about primary day in new york and the latest on the campaign trail, including a look at how campaigns on both sides are wooing delegates and a superdelegates ahead of the summer's political conventions. ♪ thisod morning everyone on tuesday, april 19. it is primary day in new york. 30ald trump is shown with a point lead in the republican primary. the is beating bernie sanders 54% to 42%. we will cover the candidates tonight and have coverage of their speeches, starting at 9:00 p.m. eastern time. tune in to coverage here on c-span. we will begin this morning with one of the core issues of the democratic primary. that is the 1994 crime bill

published by the clinton the ministration. we want to know your view. if you are in a law enforcement, host:. -- if you are in law enforcement, 202-748-8000. experience with the criminal justice system, 202-748-8001. and all others, call 202-748-8002. while we wait for your calls to come in let's go back to the c-span archives to show you what bill clinton had to say when he signed the bill into law, describing what it would do. bill clinton: when this bill is law "three strikes and you are out" will be the penalty of the land. the penalty for killing a law enforcement officer will be death. [applause] we will have the means by which we can say punishment will be

more certain. we silwill cut the federal workforce over a period of year its 270,000 positions to lowest level in 30 years and take all of that money to pay for this crime bill. [applause] the savings will be used to put 100,000 police officers on the street, a 20% increase. it will be used to build prisons, to keep 100,000 violent criminals off the streets. it will be used to give our young people to say "yes" to. places where they can go after school where they are safe. where they can do constructive things that will help them to build their lives. where teachers are placed gang leaders as role models.

host: president bill clinton back in 1984 when the bill was signed into law. it has been debated back and forth between hillary clinton and senator bernie sanders, who voted for it in the house. what is your view? gabriela is from maryland. you are on the air. caller: good morning. i was watching "60 minutes" a couple of weeks ago on cbs. i saw criminal justice in germany. i was in awe. i would like to bring this prospect to you. anybody -- [indiscernible] good morning to you.

you are on the air. caller: good morning. i am just trying to remind people that in 1994 crime was completely out of control. i am not saying this was a good bill or that it did what it was supposed to do, but everyone -- i know myself -- was terrified that everything that was going on with guns and people killing each other. it was a terrifying time and i remember being happy that something was being done. the part of that bill was not only to penalize people who had three strikes, but also to prevent people from becoming criminals in the first place, which meant investing in our y outh, investing in the inter-cities, and making sure people who had problems with drugs were going to get treatment and help. that didn't happen. the funds did not go to that. he went to prisons. inflating people in prison and making them worse for

nothing. so, the bill itself is not a bad bill if it had been paid for completely. the last thing is, hillary did not vote for that bill. she was the wife. let's keep that in mind. host: are you supporting hillary clinton this time around? caller: i am not sure because i heard donald trump just now and i hate to say this, he is making a lot of sense. the only person on our side who is making sense like that is bernie. host: that means you are not quite decided, but have you always voted for democrats? caller: i like her a lot. she is incredibly qualified, but i am just not feeling "the bern" from her yet. host: at the time, you are talking about 1994. you said you are glad that something was being done. do you remember the democratic party coalescing around this bill, this legislation? caller: yeah, i remember

everybody coalescing around something being done because we were all feeling battered by crime getting completely out of control. host: ok. let's listen to what hillary clinton had to say last week at the debate in new york with bernie sanders on cnn. they were discussing the 1994 crime bill. >> do you regret your advocacy of the crime bill? hillary clinton: i supported the crime bill. my husband has apologized. he was the president. i am sorry for the consequences that were unintended and that have had a very unfortunate impact on people's lives. i have seen the results of what has happened in families and in communities. that is why i chose to make my very first speech a year ago on this issue. because i want to focus the attention of our country and to make the changes that we need to make. and i also want people --

[applause] whitey clinton: i want people to recognize that there is systemic racism. housing,employment and but it is in the criminal justice system as well. [applause] senator sanders, you called a hillary clinton for using the term "?uper predator why did you call amount? because it was: a racist term and everybody knew it was a racist term. [cheers and applause] sanders: much of what secretary clinton said was right. i voted for it. we had the violence against womens act in it. we worked very hard to eliminate the violence. we are talking about the weapons that killed the children and

families. this ban on weapons, not insignificant. but where we are today, we have a broken criminal justice system. we have more people in jail than any other country on earth. and in my view, what we have got to do is rethink the system from the bottom on up. and that means -- and the media does not talk about this. 51% of african-american kids today who graduated high school are unemployed or underemployed. i think, maybe we invest in jobs and education for those kids. not jails and incarceration. host: those were the two democratic candidates debating in new york. new york votes today in his primary. we are talking about this 1994 crime bill. it is not just democrats who believed the system is broken. you have for applicants -- you have heard republican say there

needs to be reform. janet on twitter says, they did not put in places for kids to go after school, but they did build more prisons. in defense of the crime bill -- he wrote that when the crime bill was first enacted, america was a much more violent place. 1994 marked the fifth year in a boat in which more than 23,000 people were murdered across the country. gangs and drugs had taken over street and undermined our schools. every day we read about somebody else who has literally gotten away with murder. dead on, we might say and that is not surprising because bill had is hand on america's pulse. fortunately, the crime bill put an end to that horror. it allocated $1.6 billion to prevent and investigate violence against women, and even banned. weapons.

by 1995, the homicide rate had dipped by 10% and it kept dropping. in 1996, bill clinton came within three points of winning the white vote, a fee a democrat has not repeated sense. by 2000, the murder rate has declined by 40% from its peak, according to the fbi. aj, who is in law enforcement in maryland, what is your view of this bill? 1994 crimehink the bill was a travesty. it systematically continued racial practices against the african-american community. and so, you have a disproportionate amount of african-americans the end up in throughice system institutionalized racism, through things that the government did several years ago as it relates to allowing drugs to come into the country in the first place.

with all the things that infiltrated the country, and then it vilified the african-american male. seller in 1994, were you in law enforcement? caller: during that time period, i never desire to be a cop. i always wanted to go into other things. but i felt a sense of responsibility to try and do my part to keep people from being persecuted or unjustly accused of crimes or unfairly treated by the justice system. i did what i could, but that is just one person. many times when i am driving, i am driving and i get pulled over by law enforcement. policy is a black man. their tenor, their tone is y distinct until they learn i am law enforcement. host: what do you mean? what happens next?

caller: again, i think at that point i am treated like a citizen. aof to the point, i was treated like a suspect. host: aj, are you still there? finish your thought, aj. caller: again, the crime bill and the "three strikes and you are out," if you look at the african-american males are overwhelmingly represented in the jails. there is a reason for that. there are no poppy fields in dc. there are no places to grow cocaine in maryland and new york, but you see the results of the importation of these drugs. so, how does the government allow all of these things to contro infiltrated the country d then police the population?

the population is under siege, if you will. host: let me ask you this quickly. were african-american communities behind the push by the clinton administration to push this crime bill in place? caller: overwhelmingly, african-americans have voted democrat. they believed that the democratic party was looking out for their best interests. i don't think anyone bother to check the fine print on what was going on. yes, if you tell the african-american community that there will be relief with drugs and violent crime, they will sign up for that. absolutely. host: sorry, aj. let me just show viewers what bill clinton had to say in 1994 when he signed this into law. he is describing what led to the passage of this legislation. bill clinton: now, too many kids don't have parents who care.

gangs and drugs have taken over our streets and undermined our schools. every day we read about somebody else who has literally gotten away with murder. but the american people have not forgotten the difference between right and wrong. the system has. the american people have not stopped wanting to raise their children in lives filled with safety and dignity, but they have a lot of obstacles in their way. bill, wegn this crime together are taking a big step toward bringing the laws of our land back in line with the values of our people and beginning to restore the line between right and wrong. doubtt there be no about which side we are on. people who convict crimes should

because, convicted, and punished. this bill puts government on the side of those who abide by the law, not those who break it. on the side of the victims, not their attackers. on the side of the brave men and women who put their lives on the light for us everyday, not the criminals or those who would turn away from law enforcement. that is why police and prosecutors and preachers fought so hard for this bill. and why i am so produd to sign it into law today. host: we are getting your thoughts on the 1994 crime bill. paul in new york, you are next. caller: i just want to say, i grew up during that time in new york city. in the 1990's, crack and gun control is out of control. i remember in los angeles, the gangs. you don't see that anymore and it's because of the crime bill.

i recover the 1992 election. that was a democratic issue in the election, something being done about crime. host: when this was signed, did you view bill clinton more favorably? caller: everybody was happy that something was going to be done because crack was out of hand. it was out of control. especially myself being from harlem, crack looked all over the city. it was crazy. host: paul, now we are in a situation where heroin is been used, opioid addiction is very prevalent across the united is primarily being used by white people and the northeastern part of the country. do you think the same should happen? should there be a crackdown? caller: well, yes. but what i remembered was with the crime bill, we had rehab. the found out that 70% of the people in rehab where

caucasian. none of them went to jail. the same thing is happening now. none of those people from the suburbs are being criminalized. even the money from the 1994 crime bill, you don't see it in the white neighborhoods. all of a sudden now, it is like, we have to do rehab. there is some kind of concern. and that shows the injustice in the justice system, which is also why in my opinion, white collar crimes like these people on wall street are not being prosecuted. host: what do you think, randy? good morning. mid-1990's, in the after i was a disabled veteran. assaulted and they tried to rob me. i fended them off with the cane.

