restful chair -- russ fulcher was elected. he was an executive at an electronics company. mr. jared golden has held a seat in the state house for the last --r caser congressman ed returns to congress representing .awaii's second district before that he was a member of the state legislature.

new congress, new leaders. c-span. all on ests joining us, sahil kapur of bloomberg news, international correspondent, and katherine tully-mcmanus of roll call, a staff writer for that publication. thanks for joining us and happy new year. guest: happy new year. the house it comes to and senate side, katherine tully-mcmanus, talk about the potential of coming up with some type of resolve for this. guest: a couple have been desolate over the holidays. me and my colleagues have been up there. there have not been robust discussions that we have seen amongst many lawmakers trying to figure out a deal. it does not mean they are not happening behind the phones or behind closed doors.

both house republicans and democrats will be heading to the white house for what they are calling a briefing on the immigration issue. i think that will be a very interesting discussion, although trump has said that some of the things house democrats have laid out have been nonstarters, including tupac is that they thursday -- on including the plant that they plan to vote on on thursday . the first will be on six of the seven uncompleted spending bills . mostly in the same provisions, only a few tweaks calling the minor changes to those bills. the second vote will be a continuing resolution only for the department of homeland security. that takes the wall issue and pushes it down the road for more discussions, and hopefully they can hash out a deal on that. sahil kapur, a briefing on

the committee, what does that say about the white house trying to resolve the issue? 2: the white house wants to appear as if they are negotiating. calling it a breathing, not really a discussion. where we are right now is still at a dead stop, negotiations between the two sides. democrats are going to take over the house tomorrow, i believe, and they will pass legislation pretty easily, i think, through the house. and not fund president trump's wall. senate republicans come up before the break, they passed what would perhaps prevent a shutdown without funding the wall, then the president issued a veto threat, and that is when leaders got behind him. first act ofs

speaker will be to invite a shutdown with mitch mcconnell, the republican leader, and the senate. we will see how that turns out. republican leaders are behind president trump. they are backing him. they do not want to put the president in a position of having to veto a bill in the first place. host: do you know if it is still at the same figure? guest 2: the $5 billion prorated per year, yes. withhite house is sticking $3.2 billion and fencing, not a concrete wall that the president has said he also wants. i do not see how you resolve that. host: miss tully-mcmanus, on the side, what faces them? guest 1: mitch mcconnell has said they will not take up legislation president trump will not sign. the only once viable -- he only wants viable options.

and authority taken action, which is an interesting twist, but it is the people that the republicans are in. int: will the republicans the senate side hang together on this, do you think? guest 1: i think they will. theng the backing of president is important to them, but there are always surprises on capitol hill. [laughs] guest 2: you may see a few doing what it takes to open the government. there are a number of republican senators who are facing temperate elections. we are now in a different cycle. i expect the senate republicans to remain pretty firmly behind it wa big president. if they adjust what they are willing to accept, that will help shape, but until that happens, we are at an impasse. host: if you want to ask our , particularlyns when it comes to the government shutdown, democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001.

an independents, (202) 748-8002. you can also tweet us @cspanwj. that last comment you made come a factor in mitt romney. guest 2: mitt romney wrote a scathing op-ed in the "washington post," in which he says the president is not rise to the mantle of his office. it was a very fear set of criticisms that provoked in response, to go from the president on twitter, saying he should focus more on immigration and border security. he asked the question "will he be a flake?" referring to the now retired senator jeff flake of arizona. we should not assume yet that senator romney, senator electronic, i should say, is going to be a thorn in the hesident's side, because

praised the president on signature items, including corporate tax cuts and conservative judges. is he going to be someone who obstructs the president's agenda and stands with democrats to oppose him on things like immigration ? guest 1: i also think it is really an interesting parallel that jeff flake's vocal criticism of the president came in the waning days of his final term, because he had nothing really to lose, whereas incoming senator is up for a wild, so he has almost a parallel freedom that flake did. we will hearng reports that are once again teargas being used on the order range ofigrants of a ages, including children, who were allegedly throwing rocks at

