conceal carry license to go into other states. click on the congressional chronicle. off the floor negotiations continue on 2018 federal spending. current spending authority runs out friday night. they're considering a two-week extension while they get agreement on spending for the rest of the year. we talked to a reporter about it this morning on "washington journal." ferris, budget reporter for politico, joining us on the phone. sarah, what is the latest on the efforts to pass what we're hearing might be some sort of continuing resolution to keep the government funded? uest: speaker ryan's plan to have this stop spending pass in the house this week, those egotiations are literally happening as we speak. i'm standing outside a meeting caucus e house freedom was meet thanksgiving morning trying to decide whether or not to support this bill, a so-called clean spending bill,

nothing attached to it, except funding government through the 22nd, they are meeting with speaker ryan in the next hour that second ter meet nothing two days with speaker ryan, freedom caucus a decision come to about whether to support this, this is important because if this group of conservatives get onboard with the plan, speaker ryan has to go to to pass this to pass this spending bill. really things are on the wire, we have the house really needs to pass this bill in the next 48 hours or so to get to the senate passage vote,iday so we're holding tight trying to see what the freedom caucus will do.de to host: what are concerns of the freedom caucus and you have any of the vote ow count at this point? are they leaning one way or the other? they started whipping the vote count clean cr earlier this had a lot of undecided, the count wasn't looking good, to postpone a d

meeting that would have set up the vote on this. afternoon.happen this we are hoping to get freedom caucus says they will have a before 3:00 meeting with the rules committee. hings are happening kind of last minute here, but it does sound like the freedom caucus is concerned about getting rolled democrats, they are worried speaker ryan will be forced to deal with democrats anyway, they need to have support in the leaderof senate minority chuck schumer, he has to sign on to this or it will not pass, the freedom caucus trying to make a last-ditch effort to have influence over talks and running up to the wire. host: as we get down to the ire, if there is some sort of short-term continuing resolution, at this point, what issues other policy might get wrapped up into some ort of year-end deal besides simply just funding the government, keeping the lights 2018?r going into

guest: there isn't ever-growing ist of policy issues likely going to make it to the december 22nd bill fthat is the path the decides on today. we have not only massive package disaster nes and supplemental funding, considered house do by many republicans, that is almost certainly going to get attacked. we have children's health funding, that has been out through september 30th, we have some key security, reauthorization policies, the list is just ever growing and republicans just can't seem to agree on what this cr. in they are still fighting over what to do with this cr. putting out n't their position yet, they are watching house republicans they on this to see if can get votes to carry thisso their own. house democrats will probably this if they can't get conservative votes. host: before you go, we heard of rescheduled meeting at the white house with

democratic leaders and the is ident, perhaps tomorrow, that still on, what do we know about it? guest: yes. as well as eaders, house speaker, paul ryan, senate mitch mcconnell will meet with president trump tomorrow, make or break for talks.g the house will likely voted on stopgap bill, this meeting will friday deadline, this is really for the longer-term spending bill, they to decide how much money actually spend in fiscal year we to not know how much will go for defense and ondefense program this, is major source of stall, of why the spending talks have been so many months. this is a really crucial moment, we will hear for the first time democratic and republican leadership are on board with the same amount of about g and likely talk the other simmering political issues like immigration and could land on the spending bill.

host: a complicated program. sarah ferris, you can read her >> all of that ahead in the house. meanwhile today, texas democrat al green plans to start the impeachment process shortly after the house meets at noon to force a vote on impeaching president donald trump. his is the second attempt by mr. green. he spoke this morning on "washington journal" how it will happen. rom texas, author of articles of impeachment against president trump. he intends to force a vote on impeachment at some point today. explain how you intend to do that, when this will all happen? thank you. please allow me to say, i love my country, i don't do this with any degree of solace. this is not something that i came to congress to do.

it is being done because i believe that the president is truly unfit to hold office. i can say more about that at a later time. question, atr your or near the 12:00 hour, we will go to the floor and present a privileged resolution. this will be a resolution to impeach donald john trump, president of the united states of america, for high misdemeanors. when that resolution is presented, that means i will read it and give notice to the conference about what the intentionality is. once it has been read and the notice has been given, then the speaker decides when the actual resolution will be read again. and he decides whether there motions made to your table the resolution, to send it , or there may be a

motion to vote it up or down. my hope is to have a motion to vote it up or down because i will support impeachment. if the motion to table is made, i will oppose that, because that would prevent us from having the vote to actually impeach the president. they moved to table would be antithetical to this. a motion to send it to committee would be antithetical to this. i don't want to see it go to committee, tabled, i want to see it voted up or down. causingow that this is a good deal of consternation. for those that suffer consternation, you have my regrets. i am a person who travels the road less traveled. i know that this is a bumpy road, it has a lot of curves, has a lot of potholes full of racism, bigotry, hatred. i have traveled this road.