you know, that is a good bill. i mean, if you have three felonies, of course, you should go to the federal prison. and it is not racist because it was -- with african-americans, hispanics, and whites, gangs and you know, they should keep that and not relea se people from prison sentences. and one other thing. court hearing -- host: yesterday? caller: yes, yesterday. know, with all of the

illegals, hold on a minute. don't push the button. [laughter] the president, even though he is for upholding the now, didion, he you recess appointments when the senate was not in recess. host: randy, i want to stay on topic, but that brings up other news and i will go through the headline. oral arguments are yesterday, 90 minutes and we are going to air them on friday at 8:00 p.m. on c-span. was the courtas, a 4-4 tie. obama'sld close as presidency as perhaps his

biggest legal loss. intended tove was help those who have been in the country since 2010, have committed no serious crimes, and have family ties to u.s. citizens or others lawfully in the country. comments, the obama administration did not receive support from chief justice roberts court justice kennedy, seen as most likely among the four most likely to supported. the fronther news .s.e of "usa today," the us turned the screws on the islamic state. the pentagon upped the stakes monday by loosening restrictions and sending additional service members to support iraqi forces as they try to recapture the city of mosul. it goes on to say in the story troopse additional

will raise the authorized level. although the pentagon acknowledged the number could go higher when service members are deployed on temporary assignment. the front page of the newspapers this morning there. and then in "the new york times." president obama will be leaving wednesday for saudi arabia. the headline is that the country is in deep turmoil and the vie has become increasingly bleak. low oil prices restrain the country's ability to respond. under huge stress, the saudi's have responded in unpredictable ways, often at odds with washington interest. this is the saudi arabia that would greet president obama, who was scheduled to arrive on wednesday, and is the source of no small share of this nation's anxiety.

policymakers across the country have long said they feel mr. obama does not share the country's regional interest. and after he criticized the salaries as "free riders" last month, those suspicions have hardened into fears that he may be actively underwriting them. we are talking about your view of the 1994 crime bill. wilson in columbia, mississippi. good morning. you are part of law enforcement, or fewer than? -- or you were then? nashville, georgia. what is your view of the bill? caller: how are you doing? host: good. inler: i used to work the department of criminal justice when i was up in atlanta. i worked part-time in the housing area. but i want the people to know that when i was in the department of juvenile justice, but herel block, --

is the catch. job working inme housing. [indiscernible] they would get caught doing it. they would bring the drugs down to the black community and sell it. . that is how that went. the black kids would be pushing it on the street. i know that when i was in the department of criminal justice, i talked to a lot of young kids. i told them they could do better for themselves out in the real world. host: ok, sterling, what do you think? caller: is that me?

host: yes, you are on the air. caller: the first thing i think, orono, is the crime bill was a inastrous bill, but it is line with what america has been typically, which is a slaveowning society. so what the crime bill does is to increase the claimant in th - increas employment in the white mal communitye. lock up those nonwhite people and avoid other white men to babysit those non white people in concentration camps. so, basically, the crime bill is in line with what america has done throughout history. the word "america" should stand for "white people benefiting off the suffering of everyone else." host: tjim, you are on the air. caller: how are you? host: doing fin,.

what do you think? caller: i am going to go back in history before it, but it relates to a directly. the war on drugs has been going on since neck than was president, let's say. the crime bill exacerbated it in this way. hen reagan got elected and started to do his version of the war on drugs, there was an element of it where he would get federal funding on a local police level if you could meet a certain ratio of increase in the number of drug arrests. this is proven, if you do any studying of these laws, bills, whatever was passed. now, when you got to 1994 and the crime bill, part of it was to put 100,000 more police officers on the street. everybody thinks this is great because it fights crime. element that is hidden and never talked about by

the presidential candidates now. i can't believe they don't bring it up. the police departments in urab toas were given an incentive arrest more people in order to get federal funding. they did this and then spend it on military vehicles, military weapons, more ways to impress the population. i heard what the gentleman was saying before, that this was aimed at black people. it was actually aimed at poor people and they were the easiest people to use to make money in this way. there was a hidden, cell phone video taken at the baltimore where this,tment whatever you call them, the shif chief or sergeant, he is sending people out into the street and is cheering them on like it is a religious revival. he is sitting there telling them, "who are we going to

arrest?" "everybody!"go, the urban poor are victimized by nhe police, who have a incentive to do it. host: let me go back in history as well. shapiro, who wrote about the crime bill, writes on the nation's website about this. he says, here is the reality. in the early 90's, the thriving crack market combined with massive unregulated gun trafficking drove a catastrophic spike in the murder rate in many inter-cities. but except for a handful of weaponsns, assault regulation, grants for community oficy and hiring cops most the 1994 crime bill had nothing to do with that problem. he goes on to write, contrary to this year's campaign mythology,

lembers of congress al fought against various provisions of the bill. house,bers of the including the cofounder of the congressional black caucus, voted against it. ant it passed at all was example of the clinton administration, making it harder for uneasy progressives to just say no. and here's the irony. by the time the crime bill was passed, violent crimes were already on the way down and by , find was at the lowest levels since the reagan era. what is your view of this 1994 crime bill? marion, good morning. caller: good morning what many people don't realize is that there is an industrial

prison complex. companies there are traded on the stock exchange, such as geo group and corrections corporation of america. these are privatized companies that own prisons. they try to keep those beds full. if they have a prison that has 800 beds, you better believe that there are 799 inmates in those prisons. and these companies lobby very aggressively. this is one of the reasons we had the "kids for cash" here many people do not realize that your local prison is not being by local people from your

vicinity, but through this privatized prison complex. and ithat was marion think southhampton. we go to georgia, willie, good morning. caller: good morning. how are you? host: doing fine, sir. what do you remember about the passage of this crime bill? caller: at the time the bill was passed, there were so many things going on in the united states. their drugs that they are now legalizing, they are legalizing it now. men went to jail for this and now they are legalizing it. senators,ressmen, those who wrote the bill, and the president signed the bill, what was the thinking down the road? if anyone could look through the

thislass and see just what effect would take place in years to come, i don't think a lot of people would agree with it. there were so many things happening in america during the time, people trying to figure things out. thatoung lady just told us there were so many people getting revenue from people having been incarcerated. a lot of things that did not come out, that should have come out at a coming out now, maybe would have helped change the way for bill was instituted people in the united states, and of course, a lot of blacks suffered on this bill, but it is what it is in america today. we do not take the chance to dissect all of the things that we need to dissect for future generations. host: where we are at right now, republicans, democrats, they agreed that there should be criminal justice reform now,

lowering of prison sentences for nonviolent offenders, etc., to you agree with that movement right now? caller: yes, i do because you look at the way the marijuana inuation is being adopted states, it is now legalizing marijuana. beough the times, you could walking down the street and they incarcerate you, so i do agree that the whole system needs to be reformed, and a lot of young black men in jail now should come out and this should be changed around. host: we will keep rolling with this conversation. we have about 15 minutes left. a follow-up to the story read in "the new york times" about president obama traveling to saudi arabia. they are urging the president to hold saudis of theable for the role terrorist attacks, and they also told mr. obama in a letter that they are distressed that the administration is trying to love from twof terrorism

foreign governments implicated into such attacks. also this morning, they announced "the washington post" journalist wins to the prices after covering high-profile oftances involving killings civilians of police officers in 2014. wesley lowery was surprised there were no sufficient -- official statistics about such fatalities.

by anotheris "washington post" reporter. and "the new york times" takes about the page taunted their winners, four of their photojournalists were given the prize. you can see their faces right here for the coverage of the refugees traveling from europe other war-torn nations. also, for international reporting, alissa rubin won. theassociated press won award for the reporting that helped free 2000 slaves and brought persecutors for justice and inspired reforms in southeast asia, and also investigated reporting went to reporters that "the tampa bay times" for their piece which

connected budget cuts with rising violence and neglect at florida mental hospitals. you can check out the other winners as well. covered the supreme court, his piece "sidebar" in "the washington post" involving a senator makes clear how he ors the justices a political liberal. the other day, senator grassley came to the senate floor judiciary committee and decided to lecture the chief justice john roberts. senate republican grassley said we are not to blame for the partisan deadline, the real corporate, he says, was the chief justice and his colleagues. take a listen to what the senator had to say on the floor. [video clip] grassley: the chief justice identified precisely why it would be bad for the court and the nominee to move forward

in the middle of a hotly contested presidential election campaign. as you have heard me say, it would be all politics and no constitution. of course, that was the thrust of another senator of few years back, chairman biden's argument respect,but in another the chief justice has it exactly backwards. the confirmation process does not make the justices appear political, the confirmation process has gotten political itselfbecause the court has drifted from the constitutional text and rendered decisions raised instead on policy preferences. host: that was the chairman of fiduciary committee on the floor

yesterday -- excuse me, earlier this month, april 5, if you want to watch her he had to say. this about mr. grassley's logic, if that is the right word, is to grassley's logic, if that was the right word, is that conservative decisions are apolitical but liberal ones are partisan. reflectedf votes of political considerations, not legal ones, and the senator did not say which votes he was talking about, they probably included ones that challenge the affordable care act, so that happening on the floor. if you missed the beginning, go to our website. front page of "the washington journal," it has gained 15% since the 20 16th low. andprices have recovered the federal reserve has signaled a process approach to raising

interest rates, and there is also this ahead of the new york primary today, let me tell you where the delegate count stands because trump has 740 four, ted cruz with 500 59, mr. kasich has 144. trump is likely to add to the lead today with polls showing him opposed to grab most of the delegates at stake in new york. host: analysts say if he keeps up winning, he will be at the which delegates humans are important. take a look at the delegates awarded in new york for democrats. this is "the washington times." 290 one. hillary ripped the lead in her state that you presented for eight years in the senate. back to your calls, joe, thank you for hanging on the line. caller: good morning. how are you? host: doing great.