border patrol. and i think you will see lawmakers threading the needle between concerns over that demonstration of force against migrants and support for the president's border wall. guest 2: a point, if i may come about flake, because senator flake only began flexing his muscle after the lame-duck session when he basically said redline, i will not support any new judicial confirmations, which was a top priority for the republican leader, until it is brought to a vote, and it was not. he prevented a single new judge from being confirmed in the last few months, which mcconnell wanted to do. host: we will start with luna in kentucky, democrats line. you are on with our guests. good morning. go ahead. caller: i have a question and a comment. pelosi, whenever

she wanted to get something passed, she went in there and talked with all of her constituents that she wanted to get a vote so that we could never have a republican president. why she would me even do something like that for? she is not right in the head. thank you. ms. tully-mcmanus, the you want to add anything to that? guest 1: i have not heard about that, one of the primary roles of a leader in the house is to party, and especially when there is an opposition party in the white house, they will be putting up a strong base for democrats in 2020. nancy pelosi will have a large, vocal role in promoting a wide range of democratic candidates that were expected for 2020. i have not heard about those comments. guest 2: on ap or intraparty level, i think the new -- on a

level, i think the new democratic party will face an agenda like medicare for all, agenda that faces fossil fuel, and you will have democrats from purple or red districts -- remember, they are not unbalanced, and many will be looking for some distance from the progressive wing from the party. but the fact that nancy pelosi gets to have her first fight on wall,the shutdown and the there is no democrat from the bluest of districts to the reddest of districts who cares about this wall, but they feel wall, soe about the you will see democrats united on the wall. host: how comfortable are they shutdown,ent with the and when does it come to much? guest 2: i have not seen any crexendo white house on this issue. if they are nervous, they are not showing it.

immigration was his answer to voters in the 2016 election. ever since for the problems, he has blamed immigration, immigration laws, and migration, everything ranging from crime, lost jobs, to the opioid epidemic. for him to be seen as surrendering on this, i think you decided that is not politically viable. even if he and his party take political heat for this shutdown, it will not be as bad as backing down. when will they be apple to reopen the government? it all depends on when he is able to say "i am not backing down." guest 1: the pain of this shutdown will only begin to be felt in the coming weeks, because over the holidays, federal workers already had scheduled time off and leave, and if you are on a certain pay schedule, the next a period -- pay period will be january 11,

so not everyone has even miss a face check yet. we know -- missed a paycheck yet. we know the coast guard will be paid, but there is no guarantee they will be covered for the next one. host: is the house in the senate resolve whether that will be given? guest 1: the senate passed unanimous consent of a resolution to provide backpay to federal workers. the house was already gone at that point for the holidays. they have not yet taken it up. i have not believe that in recent history they have left federal workers out to dry. something to consider is that federal contractors, which is an important share of the federal workers, is not guaranteed back the after a shutdown. host: let's hear from oceanside, new york, republican line. ian, caller: hello. pedro, good, morning to you and your guests and everything at "washington journal." was given his speech

from ellis island, saying how immigrants will always be welcome, of course, we want immigrants like officer s ingh coming from fiji, but he andkilled by an illegal, now the sanctuary city policies good illegals and immigrants will turn into that was -- we just found out there arrestedother people helping this guy get out of town, get back to mexico, so the wall needs to be built. i am in the coast guard. border patrol, 16,500 i.c.e. a -- thethe for terminal fraternal brotherhood of cops, everybody backed president trump for a reason. when people like schumer's of awol does not work, a wall does not work for the democrats, because it is a full small player, it will stop people from just jumping over a fence, which

works. it works for the democrats. america,ot work for but it works for the democrats, a fence. host: ian, thank you very much. guest 2: the sanctuary city debate is an age-old one that hits conservatives, not only progressives, but a number of mayors tell them if you cut off funding or you require law enforcement to go after undocumented people, you are taking away an avenue that law enforcement has to gain information. in other words, if you are trying to knock on somebody's door and they are worried that there are i.c.e. agents behind them, they will not get the information tour de force conservatives say local citizen -- unique local cities and cooperation -- say you need local cities and cooperation to get what you want to both sides give away what they want and what they don't want. is where the local