i don't encourage anyone to join me. host: impeachment on the grounds of high misdemeanors. what specifically? the president is unmindful of the duties of his high office, the dignities and pieties thereof. he has brought shame and dishonor on the presidency, brought ridicule. he has, under the guise of political correct this, has espoused words that do more than insult. he has caused harm to people. by way of an example, he called a member of congress performer her lawful, ethical duties, a wacky person. in doing this, this member has received a lot of animus, a lot way,te has been thrown her to the extent she has taken extra precautions.

occasions, he has said things that impact other people. when he said they were very nice people among the bigots in charlottesville, the kkk, anti-semites, those who preach and teach hate -- but he said that. he aligned the presidency, the majesty and dignity of the presidency with hatemongers. when he did this, my dear friend, he allow those people there shouting blood and soil to go back to their jobs with some degree of comfort knowing that the president had aligned himself with them. when he did that, those people went back to jobs working in restaurants, people go in and buy food. people that they had this hatred toward. loan officers. people trying to get loans probably encountered some degree of difficulty because of how

they looked or what their religion was. but it is bigger than members of congress. host: the president unlikely to get impeached by this congress, we are not sure that you can even get a full vote today. why do this? guest: there will be a vote. the vote to table is still a vote that likes to impeachment. host: you will get people on the record. sending it to committee. there will be a vote. i want to make that clear. the mostid that, honorable question, why do this? the honorable answer is this. when rosa parks took that seat on the bus, i'm not sure, in suspect that she did not think that she would end nvidia's racism that night, but she knew that she was doing the right thing. by doing the right bank, she started a spark that would start

the civil rights movement. black did not have to surrender seats in the front for whites in the front. sometimes you just have to do the right thing for that reason, more than any other. when you are doing the right thing, you have a good deal of that you may not be judged properly by the people who are your contemporaries, but those who look to the vista of time will judge you properly. housebefore he takes the floor today, congressman al green with us. taking your calls. starting on the line for democrats. leland, north carolina, a democrat. go ahead. are you there?

we will go to our line for independents. malik in arlington, texas. guest: how are you this morning? iowa have a couple of comments and a correction for the representative. caller: articles of impeachment, will that discuss anything about when devin nunes met with an individual at the white house where he did not negotiate with the white house in a private room to give out information? guest: i have no information about that in the articles of impeachment. caller: what about president trump handshaking president erdogan, after he sent his security forces out in d.c. to attack u.s. citizens and peaceful protesters? no, sir. i'm sure there are many things i don't have any articles. what i have done is provide his own words, such that people can understand how he insights

hatred and hostility. also i wanted to correct year earlier, when you said charlottesville, you said they were bigoted, they are actually nazis. flag, andd a foreign they pledged allegiance to adolf hitler. host: we have your point, malika. guest: i will not differ on what you said, sir. host: eric, white plains, new york. also an independent. caller: thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak. i want to make a comment and i will end with a question. i'm an african-american and i voted for donald trump. i know this will come as a shock. the reason why, i think the democrats took the black vote for granted. whensaying this because you look at any major city in america, baltimore, chicago, atlanta, black on black crime is

just off the hook. but i do not see our leader talk about it. they only get mad when it is a white man who killed a black man. donald trump was voted as the president of these states. donald trump was not voted by russia. he was voted because democrats and republicans are so out of touch with us. do you understand what we want? do you think it is so urgent to impeach donald trump than to take care of what is going on in our african-american community? you for your call. i believe there is an urgency. i believe the framers of the constitution provided a remedy for a president who commits misty meets -- misdeeds. this demeanor's main misdeeds. the remedy is impeachment. this is not about democrats or the actions or inactions of democrats as it relates to

crime, or republicans and their actions or inactions. this is about democracy, about government, about government by the people, for the people. it is about our republic and what franklin said when he reminded us, we have one, if we can keep it. i plan to do all that i can to keep the republic. i understand that these high misdemeanors are creating harm within our society that may be very difficult to care, if not impossible in some circumstances. host: want to talk about your party's leadership reaction to these articles of impeachment. nancy pelosi last month during an appearance on cnn. >> lindsey graham says that if you and the democrats take the house back in 2018, the first thing you will do is impeach president trump, is that true? >> no, i believe that what we do , we have a responsibility first and foremost to unify the

