I think that European civilization and American civilization, European culture and American culture are very much linked.
		And they're always going to be linked.
		And I think it's completely ridiculous to think that you're ever going to be able to drive a firm wedge between the United States and Europe.
		Now, that doesn't mean we're not going to have disagreements.
		And of course, you brought up the speech earlier.
		It doesn't mean that Europeans won't criticize the United States or the United States won't criticize Europe.
		But I do think fundamentally we have to be, and we are, on the same civilizational team.
		And I think obviously there's a big question about what that means in the 21st century.
		I think, you know, obviously the President and I believe that it means a little bit more European burden sharing on the defense side.
		I think that it means that all of us, frankly, on both sides of the Atlantic, have gotten a little bit too comfortable with the security posture of the last 20 years and that, frankly, that security posture is not adequate to meet the challenges of the next 20 years.
		So there are a lot of ways in which this alliance will evolve and change.
		In the same way that the alliance evolved and changed from 1945 to 1975 and from 1975 to 2005, I do think that we're in one of these phases where we're going to have to rethink a lot of big questions.
		But I do think that we should rethink those big questions together.
		That is a fundamental belief of both me and the President.
		And, you know, you mentioned this is my third time speaking with the Munich Security Conference Group.
		Obviously, the first couple of times were in Munich.
		And I always remember very fondly, of course, that the very first time it was as a United States Senator representing Ohio.
		And I'm glad you got to spend a month in Dayton.
		I love Dayton.
		It's kind of the closest big city, if you can call it a big city, to where I grew up.
		But on that first panel, I was on that panel, and also David Lammy, who at the time was a lowly member in opposition, and of course now is the great Foreign Secretary of the United Kingdom, and he and I have become good friends.
		So I still think that this European alliance is very important, but I think that for it to be important and for us to be real friends with you, I think that we are very much real friends.
		We've got to talk about the big questions.
		And I know that's an important part of what this entire group does, so I'm glad to be here.
unidentified		Great.
		Thank you so much.
		And I think the message has arrived.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Vice President JD Vance, and if you would like to continue watching that, that is over on our sister network, C-SPAN 2, with live coverage.
		But we are in open forum here, so we're taking your calls on anything public affairs related.
		Here's Albert Stockton, California, Independent.
		Good morning.
unidentified		Good morning, Albert Stockton, California.
		I love to hear practicalists and common sense and educated person.
		That's who I heard.
		I'm not looking at the TV right now.
		All I got to say today, keep it short, is that since we've had a new president and a new mayor, which is a woman, Stockton is being cleaned up.
		I can call the police.
		They'll actually come.
		Went yesterday to the grocery store, didn't spend $400, spent, it came to $180.
		I didn't buy any donuts, but everything seems, I like somebody to use that word, pause.
		And yes, I don't think anything's going to happen in the first 110 days.
		It'll probably be, like you said, a year.
		So I'm a sixth generation Hispanic.
		All my family, my father walked to California from Texas to California, worked for CYA.
		All my brothers and sisters work, pay taxes.
		America is awesome.
		And one of our mom's sons died, Alex Hernandez.
		They'll name a street after him in Texas.
		His mother is taken care of by America.
		She didn't need it, but they will take care of her.
		So this place is really great.
		And I'm going to leave it with this.
		To the man upstairs, they didn't bury deep enough that, and he still rose and prayed for his enemies.
		He was a man who stood for something and lives in all our souls, and even Trump's.
		So let's all give him a chance.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, Albert.
		And here's the front page of the Washington Times.
		FBI flubbed 2017 inquiry of gunmen on ball field.
		Analysis buried political motive.
		That was the shooting, if you remember, where Steve Scalise, the House Majority Leader, was seriously injured.
		And here he is reacting to the release of that report.
steve scalise ▲ ● ▼		So if you go back to 2017 after the baseball shooting, the FBI had brought in the members of the team.
		Roger Williams was one of those members who was part of that briefing.
		And at that meeting, they went through some of the information.
		Some of it was classified.
		Some of it wasn't.
		But they ultimately let us know what their conclusion was.
		And that's when they said it was classified as suicide by cop.
		And I'll tell you, I was offended.
		I think all of us there were highly offended that that was the conclusion that the FBI in 2017 came to because it wasn't what happened on the baseball field.
		He went there with the intention of killing all of us on the baseball field.