meets the national, and you have sahil wasons, like are at law enforcement august with their representatives, and that definitely poses an issue, and it has driven some lawmakers to connect on this issue with her constituents and really listen. host: with the incoming of the congress, a couple of other pieces of business. does nancy pelosi have the votes to become speaker of the house formally? guest 1: i believe she does, but it is not always surprise me the stuff that happens on capitol hill. i do believe house democrats, including the incoming new members, have resigned themselves to the fact that nancy pelosi will be their leader. i also think that she is listening to her caucus, and she could enact some changes to how the congress operates in order

to include those voices and make sure they are not cut out of discussions. apur, you k wrote a piece about nancy pelosi's job and what that will be presented pelosi herself. guest 2: exactly. they expect a 90 to 95 members. theirntend to flex muscle, at the incoming chair put it to me, they will vote on things like a green new deal, to address climate change, although it did not have everything they want it to be, and then there are others, conservative leaning democrats, the centric new democrats, the blue dogs, who are going to want to shift away from that sort of thing. you will see a lot of tension there. josh, cochair of the caucus, put it to me, we will see some

tension between these two factions, because these groups that i mention of the number and dozens and dozens of democrats. they have the vote to prevent democrats from doing big, bold things, and they want monumental piece of legislation that can become law. they do not want to do big, bold messaging. congress house freedom and some of the trouble it cause republicans from time to time. guest 1: i think there definitely are parallels, but i'm not sure we will see -- i think their method is very different. the house freedom caucus, we saw been voting things down whereas cortez sitting in nancy pelosi's office to demand votes on issues, climate change. when i think about the house i cannotaucus members, see them except on the vote with their floor and their voices, i

think you can see the progressive caucus rally on the steps of the capital in the coming years and things like that. it is a totally different style. with anthey understand opposition white house, the stakes are different. i asked the progressive caucus incoming cochair about that. as you can imagine, the argument is that the freedom caucus is a group of no, and they are a group of yes. will copy someone come of the freedom caucus, which is sticking together, denying passing legislation until their demands are met. words, they will use every piece of legislation -- leverage they can find. how far they push remains to be seen, whether they go directly after below see the way the freedom caucus went after their

leadership remains to be seen. host: let's go to tony and connecticut. hi there. caller: how are you doing today? question.omment and a my question is -- we do not remember history, in november of last year, the democrats, nancy pelosi, chuck schumer, and the panel, they'll met in the white house in november, and they gave trump all that money that they asked for. aide told him, is not to do that because his party would not vote for it, and that is exactly the reason we are in this predicament right now, and we do not look good, because he is listening to stephen miller, and stephen miller should be fired. host: ok, tony, thank you. guest 1: tony has a great memory for history. there was a deal on the table porterding for trump's

in conjunction with the deal to protect dr. recipient, deferred action for childhood arrivals, those again here illegally but as children, so they were not responsible for their own. and itt deal was hinked, remains to be seen whether something like that still could come together. i have not heard specifics of anything like that. i am are interested to see if that comes back to the table, especially since stephen miller is an influential voice in the white house right now. guest 2: there was a bipartisan deal in 2018 of the senate between senator -- and senator king. you need 60 votes to overcome a filibuster. wouldiece of legislation have codified the daca program,

given these young, undocumented people after citizenship, and given trump $25 billion for the wall. democrats caves, which was a big step for them, and they did i t against the screaming flanks. what they demand it was legal immigration cuts, the , the visa lottery, and democrat said we were not put this in the context of daca. the deal was on the table, and the white house seriously led to senateich republican leaders opposing it and the vast majority of republicans preventing it from coming up. now the price of negotiations have gone up, and you see them backing away from the wall in any form. host: and now they have leverage. guest 1: yes, trying to strike any deal that they can get that