nation. second of all, you cannot go down any that were the facts of law. if it is there, perhaps it will come out in these investigations. the left of the party is so annoyed with me for not impeaching president bush or going into iraq, what could be worse than that?? but the fact is we have to be saying what this means to people in their lives. somebody has some facts that comes forth about president trump, but the chips fall where they may. but it is not someplace that i think we should go. again, i don't want to dampen anybody's enthusiasm for what they believe, because a lot of people in the country think that president trump should be impeached. our election is about meeting the needs of the american bille, stopping this tax right now, which is an insult to the intelligence of the american people, and assault on their financial security.

that is what we should be talking about. host: that was nancy pelosi net -- last month. the she want you going forward with this vote today? guest: first, the immediate knowledge that i have great respect for the leader, and there are good many people who share that view. there are prominent people, i might add. that is not a view i have not heard from many quarters. but it is not about them. it is not about the republicans or the democrats. this is really about our country, justice. it is about what george mason called to the attention of the framers when they were devising article four, section two of the constitution. it was not whether a president could be above the law -- and he should not be -- it was whether a president could be above justice. all laws have to be just, but some laws are not come as was evidenced by the civil rights movement, some of the laws that

perpetuate segregation. it is really about justice for people in this country who are being harmed by the fax. the facts are these. the president has said things that have incited hatred and hostility among the american people. andrew johnson in 1868 was impeached for the high of saying bad things about the members of congress. he was impeached, article 10. you cannot, as president be unmindful of the high duties, the dignity of associated with the high office. what he did when he retreated those three tweets with reference to what we will call muslims in england. incited a lot of hatred. us ins not only impact this country, it impacts our relationship with our allies.

he has brought shame and dishonor on the presidency. i have no quarrels with what others will say, i have respect for them, but it is not about them. host: we talk about the president's duties in the constitution. the chief law enforcement officer in the country. the president's lawyers have argued in the rush investigation that the president cannot obstruct justice because he is the chief law enforcement officer. do you agree with that view? guest: this is what they have done, and other lawyers have, too. they have gone to some great law schools. lawnt to thurgood marshall school and i had the privilege of having otis king as my professor. we learned a president can be impeached for his high crimes and misdemeanors, which is a political action. only the house of representatives has jurisdiction over the impeachment process. 435 members, each will have a

vote. this impeachment is something that any member of the house can bring before the body. high crimes and misdemeanors. so these lawyers, a good many of them, tend to conflate criminal law, and the judicial aspect of the law, with the political aspect. in the house, we deal with the political side. if they want to get the president indicted for up traction of justice and want to use the judicial process, let them do it if they like to. but the political side in the the presidents, committed an impeachable act when he fired comey, went on national tv in prime time and indicated that he was thinking about the russian thing when he did it. the house of representatives can impeach the president for that. all of the investigations are great if you want to bring criminal charges.

but i would give this admonition. be careful about putting all of your eggs in the basket of , because, atges the end of the day, if there are no criminal charges brought, are you still going to say the president should not be impeached, or the dastardly deeds he has perfected? i think not. i am not one of those who believe we ought to outsource the investigation. it is ok that it is done, i welcome it. but i think the judiciary committee has an obligation to the american people to fulfill its mission, its duties. the judiciary committee all to be looking into this for the purpose of ascertaining whether the president committed an impeachable act. louisville, kentucky. stephen is a democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. i want to first start out by saluting the patriotism, courage, and eloquence and wisdom of congressman green, and

people like him in my party. for, assi i have no use far as i'm concerned. i think she is a wimp, quite frankly. with all of the stuff happening in north korea, with the man this way is trying to ride on the cage overseas, we have every right to want something done about this issue, first and foremost. let me just say that i am a democrat, but i do care about the health, safety, and welfare of my country, and i put that number one. i would also like to point out something, if i could. i don't want just impeachment, i want indictment. this man has committed crimes for many years. we all know in our hearts he has. i smelled the two bit scoundrel all over him when he was running. i knew he was evil. i just do not understand how people can sit here and talk

about all of this. he has donehe with pardoning arpeggio, roy moore, supporting this pedophile, not to mention that he is -- they are talking about he is trying to fire mueller, someone who is doing the job that the republicans in the house and senate should have been doing to begin with. host: we have your point. congressman? guest: honest people can have differences of opinion. without making this about speaker pelosi, i think she is an honorable person. i do not have a quarrel with her at all, or anybody else. as a matter of fact, if people vote against the impeachment resolution, i will not be offended by that. i wills 434-1, understand, and we will go on. but i understand and will say