caller: [indiscernible] at least respect the office if you don't respect the man, but it is [indiscernible] describe anyg to specific culture as far as race, but you always target against the minorities, the small person because ever since this has become an issue, this goes back to the days of the gangster, as people get away, they get punished, but it has not gotten excellent mental everybody else tried to get into the game. guess what? [indiscernible] it becomes the issue. remember this movie, "the monday blamed

everyone responsible for the drugs on the streets and the government knew about it, and they knew they had this big shipment coming in and the godfather said, no, and one of the big timers said no, it is not coming in our neighborhoods but there's, so that is the same scenario playing out. nobody can afford to control what is going on. int: all right, mike pennsylvania. go ahead. , i was at experience trained criminologist in the 1980's in indianapolis during epidemic, right when the crime bill had been signed, we havew something that not seen, a lot of money went into a small number of arrests on the street. tremendous number of crack,

cocaine, marijuana and we did not see the development of new businesses in the neighborhood, but i am very liberal. what i found was interesting is in the police department in indianapolis at that time, many people also wanted to see some development in these neighborhoods. meant lockingce people up, so many people on the ground when it police walking through the neighborhoods, doing community policing, so i think there is, even today, a strong belief in political communities and we have to do more of this building of new housing, new businesses in the neighborhoods and not let it play out and politics. host: let me ask you about this super predator, the term being

used back then. hillary clinton used to as first lady. do you remember that? caller: absolutely. host: do you remember the charge at the end? very, very, it was very controversial at the time. the african-american community. they were being targeted with it --. they were being targeted with it and they -- thought they were being targeted with it and there were a lot of meetings were people would stand up and they would get strict police level enforcement for what they call terry stops, stops were people can get pat down by police for weapons. there were a lot of these in the west side, and african-american communities, the leaders, they were very upset with what they saw this portion of arrests. host: i want to jump in before

you have to end the conversation for it he was hillary clinton in new hampshire back in 1996 giving a speech at the university talking about crime bill and the administrations anti-gang effort. [video clip] hillary clinton: because we have finally gotten more police officers on the street when the president pushed the bill that was passed in 1994. he promised the police and we are moving in that direction, but we are seeing it make a difference. if we have more police interacting with people, having them on the street, we can prevent crimes, we can prevent petty crimes from turning into something worse, but we also have to have an organized effort against tanks, like in the previous generation we had with the organized effort against the mob. they are often connected to the drug cartels, they're not just gangs of kids anymore, they are often the kinds of kids that are called super predators, no conscience, no empathy, and we can talk about why they ended up

that way, but first, we have to bring them to heal and the president has asked the fbi to launch a conservative effort against gangs everywhere. host: that was silly clinton in 1996, after the crime bill was put in place in 1994. inthat was hillary clinton 1996 after the crime bill was put in place in 1994. go ahead. caller: the crime bill was a flawed bill. there were two parts of it that were very good and those with the violence against women's act and the assault weapons and. -- ban. folks who oppose the crime bill at that time were branded as soft on crime, but when you look at it and you see the sentencing guidelines that took place with the three strikes and that was primarily cocaine versus crack cocaine, and that is like saying it you were pulled over for dui and you

drink six beers that your sentence of be less than if you were pulled over for dui and you had a pint of whiskey. that was the kind of analogy with the crime bill. people in a number of the african-american community who were against the crime bill, like some of your previous callers said, those folks were branded soft on crime or left-wing liberals or the like, and our vice president, who was the big author of the violence against women's act, also pushed for the crime bill and signed , and hereretrospect we are in 2016 saying we have to do something about the sentencing with all of the people that we have incarcerated, and we have got

both sides of the aisle for different reasons working on changing that bill. on the right, you have republicans saying it has been entirely too costly the crime bill with incarcerating people for packetstences of marijuana and that type of thing, and you have folks on the left saying morley that it was wrong. it was wrong. even though the primary objective is the same, the reasons are diverse. host: daniel in florida, you are last. good morning. caller: how are you doing? host: doing well, sir. go ahead. caller: a couple comments with the other guy talking about movies. his reference of gang movies, how about that is just a movie kidshildren, that is where are getting these ideas from all the drugs, crime, how about we teach our kids morals and right

from wrong, which does not happen in movies. the comment about the super predator. that is exactly what they say they are, they feed off of these younger kids to bring them in and earn off with them, put them to work and they are feeding off so that isildren, the perfect term for it. that is exactly what it is. it is not a racist term but that is what they are doing, feeding off these children, a predator. at the end of the day, -- the other thing is about the bill is about, just do not commit the crime. if you do not commit crime, you don't have to worry about it. host: that was daniel. years, they are calling for younger leaders of the country. in brazil, the president facing impeachment over the budget and economic situation over there. the president saying, seeing and

reporting, that they say this will not impact the olympics in brazil. when we come back, we will talk with xavier becerra of california, the highest ranking latino in congress. he will react to yesterday's case on immigration and then later, lou barletta will join us to talk about donald trump and his upcoming presidential primary. we will be right back. ♪ >> this sunday night on "q and a," talking about the hit musical "hamilton," inspired by alexander hamilton.

>> he said, i was reading your book on vacation in mexico and i reading and hip-hop songs started rising up the page. i said, really question mark and then he said, hamilton's life is a hip-hop narrative and i thought, what is he talking about? i had not picked up the fact that he had hip hop on his hands. he put me on the spot because my first question to him was, can hit poppy the visual for telling this kind of narrative, large, and complex story? he said, i will educate you about hip-hop and he did on the spot. he said hip-hop you can pack -- lyricarmation information into the lyrics and that is only started talking about the fact that hip-hop not only has rhymes, but in has internal rhymes, and he started educating me in all these different devices that are very

important to the success of the show. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern &a."pacific, "q tom har >> "washington journal" continues. ist: back here with us xavier becerra. thank you for being here. great to be with you. oral arguments for 90 minutes yesterday over the united states texas, president obama's delayed the petition, a couple of programs. what is your take? this is what happens in congress does not do its work. the courts are being asked whether to decide if the president and executives can do things executives have done in the past, and i think they will find that it is not only constitutional but necessary. the difficult part is that it up

with the president does, it is only very limited and temporary, so congress has to deal with this still. it points out once again the problems we have at this function of congress. the: this would delay petition for about formally in a documented workers. parents who have children here who are u.s. on thes on an extension program for younger people. if there is a for-four decision in the goes back to the lower courts, does that mean there is a freeze on the programs? is plan b? callerguest: that is the problea 4-4 decision demonstrates how the court is crippled by the senate is not willing to consider the nomination to replace justice scalia, so it is unfortunate that if you have a 4-4 decision, it means the court did not make the ultimate

decision and it is still not open and the lower court decision stands until it does get back to the supreme court. it is not the way you want to run government. host: how confident are you that people would sign up for these programs? as they have lived in fear, been in the shadows decades, how confident are you that they would then come out of those shadows and sign up and then have it be known their presence known to the government? guest: that is what i get asked quite a bit. how do i know if i come out of the shadows that i have not necessarily identify myself and be picked up and deported? i told him that this is not the government you left. you can at least trust that our government is not going to be deceiving you publicly, so what we try to tell people is there are already 700,000 young people who applied for the daca program for children and they have been

able to work to the program well, so we have to trust it will work well for the daca for the parents as well. it is one of those things where i understand why they would be concerned, but we have to make some progress to have some order and sanity prevail in this because the system and the laws that we have for immigration are broken. host: we will be airing the audio of the oral argument on c-span friday night at 8:00 p.m.. the headlines this morning is from what they heard from the justices, it looks like the court is divided. they report that one possibility might be for the court to president'se authority to set priorities on whom to deport but limit the impact of such a designation on an immigrant facility to receive becomethorization or eligible for government benefits. gop-led states and republican members of the congress say that 2014resident's november

guidance and deportation states that those of the for deportation "unlawfully present in the united states." a number ofens opportunities and government benefits to them, according to texas and 25 other states. guest: that was a big point of contention in the argument we thed yesterday, and justices may try to make should that they separate the issue of whether the president's actions to do for deportation and also saying that we will forbear removing you from the country for now, and while we do that, we will try to make sure we going after the criminals, the folks trying to hurt us, the terrorists in the country without documents curried separate that from the issue with what the president did previously, which is -- documents. separate that from the issue with what the president did previously, which is we will let you continue to work as long as it is lawful work. it may be a separation of the two of this. i do not believe there needs to be, but i know that is one of the points of contention.

host: the government's lawyer said to the justices, well, if that is the concern, why don't you drop a redline in the word lawful presence? guest: what the u.s. government attorney is trying to say that if your hunger upon those words, they do not have a practical effect in terms of what we are doing. he is essentially saying that we are not saying that because we will forbear from removing these individuals and all of a sudden they have to become u.s. citizens, we are just saying that if we do not go after them, therefore, they can be here present while we are going to the process of fixing the system. these 4 million, is that many find that, get government benefits and which benefits? guest: they do not qualify for government benefits. and the president did not try to change that nor could see because that would be a change of the law. all he is simply saying this that under the existing law of removal or deportation of

people, i will focus because i have limited resources on removing those that i can, so he deported several hundred thousand that were told there were 10 million people, so he wanted to focus on those who are most dangerous, those that we most want to remove from the country. meanwhile, to the rest of you, it is not that you are not the portable, but i will not go after you write now article after the bad guy. host: let's get to calls. let's get the viewers involved and we will talk more about standing for this district where you there yesterday? guest: i was. host: what was it like? guest: it was interesting. you don't get to say a word as the audience, but you are listening to justices talked to attorneys and it is quite fascinating because they pose great questions. you listen to one sense and it makes sense, but then you listen to the other side and it makes sense and that is why it is up to the supreme court because it

is not an easy decision. host: how to get a ticket? of us inually, those high levels of congress, we have an opportunity to submit a request early to get a seat. host: we go to chris in florida, independent. caller: i have a question. wentama's nomination through the confirmation process, that person would not have been sitting on the court, would not have been there to be the ninth judge, so it would not have made any difference whatsoever what the go through the confirmation process to begin with, correct? guest: would it make any difference? host: in this case yesterday. if the president's nomination -- guest: had been sitting? host: oracle process had begun in the senate -- or if the process had begun in the senate? guest: it would matter if you assume the process had not been

completed by now. it would make a difference if you are able to get nine justices in panel, but you are right. because this justice who comes in next would not have been part of the case, that justice would not participate in the final decision, but that is the difficult we have had a we have had an open seat for a few months now and there is no reason but we cannot have had this settled in time for a andice to actually sit down reviewed the case and hear the oral argument and participate in the decision. host: chris, you had a follow-up? if the democrats were not such hypocrites and they follow the same rules that they put forth, including the vice president saying that the president should not even nominate somebody when he is in his last year, somehow, when it is one side for one way and the other at the other way, i wish you guys would stop lying to us and making issues where they do

not exist. it is really disgusting and that is why we are not voting for your party and we are not going to vote for the republican party either. it is either going to be bernie sanders or donald trump and you will see a revolution and you will deserve it. guest: all i can say that chris is i am glad you are voting. about all i can agree with. you should read the facts. you are referring to the remarks biden, now vice president biden, who said during an election year, that we should justices being considered for confirmation before the senate at a time when we are about to have an election. what he was talking about then goinge rumor that was around that some of the justices on the court who were older white believe the bench and leave it vacant so that the president could then nominate during an election year.