needs to go through a democratic house. you have that feel on the table with both chambers, and they control his party. host: if a compromise happens, how does the president's base respond? guest 2: the president has to get behind it and accept that he will not get everything he wants in the context of a daca and a w all deal. there are things that democrats wanted to give up, that they voted unanimously, $46 billion to militarize the southern border, fencing, drum technology that would have made a huge difference and given conservatives what they want on border security, but house conservatives kill that built because they did not like the path for citizenship for the 11 million people who are here. how you resolved that remains to be seen. they have try for more than a decade, and it has not worked. host: sahil kapur, bloomberg news, we're also joined by

katherine tully-mcmanus of roll call. anne from north carolina, you are next up. good morning. caller: good morning. republicans are really trying to full the american people. if the republicans wanted to do so, they could do so today using the nuclear option to vote on the wall and reopen the government immediately. they have all of the branches as of today. of course it will change tomorrow, but if they really wanted to do it, they could. they voted for the tax cut, and they confirmed all the judges. so they really don't want it, and they know that they do not have the 51 votes in the republican party to do it. thank you. host: ms. tully-mcmanus, what do you think? guest 1: i think that is an interesting point. you have seen republicans able to push things through. i do not see this happening.

i do not think it is because they do not want it. i think it is because they try to give the veneer of what they call regular order. i do not see them pushing that through today. the house is not even expected to be here today, so you need action from both chambers. i do not believe it will happen. host: and with the christmas break, a number of different senators going to the floor, specifically saying we cannot change roles to meet the demand. guest 1: if you change the rules thehe game, then you lose majority, then you are subject to that rule change and may never get your voice heard again. and i think that is something that they are very wary to do. many senate republicans have come out against changing those rules. guest 2: the caller is right, though, that they have the power to do this. the reason they have not passed legislation to give president they want all is

filibuster to remain in place, and that is a long-term thing. is that legislation, they were a democrats taking control of the house, taking control of the senate sunday, and the white house, that they will not be able to block some of the far-reaching progressive ideas that democrats have. medicare for all is the best example right now. tuition,ege massive new investments in green jobs and renewable energy technology those are things democrats want to do. republicans want to preserve their ability to block those things once they are in the minority. host: bill, thanks for calling. i am calling to voice my full support for mr. trump. holding firm for that $5 billion. fact, they should revert to that $25 billion, and to answer the question from the guys from kentucky, mr. kapur came close

and answered most of it or the andbillion deal was there would have relieved daca, what have put things in place to allow daca. what mr. kapur failed to visaon, yes, he wanted the lottery, but chuck schumer and his lemmings also stuck into , they wanted to add that in, the chain migration portion of that bill, which was totally unacceptable and is unacceptable to me and many republicans and mr. trump. so as soon as chuck schumer decides he wants to play it straight, we might get a bill. in fact, i hope mr. trump reverts to that $25 billion. host: if the president accepts less than $5 billion, what would

be your reaction, specifically? caller: i would not agree to it. until heot agree to it accepts a deal for $25 billion. host: ok, that is built from illinois. guest 2: a few points on this. like that are precisely who the president is talking to, precisely why the shutdown occurred. the $25 billion over the wall is for 10 years. the $5 billion is one year. there is not much of a contradiction there. this point about chain migration in that separate 2018 bill, there is nothing in that bill that schumer added in terms of chain migration. it is not like schumer said we want you to be able to sponsor your uncles, aunts, things like that, it was existing law. he did not change it. and it was senator mike brown from a republican, and senator angus king, an independent, who cut a bipartisan deal.

there was nothing for progressives on the so-called it,n migration aspect of family-based migration, it was simply not putting back on it. otherwise i am not giving you daca. i think you addressed earlier that there were changes for were requested additional legal migration, and that is what they refuse to go back on. guest 2: yes, it was the white house to wanted changes, not the democrats making changes. host: a little extra inside baseball for the 116th congress. every congress starts with rules. guest 1: i will say the house rules proposed package came out late last night, and i was up early this morning to be here, so i have not read the whole thing, but i do know it is much of what we have already heard. there are slight changes for how