		And he had a list in his pocket of other Republicans he wanted to kill.
		It was very politically motivated.
		And it was clear they suppressed a lot of facts.
		And what the FBI report that Kash Patel's FBI came out with today shows they suppressed factual evidence to reach a different conclusion than what the facts led to show.
		Suicide by cop was not the conclusion.
		They ultimately changed it to domestic terrorism.
		And I applaud the new FBI for making that change in the justification.
		But they also revealed some of the other facts that were suppressed.
		The fact that it was politically motivated, even though they had some of that factual evidence, they hid that because they didn't want to make it look like it was politically motivated.
		You know, I mean, look, the guy went there and not only tried to kill all of us, I had two Capitol Police officers with me on my detail.
		He tried to kill both of them.
		Suicide by cop is not when you try to kill everybody around, including the cops.
		And by the way, he didn't even know they were cops because they were dressed in plain clothes.
		And he had every intention of carrying out a politically motivated message.
		He wrote about it, and they had that evidence, and they suppressed it.
		So it was very disappointing.
		We walked out of the meeting that day because we were so infuriated that that was their conclusion.
		I'm glad that Kash Patel is getting the FBI back to a fact-based organization where they follow the evidence.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And back to your calls.
		Here's Terry Dixon, Illinois, Democrat.
		Good morning, Terry.
unidentified		Yes, good morning.
		Yeah, I have two comments.
		You know, Donald Trump, he's such a great businessman.
		How many people you know bankrupt Conceitl?
		And second, you know, we went from DEI to DUI with Pete Hupstep.
		We have now four incidents where three aircraft have been lost.
		Two, just the other day, one went off the ship again.
		One, two, went off the ship.
		And then we had another one get shot down by one of our own ships.
		I think we need to have Pete Hess set up before the Congress and impeach him before one of our ships gets sunk.
		Thank you.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Here's Melissa in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, Independent.
unidentified		Excuse me, I just have two quick points.
		The Democrats are constantly saying that Doge was not to be headed up by Elon Musk.
		He was not elected by the people, but that's a false narrative because Trump campaigned and Elon campaigned that they would create Doge and it would be headed up by Elon Musk.
		So the people voted for him.
		They voted for him to head up Doge.
		And my second point is: I think that the interest rates for housing should be dropped.
		I'm trying to sell a house and purchase a new home right now, and it's very difficult for us to do that in this time.
		People are trying to purchase new homes, and the interest rates are making it very difficult.
		So I think that that should be something that should be looked at right now.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right.
unidentified		Thank you for taking my call.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, Melissa.
		And this is on the front page of the Washington Post this morning.
		Over here, it says, U.S. urged Ukraine to accept deportees.
		Bid involved other countries.
		Citizens, no sign a war-torn nation seriously considered it.
		That's on the Washington Post.
		And this is Robert, Virginia Beach, Virginia, Republican.
		Good morning.
unidentified		Good morning.
		I just wanted to say that regarding everything that's currently going on, I still support our President Trump, especially on the social issues, stopping violent crime in the big cities, getting back to law and order, adopting a pro-life agenda.
		And here in Virginia, I hope to be all red this November.
		Don't let Virginia turn into Maryland or California.
		And let's try to keep the agenda of the LGTBQ out of our public schools.
		And that's all I have to say.
		Thank you.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Here's Gina in Odinville, Alabama, Democrat.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good morning.
unidentified		Good morning.
		I just have a comment, my opinion on how things are.
		In my view, really, President Trump is completely inept.
		He's a failed businessman many times over.
		And the true power, I think, lies with Stephen Miller.
		He is the Project 2025.
		He is a bureaucrat who is driving the division, attacking immigrants and dismantling the government.
		That is his goal.
		He wants to push us further into his white supremacist regime thinking.
		And he should be removed.
		And President Trump and his cabinet should be removed.
		They are inserting loyalists, and that's what they want to do, people that will only answer to him.
		And our country is in great peril, and I love our country.
		And I think that any Republican or Independents that voted this way and are now regretting it, I would invite them to rethink what they voted for and help us in our fight to avoid an authoritarian regime.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, Gina.
		And Washington Post on cardinals gathering in the Sistine Chapel and begin voting for a new pope.
		This is happening right now in the Vatican as the conclave gets underway to begin the election for a new pope.
		Here's Sharon in Middletown, Delaware, Republican.
		Good morning, Sharon.