we are not in that situation. justice scalia did not decide to leave the bench. he died. chris, you should read up on the facts and not your facts, but i do appreciate that you will be voting. host: let's go to john in oregon, democrat. caller: good morning, congressman. i may from about four years or five years ago in the budget decided.kind of being i respected how you were saying that you are not just a congressman for your district but for all people, so along the lines of immigration, i really appreciated what you said regarding people are fearful because i have been attending a mosque once a month, and one of the things that i am hearing is connect upafraid to with governmental agencies .ecause of where they came from

you know, in terms of the government was correct, but in the united states, how do we help them understand, no, the government is not here to be punitive but to help them assimilate? guest: great question. it is tough when you come from an experience or background where it is tough to trust a particular class of individuals. in this case, government officials. coming to a new country where you are perhaps unfamiliar with customs, language and so forth, it is hard to say, i will trust government officials who i grew up never trusting, so we have to do the best we can to prove to them that in this country, we try to make our government work as best we can and that government officials tried the best they can. we also have the means, so we have to point out the bad apples, -- we also have

feelings, so you have to point out the bad apples. in terms of immigration, all i can do is convince the families that if they come forward and try to come out of the shadows, that they have an opportunity to try to do things the right way, pay taxes, show people that they are trying to live in this country the right way. it is tough, but we have to continue doing that. there is no other thing other than aiding the confidence of those individuals. host: we go to north carolina, paul is a republican there. caller: good morning. theve a question about parents that brought their children over here. i agree it is not the children's fault, but i have a big problem with those children being able to get their parents green cards . all of you are doing is rewarding the parent 15 years later for crossing the border illegally. that is not right. laws,'re going to enforce enforce them. you cannot just pick out criminals right now and send

them back to their countries. what are you going to do about all the criminals that a walking over the border while you are doing this and you're thinking you are doing so much good? if you do not enforce the law and get a border or more cards on the border, whenever it takes, you are defeating your whole purpose because they're walking over the borders and you are only sending back the people that are criminals. for theaula, thank you question and i appreciate the value priced at thoughtfully. let me make sure i correct something. these young people -- i appreciate the way you asked it thoughtfully. let me make sure correct something. these young people are only here on a temporary unlimited basis. they are not being granted a green card, they are not been granted a permanent status to stay in the country and become u.s. citizens, so they cannot apply to bring their parents in

together green card as well, so i want to make sure that is clear because their status gives them no rights to thereafter request that other family members get to come to the u.s. as well. i agree with you that we had to make sure that people who are coming to our border are not coming to do us harm, and i agree that we should know who is coming to our borders, but do not confuse the two issues. young people, the children who are here who are getting this deferred deportation, don't have status to discard applying -- to start applying to bring in family anytime. at no point will they ever be able to bring in other family members or apply for other family members during their status at this time. even if we were to change immigration laws and they were to enact the senate version of immigration reform, those

individuals could ultimately, those young people, could adjust their status to be illegally here permanently, but they have to go through a process telecast the summer between 10 years to 13 years before they would have that full legal status so it would be quite some time before these young students would have an opportunity to ever be able to apply to get any family members to come through, if we ever fixed the broken immigration system. host: here is a tweet from a wewer who wants to know, will let you work, so they can get a social security number? guest: we do not want it to be underground in the underground economy, where they are not paying taxes that we don't know how much they are being paid, so they get hurt and there is no worker compensation, it is the taxpayers who would have to pay. we want to make the work that they do legal or at least above

board so that wave, we can make sure that if something happens, it is not the taxpayers who have to foot the bill. hireser an employer someone, by law, that employer is supposed to take care of unemployment insurance, social security and the purpose for that is so taxpayers are not met holding the dime when an accident occurs. if they do not come above board, it becomes difficult. host: arthur is next, minnesota, independent. question.s, i have a host: we are listening. caller: again? host: please, go ahead. caller: i have a question about, i knew a boy here, he was seven years old and he committed to felonies and he is under daca, and the thing

that he is to be deported now, but he is not a hard criminal, that there any difference the law is going to see the difference between a hard criminal and a person that made a mistake during his life? host: arthur, are you a legal citizen? caller: no, i am not. host: when did you come here and why? caller: 2004. i was fleeing from misery, you know? trying to have a better life. host: where were you fleeing from? caller: brazil. host: ok. guest: arthur, we have to have a system of law, and the program for these young people, the daca program requires that

these young people abide by the law, so if you will come out of the shadows and make yourself to the government, tell us where going toou are, we are do for deporting new for now because you're going up to criminals, but you cannot commit a crime and then not go after you. maybe the young men made a he is perd maybe morsel that he did, but he did. what i can simply tell you is that the rules were there before that young man or the people who are with them had him apply, so he understood the rules going in. will be deported probably because he did not follow the rules. in this country, we do try to make the case, you have got to follow the rules. alan, independent. caller: i just want to say that i have been a lifelong democrat and i am disgusted with both parties right now because of the on bothence in congress

sides. they need to somehow get along. that is my question. how do we get to a point where we can get along? all of us? guest: good question. i would simply say that because it is a democracy, because of majority rules, what we should be simply doing is agreeing that we will sit down and then negotiate great if we disagree, it does not mean we cannot get things done. that is what this congress has done. on thebroken down to republican side in the house, we were supposed to pass this budget last week. yesterday was the filing deadline for your taxes. if you have not done that, there be a penalty for not filing your taxes by april 18. congress was supposed to finish their budget by april 15 we did not. do you see any members of

congress paying the price? no, so we should be getting our work done. if we have disagreements, we need to figure out how to come to common ground. it has become very difficult because principally, at least on the republican house side, they cannot agree a month itself. the same civil war you see dean played out in these republican presidential primaries is with his governing these days in the republican caucus and the house, so it has become very difficult to reach an agreement and negotiate agreements because the republicans themselves are fighting amongst themselves in the house. back to last year's budget agreement, we cannot get republicans to agree that they agree to that budget agreement, and now republicans in the house are trying to undo that agreement. some of them say, we never agreed to that in the first place and that could be true, but simply because you, yourself to not vote for it does not mean that your team, your party negotiated that agreement and

all of a sudden you can back away because you, yourself to not agree to it. that is what has bogged down congress from getting anything done, whether it is the budget, the zika virus, which are no more than 400 u.s. citizen subcontracted, is not in peril of the health of a lot of people, the republican chairman of the committee appropriations committee has said that there could be some 2 million women, pregnant women who could be at risk, so rather than wait until we find ourselves in the midst ka contamination come we should be dealing with it. it is unfortunate that we cannot get going. i would say to the caller that if we all figured out that we have to come to some agreement, to not come out of congress, do not take the trip, do not do other things until you come up with an agreement. host: back to the immigration case. foreet -- bad news tie meansobama, 4-4 the lower court ruling stands

daca/dapa are both legal unconstitutional actions. i want to speak about paul ryan talking on the floor in march why he wanted them to file in this case because he feels but the president does does finally the constitution. take a listen. [video clip] paul ryan: all legislative powers are vested in congress. article two states that the president shall "take care that the law is being safely executed." those lines, that separation of powers could not be clearer. lawsle one, congress right laws.tes article two, the president safely executes those laws. in recent years, the executive

branch has been blurring these boundaries to the point of overstepping them all together. bureaucrats responsible for executing laws as written are now writing the laws at their whim. this this not just throw checks and balances off balance, it creates a fourth branch of government. this creates a fourth branch of government that operates with little or no accountability whatsoever. host: congressman, your response? guest: paul ryan is a smart guy. he either doesn't understand what is at stake here or what is going on with immigration laws or he has chosen to try to construe them differently. first, the president has not asnged any law because speaker ryan said, the president does not have the power to make or change laws. he simply said with the

resources i have, i cannot do with the law says i can do, deport everyone, so i cannot go after 10 million people with the funding i have for this year, so it funding i have for this year, i will concentrate during what you asked me to do, deport people. who should we deport? if you go after that mother and child, we are leaving the criminal on the streets who should be deported, so the president said with the resources you have given me, i will go after the criminals. if you want to give me more resources, i can go after the criminals and the others. secondly, would we rather see criminals on the street while ago after mothers and children and appoint them? plus people -- and deport them? i think most people would say, i want to be safe and go after the bad people first. that is what he said, he will prioritize. if congress wants to give me more money to go after all the folks, he could do it, but until then, we know we will not get everybody and we know we will

not get everyone, then at least let's get those who are trying to do us harm first. texas,calls, garland, independent. caller: thank you very much. this is a procedural question. i know the case is a life located in that they were just -- bifurcated in that they're just going to have the ability to have this hurt in the supreme court before they get to the material question of the legality of daca/dapa. split on theis standing issue, do they even reach the material question in the case or do they just not get to that point because they side with the majority that even get to hear it? guest: that is a great question. you are either an attorney or an astute observer of what is going on and i'm trying to go back to my legal days. if the lower court is found

standing, and it must have crossed they would not be before the supreme court, and the supreme court ties on the issue of standing, that means the lower court decision on standing prevails, so therefore, they would go to the question of the legality of the actions by the president. interpretation, but i have not practiced law since it got to congress a couple of decades ago, so i could be wrong . great question. i do believe that if they tie on the issue of where they are standing, they would go to the final issue, which is the legality of the action. great question because he really did break down the two issues that are at stake. most people do not understand the issue standing. the whole issue is, do i have the right to actually be before the court, before the supreme court to argue this? in many cases if you do not have the right, wait a minute, it is too premature to be here are you are not the right person, well, there could be a legal case but

you are not the one to make it and they would throw the case out. host: in texas, they say we will have to fit the bill for these work permits and drivers license, and that is a tweet from one of our viewers, where is the funding coming from for this temporary home? in this case, they have decided that the latest duplications give them lawful residents, should the government be footing the bill for these work permits? guest: the federal government is footing the bill so they could apply and be considered a daca or dapa individual. when the administration says, you might be able to qualify for work authorization because not everyone well, the cost of that authorization would be done by leslie the federal government, who provides the paperwork. and states administer, so if someone applies for a job, there

might be question about eligibility and the state would have to cover that cost, but if the argument was made on the other side, states could complain about every action the federal government makes that would cost the state some money. if the federal government says, you need to try to provide better education for kids who are in rural areas, and the state says, that will cost me money, does that mean the state could go to the supreme court and say i do not want to do that federal action? what went on during the civil rights movement. what we saw that states were beating up the citizens and the federal government said, wait a minute, we will step in and you cannot do that, the states would complain because it would cost us money or we do not agree with it. if you are able to go to court every time, he would disrupt and destroy what we call our federal doernment, so everything we to some degree has some ramifications. some times [indiscernible] host: erica in virginia, democrat. caller: hi.