the house will operate on timing for votes and things like that. the real thing we are looking out for is in the new congress before, depending on the timeline affixing this shutdown, is april 1, which is tose republicans' big push overhaul ethics, transparency, lobbying, money and politics, a huge package that we will see if that remains i remember one as this -- priority number one. a few things stuck out for me in the house democrats rules package. of is banning members congress from serving on corporate boards. members of congress make the rules for these people, and if they are literally tasked for batting for those -- guest 1: we have seen chris collins, for example, under federal indictment for insider

trading he did. of course he got the information ahead of time because he is on the corporate board. he traded on the information. he is set for trial in 2020. guest 2: ending the package of so-called dynamic scoring, which republicans are very much in favor of. there are macroeconomic factors to be considered in fiscal policy changes like tax, which make it look less expensive. while we are debating that, there is a very significant change to the way to get limit is offered, bringing back the so-called gephardt rule, congress has a weird rule it can pass budgets and spending the money but has to offer is itself to brawl the money to be spent after that. it is a bizarre way to do business. spending that money, we need to be able to spend that money, otherwise, what is the point of doing that? and also, pay-as-you-go.

they are bringing back the pay-go, which will increase the deficit or reduce the surplus. it is something that progressives really do not like. their attitude is republicans never behave in a fiscally responsible manner when they are in power, why should democrats unilaterally have to do that and then some of their bigger policy items? ore in the house bill package is something that was not addressed in the joint sexual-harassment bill that was addressed and signed into law a recently for capitol hill was limitations on relationships and how members interact with staff on committees that they serve on. that was kind of a loophole in the overhaul of sexual-harassment policy on capitol hill, and the house rules package host to plug that hole, at least for house members. host: our capitol hill producer the rulesan says

package granted through the eighth of this month, for making and continuing appropriations for fiscal year ending on 9/30, thesese,se or congress interpret that for us. guest 1: congress will bring up interpretation, and it comes at the beginning of congress, the house rules package, it is enacting something that would have regularly gone through the house rules committee as a one-off. this would be giving a blanket authority intellect a to pick up the legislation specifically on government funding. host: thank you both for that. susan in maine, thanks for calling. go ahead. caller: yes, i wanted to bring the fact with the new house coming in, we have the first ranked-choice vote in maine, vote in mainene

that trump got. ared golden.jerr we wish him well. she will have to resign or do a lot more if she wants to be reelected. host: does this go back to brett kavanaugh in power? i think brett kavanaugh has a lot to do with it, but i think she has voted in lockstep on a lot of issues recently that she should have a begun what lisa mccarthy did. host: caller, thank you. guest 1: maine is a very interesting state. i am from new england, but i would think the previous governor of maine, for example, supported trump with almost intent political maneuvering on the right. i also think the ranked-choice

voting in maine is very interesting. host: please explain that a little. guest 1: voters are given a slate of candidates, and they get to rank them in the order of which they would like to see them heading to the role, in this case the house. and that is not a new idea, it , but this is idea the first time it has been implemented in a national election like this, a state elections were a national office like this. and it remains to be seen whether other states will adopt .hat there was a huge controversy in maine about that. people were not sure that it would stick. guest 2: senator collins is widely seen as the most vulnerable republican senator facing reelection in 2020, the much the only republican senator from a blue state who is up for reelection, so she will be a big democratic target. democrats in maine or less

optimistic about being able to defeat her, because she is very well known in her state. she has been there for a long time. the last democratic wave 2008 was one that she survived pretty handily. her ideological heresies with regard to a blue state, it may not place a well in maine, a relatively small state that she knows well. i am not saying it cannot be done, but it will be tougher than democrats thing to defeat susan collins. other democrats in the crosshairs are cory gardner of colorado, who is, along with collins, the only current republican senator statement 2016ry clinton won in third outside that are joni ernst in iowa and tom tillis in north carolina. host: how does that change the dynamic for this year? guest 2: you will see a lot of jockeying among democrats.