		Sharon, are you there?
		In Middletown?
		Jim in Cairo, Missouri, Democrat.
		Good morning, Jim.
unidentified		Good morning.
		I'd like to talk about the tariffs and the painful transition that we're going through.
		I understand we will be paying tariffs on, let's say, Chinese imports until we build a factory here in the U.S.
		I would point out that we do not have the manpower to man a manufacturing base that can replace all the things we get out of China.
		And the idea that a company is going to bring a factory back and man it and pay American wages, our painful transition will never end.
		We will never see low prices again if Trump gets his way.
		We just don't have the manpower.
		And another thing, being on Social Security, I am one of those people that does not pay income tax.
		A tax cut will not do me any good at all.
		In fact, the Trump tariff tax is going to put me backwards.
		I do not pay interest.
		I collect interest.
		I like the interest rates that I'm getting on my CD right now.
		Good enough.
		Thank you.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, Jim.
		And speaking of tariffs, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessant was on Capitol Hill yesterday talking about the Trump tariff agenda.
		Here's a portion.
scott bessent ▲ ● ▼		Mr. Chairman, this will be path-dependent on our trade partners.
		As I've said before, there are 18 very important trading relationships.
		We are currently negotiating with 17 of those trading partners.
		China, we have not engaged in negotiations with as of yet.
		So I expect that we can see a substantial reduction in the tariffs that we are being charged, as well as non-tariff barriers, currency manipulation, and the subsidies of both labor and capital investment.
		So that is proceeding very well.
		Many of our trading partners have approached us with very good offers, and we are in the process of renegotiating those.
		With the economy, I would say that this is a three-legged stool, trade, tax, and deregulation.
		Trade was first.
		This House, according to Speaker Johnson, expects to move their portion of the bill over to the Senate on or about Memorial Day.
		So we're looking forward to that.
		And then deregulation necessarily takes longer to affect the economy, but I would expect in the third and fourth quarters, we would see substantial benefits from deregulation that by this time last year could be in full force.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		That was yesterday.
		We are in open forum, and we'll try Sharon in Middletown, Delaware on the Republican line again.
		You there, Sharon?
unidentified		I am.
		Thank you.
		Can you hear me okay?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Yes, go right ahead.
unidentified		Okay, great.
		Sorry about that.
		Yeah, I just have a couple things.
		The first thing is that the Prime Minister, the new Prime Minister of Canada, is actually the one that requested to meet with President Trump.
		So he came here to discuss fair trade, basically, with the two different countries.
		Okay, so give the tariffs a chance.
		I think, you know, we might all be surprised at the very end.
		And then secondly, you had a caller earlier that quoted Kamala Hare as saying that President Trump is not a serious man.
		The serious man is the one that closed our border within a month, okay, and is deporting these illegal criminals that are hurting our people.
		So he is a very serious man, and he puts the American people first.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		Here's Carrie in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, Independent Line.
		Hi, Carrie.
unidentified		Good morning.
		I just had a couple of things to say.
		I listen every morning for quickly to kind of see where everyone's at.
		And what I've noticed is on the left, we seem to have, they're stagnant.
		They're still saying the same things that they've been saying for the past 10, 15 years.
		So they haven't changed.
		They're very down.
		They're very upset.
		Everything's always bad.
		Trump is always really Satan.
		They just hate a lot of things.
		They don't see any good anywhere.
		Nothing's working right.
		Everything's bad.
		And then I see what's happening is there's more people calling in that have freer, happier thinking.
		They have more independent thought.
		We're getting out of that.
		If they're in that darkness where those other people are, they're in a rut.
		They just stay there.
		I'm starting to hear more independent, free thought.
		I'm starting to hear new ideas.
		I'm starting to hear more positivity.
		I'm starting to hear that people are seeing what is actually working and what is actually going well.
		I am starting to hear less of the mockingbird media from people and more of their thoughts, their ideas, and as a more free-flowing thought pattern.
		And I think this is great because we can, those of us who aren't connected to mainstream media and go outside into the rest of the world with the internet and check the entire world, there are so many things happening that they don't talk about on mainstream media that we know about and that have been happening for over a decade that the people have never heard about on mainstream media.
		And it's all very good.
		And what's happening is very, thank you.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, Gary.
		And this is Fox News with this headline.
		Trump claims Houthis, quote, don't want to fight and says U.S. will stop bombing campaign.