i just want to make a comment. -- i mean, the republicans have so much fight against these kids and what you call it illegal immigrants. what about the cubans? the cubans come here immediately. they get a work permit and they work, they have a house, they have all the benefits, and the cubans that came along time ago are collecting all the benefits. they do not work, they collect benefits. host: erica, we will talk about the difference in policy when it comes to mexican citizens, canadians versus the ones coming from cuba. point, i think's most people would agree that the immigrants that are coming from most of these areas countries

work very hard. they keep to themselves, they try not to go out there and make obvious, especially if they are undocumented, but at theirme time, qualifications were those who have projections to our immigration system who have a strong point. we have arrived as a sovereign nation to control who comes into our country. we have to be able to do that the right way, so erica, even if someone out there looking for a chance to come to america is going to be hard-working, that does not mean we will take every hard-working person or family that once the common to america. we have a right to determine who comes to the country. our immigration system is so broken that clearly, we did not make the determination for some 10 or 11 way people who came in. for decades, but we did is to

say if you have been hard-working, you have made this your home, you have learned english, paid taxes, maybe you have proven that you should have an opportunity to stay, but we should get to decide that, so it is not a matter of being fair to hard-working folks who want to co t for the benefit for our country and hopefully, it will be good for those from the country but it has to be good for america first. host: immigration at the heart of the presidential campaign this year. there is an article that says, it would be easy to assume that donald trump's anti-latino speeches would drop the team is to the democratic party, but he writes that the team know levels occurred -- but he writes that latino voters occurred at worst levels and it appears that the republican nominee will get the presidency.

host: widespread coverage in spanish media would make the race well known. the raids would need to be blamed on the current democratic president. and the supreme court would need to decide texas v. u.s. against the obama administration. what do you think? guest: that is a lot. i believe the fastest-growing the latino community, will come out to vote and in big numbers. they be the best way to describe the impact that ted cruz or donald trump will have on the election results for letting us -- for latinos is the former governor of the state of california. he rode the anti-immigrant tide in my state more than 20 years ago, and while he won in 1994,

his reelection to the governor for this day, that was the last -- last timeblican a republican won a statewide office in california. we went from being a red to purple state to becoming a blue state and i believe that is principally because immigrant families who have become citizens, a lot of latino families, have become voters and have rejected that anti-immigrant politics. if the republican party wishes to continue the anti-immigrant politics, i think they will pay a price. host: california primary, june 7. who do think will win on the republican side? guest: that is a roll of the dice. i would hate to make a prediction simply because it is so uncertain, but at the end of the day, a number of folks that any of the republicans get will be far less than the democratic candidates for president in the state of california. host: who wins on the democrat side? i believe that secretary

clinton, who has really been a friend to california for some in the years, will have the upper hand, while i believe that senator sanders has created some excitement, especially among young folks, i think the young latinos, asians, blacks and anglo will see that in hillary clinton, not only do we have a friend, but a champion and someone who was worked hard. host: you have endorsed her. theays sanders is closing polling gap with clinton nationally. he has got momentum. sanders isers -- mr. the first choice or president while 50% chose hillary clinton. in this format -- in this poll last month, clinton was ahead nine percentage points. we would notaid get enthusiastic voters, but i think it has become an enthusiastic turnout that we

have seen in various collections and primaries. i think that is all good. at the end of the day, i think we will want someone who is not just exciting and knows how to do things for the american people well, but has the experience to show that she can get it done. host: are you concerned about 20 -- aboutbers, the poll numbers, that 22% have higher marks for bringing real even amongountry, democratic primary voters, the share giving her high mark stopped to 41% down from 57% in october. on being honest, just 19% rate her highly. guest: it has been interesting to watch as this has unfolded, but at the same time, there is no do has been tested more than hillary clinton. i think it has been a fabulous way for democrats to select a nominee. and i amfirm stance vigorously working to make sure that secretary clinton comes

president because of believe that not only will she do a good job, but she would do a phenomenal job for those who feel left out. let it be competitive. i have no problems with the competitive campaign. in fact, i want it to be competitive, and i enjoy people coming out to support bernie sanders. we need to have a test of who could really do this and there is no one better tested than hillary clinton. host: should to go all the way to the convention in july? guest: bernie sanders has earned the chance to do it the would like to do. at the end of the day, we want have a good person who is qualified and that is where i think hillary clinton will win. host: hillary is ahead in new york. they vote today. we will have coverage beginning at 9:00 p.m. eastern time on c-span. bill in connecticut, republican. caller: yes, good morning. that allowing

undocumented immigration from the middle east countries, particularly because there's no document who these people are, and if you look at the statistics of immigration from those countries, it is approximatelyof 100,000 people coming into the 35% of thoseto immigrants from the middle east believe in their law. if you assume -- if you take 100,000 immigrants from those countries, approximately 30,000 support the law. if you assume that 5% of those arcturus --e 30,000

are terrorists, that leaves 1500 people are terrorists are hundred thousand. host: ok, got your point. we will have the congressman respond. guest: that is what we have to make sure we have an immigration system that works in every respect, whether it is a visa to a tourist, student, or granting permanent residents through the visa to anyone coming to the country to live, or if it is simply to make sure that someone crossing the border to do shopping is doing it for the right reason. we need to fix a broken immigration system. i would agree that we need to be very careful. his numbers, i don't know he got his numbers from, but in order for you to receive or to be granted a visa, you have to go through a very thorough process. isone who is undocumented applying for a visa. let me correct that, there are a bunch of folks who have got a visa and decided to stay beyond the time of the visa who have become a documented, so that is

the case. to get that fisa, you have -- visa, you have to provide information and evidence. i would agree that because so many people come to the u.s. using a visitor visa and they overstay, therefore, they become undocumented, we had to have a more thorough process to affect even those short-term visas because who knows if those folks are coming back. host: in los angeles, eddie, independent. you are up early. go ahead. caller: good morning. thank you very much. greta, iou an apology. i called one month or two months ago and i said that hillary lyingn had been fired for and unethical behavior and again lady from new york clear that they gives no excuse to

the terms they used as a racist, but to you, i heard you give a statement toy young our congress does not obey the laws. as far as immigration, we would not have a sanctuary city here. the latino community does grow, but you are talking about the illegal. and it is just sad that you would really condemn african-americans, citizens of this country, as if we don't work or don't want to work. this country was built on the backs of black people and now we can't get a job? why don't you obey the law. host: ok, eddie. congressman? guest: first, thanks for be ing up so early and calling.

secondly, let me explain something. i don't think i ever said any time that i condemn somebody who is an american citizen trying to work in this country. i have worked very hard all my life as an american citizen. by parents came to this country and became american citizens. they worked hard all of their life. i want to make sure that every american has a chance to work an d earn a living and do what my parents did -- buy a home, send their kdiids to college, and retired in dignity. but as my effort in washington dc, to help people like my parents, who worked very hard for this country and for their families. so, i am sure where you got the sense that i was trying to deny african-americans an opportunity to work. what i did say is that those here through the broken immigration system, we have to figure out a way to fix it. and if we wish to close our eye to the fact that there are some

10 million or 11 million people who are in our country illegally, we will never resolve it. a lot of people want people to stay because they don't deserve to say. but many will deserve a chance to become legal residents. and after becoming lawful residents, maybe they could become u.s. citizens. i don't wish to punish them because we have a broken immigration system. but i don't wish to punish any person, regardless of their color, because of the broken immigration citizen. host: congressman, we always appreciate you talking to our viewers. we will take a short break. when we come back, we will talk with congressman lou barletta, will talk about his endorsement of donald trump. and later, senior political correspondent anna palmer will be here to talk about the new york primary and the latest on

the behind the scenes in this delicate brawl for the republican party and the divisions within the democratic party. we will be right back with all of that. ♪ >> the campaign 2016 bus continues its travel to visit winners of this year's student cam competition. minnesota toisited recognize the documentary on the wildhorse population, titled "wild horse management."

we then went to california to meet with winners of that state. recognizing students trison and jackie power for their winning documentary. and then congresswoman judy chu joins friends, family, and classmates on the second prize winners for their winning documentary on social security called "a sense of security." a special thanks to our partners, charter, comcast, cox, and time warner cable. be sure to watch everyone of the 21 winning entries at 6:50 a.m. eastern before "washington journal." "washington journal" continues. host: you want to welcome back congressman lou barletta. for being here.