pieces of legislation to cosponsor, everything to get ahead of it, things popular on the left like medicare for all. senator elizabeth warren announced on new year's eve she is setting up a exploratory committee to run for 2020. she is well set to seize the min mantle of the non-populist wing of the party. others like, lee kamala theys, kirsten gillibrand, are making moves you would need to make. guest 1: a great clip from outgoing senator claire mccaskill for the final vote that she took in the senate in the last congress, she looked around and realized half of these guys will try to run for president, so it will make it a very interesting year. i think she is probably so disappointed she will not be there. she might be glad. host: on the republican line, this is michael. caller: good morning.

the untold story behind daca and all these immigration battles is that it has been reported that since 1950, virtually all of the big northern cities have been losing populations. chicago is the center of this illegal immigration issue, because our mayor in 1983 was the first mayor to declare things were a policy. that was mayor harold washington. the city of chicago today has less people than i had in 1920. white people than it had in 1890. democrats are desperate to restore the population of san francisco, which has lost 10%. st. louis has lost over 60%. new york has now 40% of its people foreign-born, the most ever in its history. real story that no one was to tell, because the news media will say to advertisers, sure, you can take ads for

chicago, but there are less white people. host: ok, thank you. guest 2: the underlying point that the caller was trying to make is about demographic changes. there are so much about the political debate that can explain anxieties. the caller is right that the population of white americans have been shrinking as a share of the country of legal. immigration -- country as a whole. immigration from latin america and a few asian countries has been larger. before that, it was overwhelmingly from europe. shares of thern population used to be much higher about a century ago, in the 1800's and sometime in the early 1900's, but those were overwhelmingly white european immigrants. that is the thing, different people coming from different places. matteategorical mo some of this has always been the way it has worked. also we will see

demographic changes in the new house, particularly from the democratic side. guest 1: absolutely. there are huge changes. for the first time ever, there will be a record number of women, a record number of women of color, and record numbers of representatives of color in the i think will not change how the house operates, but i think we will see different issues being addressed that maybe have gone by the ite lawmakers from certain areas of the population have been leading the way for so long, something that has caught my attention is the friendships that are already developing between the incoming freshmen women of color. they are calling themselves each other's squad and really applying themselves -- aligning themselves together.

i covered that side of capitol the lighter end of the building, i think we will see them united on progressive issues. also, the first two muslim women will be represented in the house, that will be a big game changer, including in the house rules package that we discovered discussed earlier, the allowance for religious headwear, and that was basically created for those incoming women. ofst 2: part of the desire voters to elect more people that look like the base, younger, and you see that in the leaders they are electing. i think alexandria or seth you alexandria pension cortez is a perfect example.

for a long time, her opponent seemed unbeatable. the fact that he lost is a reflection, i think. host: katherine tully-mcmanus, how long in the house site before we hear the serious word "impeachment." guest 1: i think the senate is pretty split on this. there was the division in the house democrats for the new majority role. some democrats are crying impeachment. leadership,the nancy pelosi, and others are trying to tamp down. accomplish ing to the house without stoking the that appeasement would cause. i think you have to look closely at the impact that impeachment proceedings have had in the past, and it really does wipe out what else can be accomplished. it is take all of the oxygen out of the fire, and it does not

leave that to the party that starts that fight without a lot of bruisers. leaders democratic are trying to be strategic, along with everything else cap catherine pointed out, they can impeach through the house of representatives, but all that does is set up where they need to there's majority. they do not have -- 2/3 majority. they do not have any republican support at this moment. do they want to do that at the cost of dropping everything else out, because once you go there. host: when the report should come out, or if it ever comes out. guest 1: right. why play your hand out when you can take a beat and wait? if the mueller report is inflammatory, then they can take that step in. andink they will sit tight

try to get other policy agenda items moving first. host: let's go to dan in pennsylvania, republican line. go ahead. caller: good morning. my call. for taking first of all, i think the president should close the until heown south covers the safety of this country another thing i would like to ask your guests and maybe other people is if wall street not work, then why do we have walls run prisons? why do we have walls around mr. obama's house? why do we have brawls around schools -- walls around schools? as far as i'm concerned, the democrats are completely way off base here when they say walls do not work or if they don't work, like i said, why do we have prisons?und why don't we take the walls down

and let the prisoners run free. guest 2: a couple of points about that. before president trump's 2016 campaign come there was not much of a clamor to build a wall. what they demand it was a lot of money for border security during that meets fencing, drones, operational awareness and technology, and a massive increase in the size of the border patrol, because those are the kinds of things that experts thought would be helpful. i think it was donald trump was at years ago that if you build a wall, you create a market for a ladder, or something like that. idea that the wall would be the panacea to keep these people out of a new concept that the president introduced. border.a 1900-mile this is not for a house. it is a very different thing.