		And here is President Trump with Secretary of State Rubio in the Oval Office yesterday talking about that.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		These have announced that they are not, or they've announced to us at least, that they don't want to fight anymore.
		They just don't want to fight.
		And we will honor that.
		And we will stop the bombings.
unidentified		And they have capitulated.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		But more importantly, we will take their word.
		They say they will not be blowing up ships anymore.
		And that's what the purpose of what we were doing.
		So that's just news.
		We just found out about that.
		So I think that's very, very positive.
		They were knocking out a lot of ships going, as you know, sailing beautifully down the various seas.
		It wasn't just the canal.
		It was a lot of other places.
		And I will accept their word.
		And we are going to stop the bombing of the Houthis effective immediately.
		And Marco, you'll let everybody know that, okay?
		Do you have something to say about that, by the way?
		It was a pretty big announcement.
unidentified		Yeah, this was always a freedom of navigation mission.
marco rubio ▲ ● ▼		These guys, these are a band of individuals with advanced weaponry that were threatening global shipping.
		And the job was to get that to stop.
		And if it's going to stop, then we can stop.
		And so I think it's an important development.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And that was in the Oval Office yesterday.
		Here's what the Jerusalem Post is putting out this headline.
		Israel blindsided by Trump's Houthi announcement.
		According to sources, they're quoting President Trump saying, they said, please don't bomb us anymore, and we're not going to attack your ships.
		That's the Jerusalem Post if you'd like to read that article.
		And this is Bart in Madison, Connecticut, Democrat.
		Good morning, Bart.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		Good morning.
unidentified		What a pleasure.
		Hey, I just wrote a song about this.
		I was wondering if you like to hear it.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Okay, real quick.
unidentified		Okay, well, it's on YouTube.
		It's called Democracy Song.
		And it's by Bart Bryant, and it addresses a lot what's going on.
		And I just hope you'll take an opportunity to listen to it.
kristi noem ▲ ● ▼		All right.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Well, look it up.
		Jay in Clearwater, Florida, Independent Line.
		Hi, Jay.
unidentified		Hey, good morning, Mimi.
		Let me start by saying thank you for CISBAN and your program to give the American people an opportunity to express themselves.
		The second thing is Happy Mother's Day to all the mothers out there.
		And I wanted to have some thinking about what's going on.
		So think about how regulations were enacted to protect our land and our health.
		Now, think about having oil and gas machinery on federal land, national parks being reduced to fields of machinery to extract these resources.
		Most agencies that study and reported impacts on the environment have been guarded or eliminated.
		Weather reporting does no longer have the tools used to help them analyze and predict weather patterns and climate change.
		Global warming is real.
		We see it, it's devastation every day.
		We see it on melting glaciers, bridge coral reefs, highest trends, hurricanes, more tornadoes, and implement weather.
		We should continue to emphasize on the future of our children and not so much on the Make America Rich agenda.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, John.
unidentified		Thank you so very much.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And here's Kiana in Lakewood, Ohio, Democrat.
unidentified		Hi, Kyana.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Oh, Kyana.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Sorry.
unidentified		No worries.
		So I called to comment on something, but I want to say one thing before I say that.
		You know, just listening to people call in the Republicans and a lot of the independents, you would think that they are rich the way they champion policies, tax policies that mainly benefit the rich, and to the detriment of most of us who are a paycheck away, a paycheck or two away from being homeless or hungry or without health care.
		I just want to say to these people, you are not rich.
		You're either working class, aka poor, or you're middle class, and you're a paycheck away from being poor.
		That being said, what I actually called in to comment on was Representative Mark Harris of North Carolina talking about the problems with the Medicaid expansion, saying the problem is it was originally intended to be for single moms, kids, and people with disabilities, and we need to bring it back to its foundation to be sustainable.
		No, what we need for it to be sustainable is for you guys to stop giving all these tax cuts to people that don't need them and are not creating jobs.
		The 30-year-old kid living in their parents' basement is not the problem.
		And who do you think is going to have to take on the burden of health care, food, living expenses, like without whatever little bit of money they are getting from the disability check?
		The parent, the poor parent, the mother that you're talking about.
		I do not get it.