you have endorsed donald trump. can you tell us why? lou barletta: donald trump has touched a nerve in the american people, obviously. you stepped into the ender, where many americans feel people in washington have not been listening to their voices. issues thatught up most americans wish we would do something about, whether it is immigration, illegal immigration -- whether it is bring jobs back into america from china and mexico. he has talked about our military and our veterans. it has just been incredible, the energy that, trump has been able to gather through topics he has been bringing up. i think seeing the reaction from the people and seeing the reaction in washington has been two totally different views actually. and i finally endorsed donald trump. back in my days as mayor i but

the fight against illegal immigration. the fight against illegal immigration. i saw the same things happening now that donald trump is trying to have a debate about. are attackedyou and called names. most politicians at that point will bring the subject up anymore, but it is important. aqua and i started in 2006, here we are 10 years later, still talking about the same issues. i think the american people what somebody different, a real executive in the executive office. that appeals to me as well. host: back when you were mere of hazelton -- back when you were mayor of hazelton, you crack down on employers who knowingly hired illegal immigrants. donald trump has made this an essential part of his issue. are you concerned that without latino voters, as they make up

a higher percentage of the voting population, that republicans will lose the white house? lou barletta: we have been listening to that argument for 10 years as well. it was said about me that i was chasing hispanic immigrants out of hazelton. when, the opposite has happened. the latino population in hazelton has grown every year since i introduced that ordinance, which defies the logic that we were chasing latinos out of hazelton. in fact, they were choosing hazelton to be their home. what would you move your family into a community if you did not feel excepted? 2006, and back in what donald trump is talking about now, it's actually the most pro-immigrant, pro-hispanic message you can send. what america has to offer is an opportunity for people to come here as an immigrant and have a better life, better job, and better education for your children. we pulled the carpet out from underneath them when we say,

with in-line and when you are here he will have these opportunities, but in the meantime, we are going to let millions of people walk in and compete for your jobs, make it harder for your children to get an education. most hispanics understand that. hazelton, a city that was nearly 50% latino, i should have been the poster child for "we're going to get you." i won with 90% of the vote. they can have these there is, but i know the facts. in fact, i think it is insulting to the latino population. you believe a class of people here in america think it is more important to let people come here and break the law, for important than a good education for their children, a good job, the ability to earn a better living, i think that is insulting to a class of people to think that is more important to them. host: do you also agree with

donald trump that the nominating process, how delegates are awarded is rigged, as he has said? i am not going to say "rigged." donald has a way of saying things, which i also like because once he brings the subject up we end up having a debate on the subject, which is terrific. i do believe it is weighted against the outsider. the rules are made by the establishment itself in pennsylvania is a good example. there are 71 delegates in pennsylvania. however, whoever wins next tuesday will only get 17 of the 71. those 17, they only have the first round. after the first round, they are free agents. you can win the entire state, work your tail off, indy will get 17 one time.

-- and you will get 17 one time. the other 54 will be elected per district. those 54 are free agents from the get-go. it does not matter who wins the state. they are free agents. this is a grassroots, organic type of support for donald trump. is a not people who are tied into the legal system. most likely, these are people 10 orve not voted in 15 years. the rules are made by people from the inside, basically protecting the establishment. but it say "rigged," certainly don't think your vote matters as much. votennsylvania you can go for donald trump and actually cost him by picking three ted cruz or kasich delegates. you think you went there to have your voice heard. in reality, you might be doing

the opposite. and the delegates don't need to declare who they are supporting. when you go in the booth, you are just going to see names of people and have no idea who they are supporting. host: what do you say though, to those who say the rules have been in place for a year. donald trump is more about him not having an organized campaign. lou barletta: there is no question, the rules have been there. but the great thing donald trump has brought to the forefront is, are the rules made to protect the establishment itself? and to they need to be looked at to have a fair election? this let me bounce is als off of you. "the wall street journal" says the party has to nominate someone. and the point of unbinding delegates is to let a party majority coalesce around a nominee, rather than sit in permanent deadlock.

lou barletta: my answer to that would be, then should we have a party coalesce around the front runner who has millions more votes of the american people, many more delegates already? is it helpful to the party to let this process go to a contested convention? is that helpful? what is going to happen? what is the result of that convention? if anybody comes out of the convention, other than donald trump, and even ted cruz for example, that is 80% of the will between the two of them. his party will be divided, maybe not even be prepared for a long time. i believe we will be handing the election to hillary clinton and the supreme court picks. other thannybody donald trump, the establishment would say it is time for everyone else to get out and get behind him, he is clearly the choice.

there was 17 people in this primary. the chance of anybody hitting that number weres li slim. this is clearly to the party wants. host: members of the republican national committee are meeting in florida this weekend mr. trump is badgering them to change the rules to let him win with a plurality of delegates. with that, let's get to cindy. good morning. caller: before i tell you my question, i want to quote the declaration of independence. that is what makes us a nation. how we express it is called the constitution. so, in the declaration it says failure to protect the citizens of the united states from invasion, it does not say military because it does not mean it. it is why we have customs and border patrol. failure to protect the citizens of united states from invasion automatically dissolve congress, the oval office, the supreme court, any attempt by congress

to change this clause automatically dissolves the house and senate from the supreme court. for the first time in the history of this country, to you call yourself democrat or republican? the real citizens of the united states are better off without you. so, if you are going to change because delegates are in the constitution too, and i do think it is a little unfair. however, it is what prevents the crookedness of politicians to .", "hey, become citizens an extremely illegal thing to land them in jail so the only thing bases again has bars in it. host: congressman? lou barletta: again, i think you

can sense what is happening in america. and this is not unusual. we are having these types of conversations every where. i think at the root of this election is the fact that american people feel their voices are not hurt. i came in with a wave in 2010 where that is exactly what we heard. when i spoke to my colleagues when we first got here, i was curious as to what they were hearing in their collective states and it was the same thing. "our voices are not heard." "we want our voices heard i washingtonn." later,rward six years the establishment is saying, we know better. we don't like the front runner, so we are going to do everything we can to get this the way we want it. i think if you do that to the american people at this time, i don't know what the results will be, but it won't be good for the party. host: stephen, independent caller. caller: thanks for taking my

call. how are you? lou barletta: i'm good. caller: i wanted to go back to the party franchise. these franchises pushing sanders with the delegates and you clearly see it with donald trump in wyoming, in colorado. they just don't even allow the popular vote over there in those two states. they should not even all voting in those states. but i'm not from pennsylvania. could districts throughout what the voters do in pennsylvania? lou barletta: i think it is very possible that donald trump could win the state of pennsylvania by a large margin and get clobbered in the delegate vote. o, i just think the american

people want to know their vote matters. there is more weight -- that is what we tell people. vote."ure you go out and but when we look at it closely, how much does your vote matter when the establishment can really water down your vote? if you win the popular margin and get clobbered by the delegates, how is that fire? how is that representative of what the people in that state are saying? i think we need to look at this. we put more weight on the popular vote and don't disenfranchise people by telling them, well, we know how you voted, that we controlled the delegates. or, these are delegates who are tied to the establishment. you know, the popular vote can say one thing, but when you look at the delegates and who we are

going to nominate, you can have a totally different result. i don't think that is what the american people are saying at this time, more than ever. i have never seen so much anger in america and i think we are seeing it in a selection on the republican side and on the democratic side. the more the people are speaking out, the more the establishment is trying to to silence them. host: trump's big night is in sight. he is talking about republican insiders who have told him that because of his high negativity ratings in polls, donald trump, that they believe that they have what amounts to a judiciary duty to choose a candidate who is fit to serve as president. andp's volatile temperament ignorance of policy, according to this view, make him ineligible. lou barletta: what does this say? that one person's opinion means more?

in pennsylvania, 100,000 democrats have changed parties. we should be embracing this. i have talked to people who have sayvoted in 10-20 years who they are coming up to vote. host: but what about the people who he is turning off? lou barletta: the political consultants have been saying for months now, this is the end of donald trump, whether it is something he has said or something in the polls. but then the election says something different, but the establishment says, "we have a p oll." we don't elect people through pools. we elect people by letting people go to the voting booth and let their vote count. host: mrs. clinton's saving grace -- the survey found that donald trump would have a harder time consolidating his party behind himthan she would.

38% of republican primary voters said they couldn't see them self-supporting him. -- couldn't see themselves supporting him. lou barletta: many things, many times the full say, i don't like what he said. i don't like what he said. i don't agree with him or i don't like what he said. but at the same time, i think the beauty of that is, at the same time, i think a lot of the people say, but i admire he had the courage to speak up. we are tired of political correctness. those people are trained what things to say, how to say something. he is not a politician. nobody here is going to control him. he is funding his own campaign. nobody will own him. this is what people say. he is saying what i am thinking. and they may not like it, but at the same time, i think that is the beauty and what people are attracted to him. host: back to calls.

doug in centreville, virginia. republican. caller: i want to thank you for your service. my question is really about trump's qualifications. it is all well and good to say he is this great businessman. but that is kind of wishy-washy. he has got some spotty records in terms of his business management, but in terms of his overall qualifications to command a military, to work with people on the other side of the aisle, to work with people in congress. the, right now he could win nomination and be elected president, but will he get support from you -- well, maybe -- but from your colleagues in the senate. any people don't think he is moving in the right direction by appealing to the ugly aspects in the electorate. lou barletta: president obama served two years in the senate.

you know, i think of a look at qualifications. what makes a person qualified? i think what makes a person qualified is somebody who knows to put the right people around the table to solve an issue. i can relate to that, being in the business world. if i was going to hire somebody to run my company and they sat across the desk from the and said, i know how to fix this problem and, this is what i'm going to do, that is by politician would say. it politician would tell people, i know all the answers. i am going to fix every problem that we have. but people are wondering why we haven't. a businessman would say, i am going to sit down and put the brightest and best people around me. we are going to look at the problem and talk this through. that is the way you do it in the gulwreal world.

but in washington, why haven't we fixed social security or these problems if it is so easy? a business person sits around the table and says, now let's figure this out. host: you are on the air. caller: good

political correctness is not an issue. there are people in america that believe when donald trump is president, you can say mary christmas if you want to say merry christmas and not offend somebody. it will take some but he liked donald trump who is from the outside can not connected, not

controlled, not owned, not wholved with anybody here will tackle the tough issues. illegal immigration will not be talked about the way this is donald trump were not running for president. host: the caller referenced mitt romney. mitt romney in an interview with david gregory said a three-man race throws trump the nomination and either ted cruz or john kasich should be giving out of this race. guest: there is only one person who can hit the number. would we be calling for the others to get out saying it is time to get behind the front runner, let's focus on the general election -- this is what is so frustrating to the american people.

they believe it is not happening because they don't like with the front runner is. crazy they arew about the number two person in this race, either. these are the rules and when we get to a convention -- that does not sound like party unity to me. people are choosing either ted cruz or trump. the establishment is saying when we get to the contested, these are rules and anything can happen, i think it is pretty clear. i don't know why we don't just come out and say they don't want see if we can get who is behind door number three and we will be handing the selection to hillary clinton and the supreme court pick. we need toi believe get behind the front runner, let's fix this thing.