republicans in the house and the senate were also talking about the wall as a sort of metaphor for border security, so it is a tangible concept. there will never be a 1900-mile barrier. about therunk's tweet wall around obama's house, i around that neighborhood, and it is beautiful, but there is not a wall around his house. one of the things i think both sides have said is the the wall, andout i think that affects both sides during how does that play out against republicans -- amongst republicans? interesting, -- it is1: i think

interesting, because john kelly, who came out early in support of like sahil was missing, technology, staff, drones, and things like that, but republicans are john kelly does not work for the president anymore, so he is not speaking for the administration. think republicans do exist on the border, in border states, and that is where their constituencies like, understand the incredible dynamics at the border and how some areas become thenots for migrants, and make love, and another area becomes a hot spot, and democrats and many republicans are seeing that as a need for something more dynamic than it will. you can send drones to a different area with that becomes a problem, where a wall is

stagnant. guest 2: the president wants to mexicos promise that will pay for the wall. this was a rallying chant. it is obvious now that mexico is not going to put the money down to build a wall. they find it offensive that that is even a thing that they are being asked to do. touting otheris methods, that the wall will pay for itself by increasing security. and now he says his new updated producesmca, will savings for the wall, and that mexico is essentially finding the wall. it was a promise that was a little far-fetched to begin with. host: this is new jersey, independent line, gary, go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. happy new year to everybody. i watched the "washington journal" every day. i am in my 80th year. i am concerned about two things i see in congress.

first, california issuing the way by electing both young and new people to congress, representing the demographics of the state of california. i live in east brunswick, new jersey. tip o'neill once said politics is local. town, political structure comes out of the middlesex county democratic organization, which has been in power for almost 100 years. we have demographics changing. i am a keynote speaker at the martin luther king day celebration at the highland park community. gave away his entire wealth, $1.5 billion, to african-americans. until the power structure changes, we will not see any change. tip o'neill said all politics is local, and we have to change it, women, people all colors need to

be in congress in order to have changed. host: gary, thank you. guest 1: i think we are seeing some of those changes, especially represented in house democrats in the incoming congress. like i said before, record numbers of women. and in the senate, it is a huge milestone that women will make up a four -- a full quarter, 25 women will make up the senate. befores a long way to go we have 50%. guest 2: california has more surprises for house republican elections. everyone expected him to lose seats, but no one expected them to lose this many states. they were completely wiped out of orange county. there were figures like david in that widely seen state, well-known in the district, and he got defeated in an election that was very close. california demographically, to doesn't likepoint,

where we are headed, a statement is very diverse. host: kathy, you are up next. caller: happy new year. why do we keep saying " wall"? there is no wall at the border, it is a barrier. guest 2: we keep saying "wall," because that is what the president says. wide 1: he has described a range of what the wall what it entailed, but he could saying all," and that is what you see lawmakers and others addressing the wall, because we are kind of meeting the president at what he demanded. guest 2: everyone was talking about fencing, some sort of barrier at the wall, he is the first president who said there has got to be a wall. host: what are you both

interested in watching, especially as new leaders assume the committees? guest 1: i think something will see is house democrats flexing their oversight muscle. congress had an oversight role officially over the executive branch and agencies and what is going on in those areas of the government, and i think we are going to see way more things liken and that in two different policies and agencies. that will be led by oversight in government functioning, but i also think there will be a huge shift in how things are operating under democrats. they have been a minority for so long in the house. they are very ready to take their gavels. guest 2: i am most interested in ways andman of the means committee at the moment, ell ofan low