		I don't get it.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And this is Democrat Lauren Underwood.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Yesterday was questioning Homeland Security Secretary Noam during the appropriations hearing, and this is about due process for deportees.
unidentified		What I'm asking is whether you believe you have the authority to ignore appropriations law.
unidentified		Do you believe that the Constitution gives the executive branch unilateral authority to withhold funds appropriated by the legislative branch?
kristi noem ▲ ● ▼		We have evaluated grants to make sure if they're being spent appropriately and work that is underway and was authorized has continued.
		Other grants that have not been started and have not been authorized or obligated, we have re-evaluated.
		And I think you're talking specifically about grants potentially within FEMA that were non-disaster-related grants.
unidentified		I'm talking broadly, ma'am.
		Article 2 does not give the executive the authority to withhold funds, period.
		And multiple courts have weighed in to agree.
		Multiple courts have ruled in agreement.
		Congress controls the power of the purse.
		That is a fact.
		That's not a question.
		That is a fact.
		And so if the president disagrees with certain spending, Congress passed the Empowerment Act to create a legal process to seek rescissions.
		And we expect him to follow the law.
		This administration is not just ignoring the constitutional power of the people's elected representatives.
		It is also violating the fundamental right of individuals.
		Do you believe that the Constitution grants everyone in our country the right to due process, including non-citizens?
kristi noem ▲ ● ▼		The administration has the authority to ma'am.
unidentified		I'm looking for a yes or no question.
		Yes or no.
		Do you believe the concept?
		Yes, ma'am.
kristi noem ▲ ● ▼		Do you believe I'm conducted?
unidentified		I'm claiming my time, Mr. Chairman.
		Time is yours.
		Okay, Secretary Noam, I'm just looking for a yes or no here.
		Do you believe the Constitution guarantees due process to everyone in America?
		Due process is exactly what this Congress or no.
		Okay, ma'am, I'll take that as a no.
		Excuse me.
		Ma'am, I'm trying to ascertain your understanding of the law as it applies to your department.
		And you, as its leader, should be able to give us a yes or no answer because judge after judge has ruled that the law is not being followed.
		Do you believe that the U.S. government has the authority to deport American citizens?
kristi noem ▲ ● ▼		No, and we are not deporting.
unidentified		I'm so happy to hear that you do not believe that the law gives you that authority because the federal government has no authority under U.S. laws to deport any American citizen.
		And as I know, everyone viewing this hearing today knows that several American citizens have been deported to date.
		Secretary Noam, that was not a question.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Here calls now.
		Here's Jayden in Lima, Ohio, Republican.
		Good morning, Jayden.
unidentified		Good morning.
		I'd like to make a commentary about how Trump is actually a pro-labor president with the tariffs.
		So a lot of outsourcing happened, and that's where a lot of our local industries, especially in my area with the manufacturing, a lot of the trades, they got outsourced to like China.
		And with us pressuring other nations and making it more expensive to move our jobs overseas, it's going to bring a lot of different jobs on shore.
		And with the anti-immigration policy, we're lowering our labor force.
		And I think that it's going to be one of the most beneficial things to rebuild and revitalize the middle class.
		And I feel a lot of people on the left don't have an appreciation for how it can benefit people who want to get out there and go to work.
		That's pretty much all I have to say.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		And this is Adrias in Cuddy, Pennsylvania, Democrat.
		Good morning.
		Adrias?
		You got to turn down your TV.
unidentified		It's going to bring a lot of.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		You're there in Cuddy, Pennsylvania?
		A couple of things for your schedule as we start to wrap up this program.
		Energy Secretary Chris Wright will take questions on energy costs and his agency's 2026 budget request.
		That will be the Secretary's first congressional hearing since he was confirmed.
		You can watch that.
		It's getting underway shortly over on C-SPAN2 and also on our app and online at c-span.org.
		And here is Guy in Stigler, Oklahoma, Independent Line.
		Good morning.
unidentified		Hey, good morning, Mimi.
		About three weeks ago, you had a guest on.
		I can't remember his name, but he was a 20-year college professor and a 20-year staffer.
		And he was talking very badly about Pete Hedstaff.
		My point I'd like to make is you agreed with them on two falsehoods.
		You said that the signal app was unsecure.
		If you Google it, it's encrypted from end to end, and it's a completely secure app.
		And also, you made.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		But not for national security purposes.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		I mean, you could say WhatsApp is secure if it's, but not to the level required.
unidentified		It is for national security purposes.
unidentified		It's developed by the CIA.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And what was your other thing?

▲