caller: i am very -- you're are the first republican i've ever agreed with. i think that people should decide who is our president. i am so fed up with these superdelegates and delegates and -- we the people, that is the most important part of our system. i have another thing to say. i'm sick and tired of people saying the average american makes $50,000 a year. no, they don't. my husband and i make $26,000 a year. try to live off of $26,000 year. we live in florida, it is very hard. i'm sick of hearing that. i believe that there and have the compass minerals bond to what you said.

james and weatherford, texas. i will leave it there and have the congressman respond to what you said. james in weatherford, texas. caller: i'm calling about the qualifications -- what were the qualifications for obama? for the first 15 years of his life, he was raised a muslim by a white mother who is a socialist, grandparents that are -- thattter communists are communists. when his mother got pregnant by went back he left and to kenya to be with his two wives and his kids back there. he is not some activist from chicago that she was an agitator and always has been. one thing mr. chuck hagel said said obama show, he would come in and tell you what they are going to do. the commander-in-chief listens

to the military, people who have made careers out of it. host: we will have the congressman respond. guest: i don't know how to f yound other than if look at the qualifications of the people running right now, that's what's important. people want jobs. as donald trump created jobs? thannows better somebody who has signed the front of a paycheck? let's try that for a change, let's try to put a real executive who knows how to bring people around him, the best people to solve -- they just want their problems solved. now, they feel their voices don't matter anymore. earlier, looks like some people in the republican party are not that crazy about ted cruz, either. dayt: at the end of the

come on 100% supporting donald trump. i will do everything i can to help him win. i will support the republican nominee because i believe this election and a supreme court pick is the most important thing that we need to focus on because with the supreme court at 4-4, it is very important that that is the right choice. i will make my voice heard and do everything i can to change that system. at the end of the day, i'm still supporting the republican nominee. this race would be called over already if it was someone other than donald trump. , you willot picked divide this party and it will not be repaired. host: we will take a short break.

when we come back, we will continue talking about the delegate count and the nominating process with anna palmer from "politico." ♪ >> our live coverage of the presidential race continues. then a clock eastern for election results, candidate speeches and be reaction. -- join us at 9:00 eastern. the hit broadway musical "hamilton." he said to me, i was reading

your book on vacation in mexico and as i was reading it, hip-hop song started rising up the page.- off the what on earth is this guy talking about? he had a world-class ignoramus about hip-hop on his hands. can hip-hop you the vehicle for this large and complex story? thatarted pointing out hip-hop, you can pack more information into the lyrics than any other form because it is very, very dense. rapp, he started talking about the fact that hip-hop not only has rhymed endings come it has internal rhymes that she started

onhe started educating me all these devices that are important to the success of the show. "washington journal" continues. host: at our table this morning, anna palmer, senior correspondent with "politico." let's begin with new york. how important is this state? let's start with democrats. guest: hillary has been putting in a lot more effort in new york than a lot of other states. she was a senator from the state. she needs to win this in terms of energy, momentum, also delegates. she is projected to do very well. for bernie sanders, when he wants to do, if he gets her with an single digits -- within

single digits and can create an emotional victory saying look how well i'm doing. host: nationally, he has closed the gap between him and hillary clinton. 291 delegates at stake for the democrats. what happens here? what are the polls saying? does hillary clinton win by a large margin? guest: the question will be, for bernie sanders, a lot of his -- independents could vote in the primary. new york, it is a closed primary. is to do very well here because there will be a northeastern stage, pennsylvania, maryland, connecticut coming up where she is supposed to do very well. they're hoping to shift the momentum, get it back into her corner and hope lee -- hopefully

this anti- right now, he is up 30 points, donald trump is clearly favored to win tonight. has put in some time here, but has been traveling to other places, acknowledging he will probably not win a lot of these districts. the real question is, can donald trump picking up -- pick up 85 of these delegates? if he comes out really strong and goes into these other states that are not ted cruz country, he can gain momentum after the stop.sin host: why does donald trump

believe the system of awarding delegates is rated? -- awardingd delegates is rigged? this has been a donald trump talking point, the establishment is against him, long before he even got into delegate math. he's been reeling against the washington establishment. he has been outfoxed and a lot of these delegates -- look at colorado or how ted cruz has been a tactician for getting selected so that after that first ballot, they can switch their vote to ted cruz. if it goes to a second or third ballot, you can see the momentum swing in ted cruz's favor. host: he was talking about it

being rigged. he talked about missouri. [video clip] >> the system is rigged. it is not meant for a guy like me who is not taking any money from these special interests, i'm self funding my campaign. peer. for it to, -- to come up here. [applause] >> it is a rigged system. i've never seen anything like it. when you have a colorado or wyoming, in the case of colorado, they were supposed to vote. they said there were no changes made, but there was. i announced in june, people saw i would do great in colorado and all of a sudden in august, they change the system. they took the boat away from the people of colorado. -- they took the vote away from the people of colorado.

i could have done really well because i'm good at dealing with -- you can take them out to hotels, take them on planes, do whatever you want to do, you know what? i said, no way. we are going to get there. it is a corrupt system, but we will get there. i believe we will do it much more easily than people think and we will do it with the first ballot. we will get to that 1237. host: explain what happened. guest: colorado was one of the states they did not have the vote. its ownblican party had internal meeting and they were able to select delegates that were not for donald trump. we heard a lot of this wrangling over are these candidates -- is sich going to be the

lebron james of meeting with delegates and having them switch their vote? donald trump is going from this flat -- to try to fix this problem he has identified where he could maybe not get that 1237 magic number and need to have a couple of ballots to become the actual nominee to get those delegates back in his favor. host: the republican apparatus is meeting in florida this week. the rnc chairman up on capitol hill today, what is he discussing? guest: they are meeting at the capitol hill club. to thealling republicans capitol hill to have a discussion about what is going to be in the rules. they will make final decisions

from a different things that have been proposed, whether you previous rnc rules -- there's a lot of different thoughts about this based on where you stand in the party and who you are supporting. cruz is trying to take control back. to telegraphrying what could actually happen. host: will they make a rule change? the roberts rules would require priebus --

guest: if the rnc members are -- it is much more likely you will have to have the delegate fight out where you have ted cruz and donald trump going at it. or mittof paul ryan romney who can come in at the end of the day. reportingtico mcconnell is -- mitch mcconnell increasingly optimistic about a second ballot in cleveland. lussier is up first in iowa. republican. is up first in iowa. republican. caller: i have concerns about

bad voter fraud. host: what is your concern? caller: i know of people in that have three or four drivers licenses and he has them all in different names, so that's how many times he gets to vote. that is voter fraud. i know obama and hillary are legalizing all the mexicans and asians -- host: legalizing all the mexicans and asians? where did you read that? caller: it came across the 71%om that illinois has increase -- this was on the , a 71% increase in

voter registration. they in new york today, are expecting a large turnout, too. we've seen that across the primaries and caucuses. people are registering now as republicans and democrats -- let's go to wanda, next. chattanooga, tennessee. democrat. caller: i was wondering if my analysis were right about the there's a boxing and aand you have hillary lower weight under the count and a person would be there to delegate whether this was legal or not, it would be fair. donald trump is like an who isdent

underqualified and bernie sanders is an independent who was overqualified. wrong -- am ir right or wrong? guest: any nominee needs to get that 1237 number. trump ort is donald candidate x, that is going to be the threshold -- whether they --nge the rules likely he does reach 1237? not a right now, it is high probability that he gets that exact number, but he is inng to do really well

connecticut, pennsylvania come even potentially in california. to 1100 or 1200 -- likelyare 30 shy, it is he could get it on the second ballot. host: you can go to politico in this story, trump orders new campaign hierarchy. michigan. dave, independent. caller: i call myself an independent but i typically vote republican. although, i do vote democrat. each man and woman has one vote.

they vote and someone counts them up and decides who the winner is. we don't need these politicians in the back smoke-filled room destroying the party. host: are you a donald trump supporter? caller: well, of the republicans, yes. conventionto the , if he doest votes not get the nomination come i'm voting straight democrat and i will never vote republican again. there is concern among the party establishment and the leadership that they don't want to be seen as having riot in cleveland saying this is a stolen election.

there is definite sensitivity while they are try to figure out these role changes and what they are going to do. host: we have a fourth line this morning for new york voters. 3.2-748-800 we want to get your thoughts on that. candidates have been spending a lot of time in york. there's about two weeks between wisconsin and york. between the candidates do a lot of politicking there. here is hillary clinton yesterday in new york. [video clip] i know some people have commented. i do pay attention. [laughter] very little sleep, but nevertheless, i do. some people have commented like, not with the plans -- enough with the plans, hillary.

just go out and make speeches. don't talk to loudly, but don't loudly,softly -- too but don't talk too softly. [laughter] [applause] >> for me, this election is not just about me. an agenda we present to new york tomorrow, that we presented to the country, that we vote on, because that will the us a chance to make progress we all want to see. [applause] host: a national poll from nbc shows bernie sanders has closed thegap between himself and former secretary of state. is it too late because of superdelegates? guest: right now, the math does not work in bernie sanders's favor. he has been doing extremely well in some of these estates. areuse of the way delegates

apportioned, hillary clinton is well far in advance. there's been very little, if any -- the only superdelegate that has gone for bernie sanders so far is senator merkley from oregon. right now, she is favored to win in new york. the math does not work in bernie sanders's favor. ahead by 30 trump points in new york as they get to vote today, the daily news out of new york city had this on their cover. "he's with stupid, too." hi there, maria. caller: thank you for taking my call pete i'm concerned about the superdelegates.