massachusetts, compelling the taxase of the governor's returns. this has never been used on a president before. they use it on next and during they believe they have the power to disclose, because the tax-writing committee can review anybody's tax returns for tax returns. you can imagine the republicans are behind it, illegitimate use of the committee's authority. a fight, and it will enormously expand our knowledge. there willalso think be some territorial battles, particularly between the committee on climate change, so there will be other things that progressive wanted on the climate change, there will be issues between house energy and commerce, the climate change committee, and i think there

will be some form between those two with who they are bringing to speak. rebekah from youngstown, ohio, go ahead. indiana,to tammy in democrats line. tammy, good morning. tammy from newburgh, indiana, hello. we will leave it there. aside from everything we have seen, what is the one thing he will watch for that we have not talked about yet, something that you will keep an eye on put out a warning to new members in celebration,

two can pay for those, who can be invited, is it campaign event, is it campaign event by lobbyists? who is towing the line on the personal things? be making the rounds not to celebrate with the members but roomeck out who is in the and what the invitations say, there are strict rules who can on those events from hill?l >> host: we have video of signs going up on the managedian-owned or museums around town already. go ahead. >> i am looking to see how senators who may run for president position themselves in days, you know, if any are going to announce an ex plar story committee or take other steps. this is shaping up to be one of the most crowd presidential primary fields we have ever seen. in earl glyphs you an advantage and allows to you raise unlimited terms of money

and build before happed. everyone wants to get the organization. wants to h everyone get the name recognition out or up early. let's see what the senators do. >> host: sahil kapur and joined by katherine tully-mcmanus who serves as at the united states senate, a uniquely american institution, legislating and carry it out constitutional duties since 1789. >> please raise your right hand. >> c-span takes you inside the senate learning about the body and formal workings. >> arguing about things and

kicking them around and having great debates is thoroughly american. thehe longer you are in senate, the more you appreciate that cooling nature. >> we look at the history of conflict and compromise with original interviews, key moments in history, and unprecedented access, allowing us to bring cameras into the chamber during the session. follow the evolution of the senate into the modern era. from advise and consent to their role in impeachment proceedings and investigation. the senate, conflict and compromise. a c-span's original production, exploring the history, traditions, and roles of this uniquely american institution. be sure to go online at c-span.org/senate to learn more

about the program. view farewell speeches from long serving members and take a tour inside the senate chamber, the old senate chamber, and other exclusive locations. >> today is day 12 of the partial government shutdown. president trump says he will only sign a spending bill if it includes funding for the border wall which congressional democrats oppose. the u.s. house has a pro forma session on c-span. comes into session live on c-span two to continue consideration of a bill approved in december reopen the government and fun president trump's border wall. a divided government returns to washington with the convening of the 116th congress. assume control

of the house of representatives republicans increased their seats in the senate. this has been noted as the most join us as the 116th congress cap into session. watch your member take the oath of office, unelected of a new speaker and the congress beginning its work. new congress, new leaders, live on the span and c-span two. >> this is the magic editor of sabato's crystal ball, and joining us to talk about campaign 2020. good morning. guest: good morning. host: what is it like looking at these situations coming into the 2020 campaign, especially with elizabeth warren's announcement this week? guest: it feels like 2016 on the

republican side where you had candidates getting in. in that race there was not necessarily a big fish that dissuaded other candidates from entering the race. the only major candidate who dip -- who did run on the republican side of 2016 was mitt romney. he just got elected to the u.s. senate. jeb bush was able to push out mitt romney but was not able to push out anyone else. you saw what happened with bush and in that big field, you had that outsider candidate donald trump, who some party leaders did not like, getting the nomination. you could go back to 1976 and the democrats, that was a big field and jimmy carter came out of that, and he is not an establishment person. so one wonders in the very big democratic field, if this race may throw us something up a curve ball and someone may emerge that we do not expect. host: does it indicate getting a name out first? how does that work? guest: i feel like the 2016 cycle started in mid-december of 2014. so