-- thank you for taking my call. i'm concerned about the superdelegates. they undermine the popular vote. no equal opportunity, this is disenfranchisement. i'm very concerned also about theyainstream media -- pick the candidate and say with their projection who is the winner. people stand in lines to cast their vote, the media is making projections to discourage people not to vote for this candidate. host: hillary clinton tweeted out that she is winning the popular vote, too. guest: there's been frustration about the superdelegate issue.

frustration she had when she was running in 2008. they started peeling away to barack obama. it has worked both ways for hillary clinton. she is winning the popular vote as well. host: why did the parties put in place superdelegates or this issue of delegates who are not bound to a certain candidate? guest: these are party rules that have been around for a long time. often times, if you look back in been someom others contested conventions, but it is very rare. kerry look at 2004, john had fielded up a month ago from now. this is very unusual. this secure by this point in 2012. we have not seen as much focus seen this much

focus on how the delegate count works. host: alexander in minnesota. republican. sick and tired of them saying donald trump is unqualified to be president. we voted in a president in the last eight years who was far from qualified. give him a chance. host: virginia. independent. vet.r: i am a disabled i worked with my congressmen and senators and he don't even care about helping the veterans at

all. there are other issues, too. there are too many issues that -- donald trump is another example of why these people are so disgusted because nobody wants to listen to the average voter. eventually, what is going to something to say about our congressmen and senators when we vote -- host: you get to vote for them in 2016. guest: absolutely. one of the things you are starting to hear is the friction between the voters who are supporting trump and where you've seen the party call on policies -- can he do more policy oriented speeches?

when he starts having more details, there will be a lot more actual conversations about how he might approach and administration, for example. host: mitt romney sang one of these candidates should get out. -- saying one of these candidates should get out. right now, what mitt john kasichying -- and ted cruz are fighting over the same faction of voters. as they go with this stop trump campaign, they would like to have all their energy go to one candidate and john kasich is only won one contest. states it is his desire to continue to campaign and say i'm here through the convention.

this is not something he has been planning for -- his team had a big meeting with a couple of operatives in washington to get more support, more money. new work, new jersey. james, a democrat. caller: how are you doing? -- ianory short, in 2002 --rge w. bush got to be pals me and george w. bush got to be pals. 2003 coming hillary clinton was senator in new york city.

we got to be friends for a while and he got kicked out -- he wrote me letters -- host: we have to get to your point here. did onehillary clinton thing for wall street, one thing for the people. in rhode island. independent. caller: good morning. i'm calling because this whole delegate situation from both the extremelyc have been disturbing to me.

i do agree with the democrat woman who called from south carolina. a rhode disturbed as , in york, that today it is a closed primary. i am not a trump supporter at all, however, he does speak to the facts of the situation. island, not only do we have a better, more , when we go into primary, we get to affiliate with either a democratic ballot or a republican ballot. host: do you think this could hurt donald trump? i don't think this

necessarily hurts donald trump. it hurts bernie sanders. he's relied more on being able to turn over independents to his side. donald trump has been able to attract different factions. but, this is an issue in york. it's about bernie sanders. -- this is an issue in new york. florida, bob is a democrat. caller: good morning, ladies. make a statement and ask one question. you girls remember back in 2012 when all the polls were showing obama was going to lose --

he gave the exact percentage and picked every senate race exactly. he's become known as the genius. he was getting his information from the online betting odds. over and ago, i went made a bet. , hillaryone, the odds clinton has led every day from the day she started. ,ight now, for several months rubio was against hillary. ,lthough it was her and him they called if the election was today, they give percentages. she always had at least a 10

--int percentage right now, they are saying if it is trump and hillary. --is clear it is going to be she is going to win. hillary clinton is going to be the next president. host: john in glen cove, new york. how are you voting today? you are an independent. caller: i'm not allowed to vote. i would love to support sanders in the election. the deadline was back in october of last year. i missed that. of these party rules are kind of bizarre. the race in iowa was a tie and that somehow put clinton ahead. in new hampshire

and that somehow increased her lead. guest: different states have different rules to vote. the iowa caucus, if there is not a winner, they are flipping a coin. i was in des moines for the iowa caucus and it is -- i've never seen anything like it in my life. part of it is state rules, part of it is about rules and how -- this proportioned election cycle has empowered regular citizens and people who maybe have not been involved in democratic or republican politics at the state level to get more involved. --t: mount vernon, new york rob, a democrat. caller: i am voting for hillary clinton. i wanted to talk a little bit about the party rules. i find it incredible that most people who want to vote in the primary actually don't know what

the political party rules are. these rules are made well in advance of any kind of selection of candidate or delegate or anything. if you want to participate in the process, you should make it your business to know what the rules of the party are. the idea that somehow independents and republicans and democrats can vote in any party they want makes no sense. a political party is a political party. cap members, they have rules and they are not democracies, they are private organizations. media really doesn't do a great job of explaining that to people. i feel like our political process suffers from it. we talk about superdelegates, on the democratic side, hillary clinton is way ahead of where barack obama was at this time. her lead is insurmountable, even without superdelegates.

guest: his point is well taken in the sense that these are -- on the superdelegates, it frustrates some people because they feel their vote should matter just as much, but he is correct. her lead is almost insurmountable. there's a lot of feeling that she will lock this up by the end of the month just in terms of sheer map. -- sheer math. bernie sanders will continue to hammer her on these issues. .ost: kent, independent rob has a point.

he said so much that i just wanted to mention that we've heard about the closed primary and open primary -- i live in a state where you can change a registration up to 30 days prior to an election. we have a closed primary. i believe in that system. you should be a member of that private organization for some reasonable period of time. you should be a member of that organization not right at the last minute. and then change your affiliation too independent. -- to independent. host: how are you going to vote today? caller: for hillary.

host: tell us why. caller: she is tried and true and she was our senator for two consecutive terms and i love the work that she does. she is reliable. host: why did you call in? have watched this program for a long time and i'm so glad you are on. i hope you conside continue for. it's great for people to get out there -- the fact that people are complaining today about not being able to vote boggles my mind. they've known for years that independents cannot vote in the primary unless they have a candidate -- they could switch at any time host:. cynthia is also a immigrant in york. an independent who changed to be a democrat after bernie sanders announced.

i've been watching him since he voted against the iraq war. i've been watching c-span longer than that. thank you so very much. new york politics is dominated by insider trading. we are also voting to replace two of the three men in the room -- this is what new york politics is all about. there's a debate today about whether or not independents who cast a ballot will be counted. joyce in kentucky. republicans. welcome to the conversation. caller: thank you. i was watching c-span late last night. on -- this guy is running for president. i want to know if it's for real. darrell -- i cannot

member the last name. -- remember the last name. he is running under the congressional party. they arenderstand why allowed to just throw somebody in there. the man did not know what he was talking about. it turned out to be a stunt. guest: i'm not familiar with this. york, ara in new democrat. who will you choose? caller: i'm voting for bernie. i just found out because my father and my brother are -- i thought were democrats. my brother is an independent. -- ill vote for hillary did not know he was an independent.

i'm wondering, why don't they have an independent primary where they could vote? in favor of a democrat or republican. independents will be voting in the general election. there is no independent candidate running right now. jackie in manassas, virginia. a democrat. welcome. caller: i'm calling because i really object to everybody complaining about not being able primaryin a democratic when they are an independent and did not change their allegiance. i work with the democratic party , i caucus locally can i do things to support the democratic party.

me, if you are going to be an independent, you should be working with the party that you are supporting. to demand to come into our house and rearrange the furniture and tell us what to do and how to do it really makes me angry. because i'm sitting here putting my money, my effort into and i feelmy party like the sender's is out to ruin the democratic party -- sanders campaign is out to ruin the democratic party and sully hillary clinton to the point where it will make it hard for her to win. allegationsing impugning her character about, for instance, the wall street thing. when bernie sanders took wall street money when he got his

$10,000 from hillary clinton's p ac in 2006, you cannot walk around and act like you are pure when your house is not clean. he has the ability to make the statements when she is going and -- she went and has spent where youf dollars have to put your agenda into actual policy and law. tot: i want anna palmer respond to you. our party insider saying this criticism from bernie sanders hurts to clinton in a general election. -- hurts hillary clinton in a general election. debate, they last were really going after each

other aggressively. he called out her credibility and whether she was qualified or not. you've seen a shift in terms of where he has been spending his energy. certainly the attacks on wall street have been raised. he has stayed away from the e-mail controversy and any kind of personal relationship issues that her husband might have. he has stayed away from those things that republicans will hit her on. one of the questions in the coming weeks, if she does win tonight, is there more of a coming together of the party? will he work with her in terms of getting the excitement and enthusiasm for her candidacy? darrell castle was named as the candidate for the constitution party. he joins the race for the white house representing a party that

has never won a seat in the house or in congress. stan in duncan, pennsylvania. democrat. caller: i think we should do away with the whole delegate system. dnc -- i am a pa voter. 54 on the ballot -- host: how does it work in pennsylvania? guest: he's talking about the frustration we've heard, the state rules have some bound delegates based on who wins the overwhelming majority of the state and who wins in congressional districts. this is what has been the fight all along. when you hear donald trump , iing the system is rigged

can win the popular vote but i still will not get all the delegates. host: do you get to vote today? caller: i'm really not sure. i had voted green in the last few elections. they could not tell me at the board of elections -- i'm going to give it a try. i would vote for bernie sanders. when hillary was a senator for new york, i did write to her over and over again about the iraq war. the response i got, nothing but the bush talking points.

my reason for leaving the democrats is really the iraq war. that's why i voted green in the last few elections. host: sorry to cut you off. will you vote for hillary clinton if she gets the nomination? caller: at this point, i don't feel that, but i'm not quite certain. guest: i think what you are starting to see what the frustration where everyone says bernie sanders is just getting the college students. he's getting enthusiasm from people across the political spectrum. he is tapped into frustration donalde iraq war -- trump asked happened to a lot of that anger as well. into a lot of that anger as well. host: what are you watching for tonight? guest: the results should come in early.

what happens in manhattan will be big. what happens for donald trump in does of the update vote -- he get that threshold of on 95 or 85 delegates? is ted cruz or john kasich able to pull an upset? host: how many delegates could they get? guest: we are basing it on -- because it is congressional district by district and ted cruz has been good at getting some of the precision campaigning, you will see 80 delegates for trump, maybe more. they are fighting over those 15 or so. host: for democrats, what are you watching? guest: it will be interesting to see how much she wins by. will she win by double digits, get the enthusiasm back or is bernie sanders able to close the

gap? 10, sheins by more than gets enthusiasm. our coverage of election results, speeches, your phone calls, 90 clock p.m. eastern -- 9:00 pm eastern tonight. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: speaker's rooms, washington, d.c. april 19, 2016. i hereby appoint the honorable ileana ros-lehtinen, to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, paul d. ryan, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the order of the house of january 5, 2016, the chair will now recognize members fr