that the lady is correct about the assessment of the president and what he has said and how it has impacted us. let me give you an example of something he did before he became president. the central park five. five young minorities accused of doing some very ugly things to a white female. they were convicted. by the way, the president was one of the big cheerleaders pushing that. spent money to have ads. after they were convicted, there was a finding later that they were not guilty. the president never retreated, never said that he was wrong, spent all of that money, never recognized the fact that they were found not guilty. some people would say, they were probably found not guilty on a test technicality. not so, my friend. they were found not guilty based on dna evidence. they were not the people who perpetrated the crime.

the president stood his ground on something that he now knows, or should know, was an inappropriate position. host: michael on twitter wants us to talk about how high of eight hurdle impeachment and conviction is. guest: impeachment is in the house, conviction in the senate. goes forward, it will have a trial. if two thirds of the senate say, by their judgment, that the president should be impeached pursuant to the articles from the house, then the president would be removed from office. the senate could also decide that he cannot hold any other office related to the government in the future. in terms of the standard in the house, a majority of the members of the house voting can cause the president to be impeached, which means indicted, sent to the senate.

similar to indictment but not the same thing because it's political. host: evansville, indiana. charles is a republican. good morning. caller: representative green, thank you for your service down there in houston, texas. i know they took a hit in a hurricane. guest: thank you, sir. wackyr: i do not believe is an impeachable slur, racial. i'm a bipolar vietnam that, have been called worse. have been called worse. i think president trump as adolescent behavior. several presidents have ignore the middle east for so long. it has become a turmoil. at least he is putting more troops over there and taking care of the north korean situation. thank you for taking my call. thank you, sir, thank you

for your country. i don't think we can ever thank you enough. candidly speaking, i don't think we have properly accorded you the banks that you deserve. in terms of being called worse, i have been called a lot worse than wacky. i grew up in the segregated south, the southern segregated south. the rights that were recognized by the constitution for me, friends and neighbors, denied me. nvidia'sat discrimination looks like, i know what it smells like, sounds like. i even know what it tastes like. this, i speakf from the point of view of understanding how words can impact others, how they can insight others. emily dickinson reminds us that a word is dead. when it comes from the

president, the chief executive officer, the high magistrate of the united states of america, when it comes from the mouth of the president and you say wacky congressperson, there are other people who will take that language and see it as a license to do harm to do -- to someone. do harm to people in ways that we cannot imagine. we all need to have additional security now. we don't need the president in people to do dastardly deeds. that is what this is about. i thank you for your service to your country. you are a person to be properly honored and recognized. anita in san antonio. line for independents. caller: good morning, congressman. for salute your bravery fighting this. i do think that he should be

impeached. i think he is totally unfit to be president. i don't think he is just wacky, i think he is mentally unstable. he has the nuclear codes and a lot of power and he goes on twitter and insults other nuclear powers, like north korea. there are so many things that bother me about him. his misogyny, his xenophobia, racism, the way he divides this country. way, he has only a third of the support of the american people right now. a third of the american people are deciding for everyone else. that bothers me. he lost the popular vote. i think he was installed by russia. i don't think he won the election fairly and squarely. guest: thank you you have triggered a thought that i have not shared. it is this. , toave allowed our civility

allow the president to perpetrate this hateful incivility. now that hasandard been imposed that is quite onerous. here is the standard. the president can call a senator a candidatean call running for president, as he but if we tell the truth about the president, if we speak truth to power and decide him properly, we are somehow not being properly fickle. for example, if i call the president a bigot, there would people say, a member of congress should not call the president a bigot, notwithstanding all of his actions that would indicate that that in fact is what the president is. so he has the authority now, seems, to use his incivility to

our detriment, because we have to maintain a level of civility that is antithetical to the best interest of the people of this country. like it or not, we have elected a bigot as president. host: we want to get to kathleen. los angeles. line for republicans. thank you for waiting. good morning. i am calling from california. i am a black american woman. i voted for president trump know, you say some fancy words -- this is rhetoric, this is opinion, this is not fact. data is fox. -- facts. you say it's not about democrat or republican but the democrat ofty has had the support black america for five decades. my people, we do not understand what politics is.

it is about power and economic well-being of black americans. i am assuming you were elected the economic well-being of black americans. i just came from skid row in los angeles. there are rows and rows and rows of black men on skid row in los angeles. for five decades, the democrats have had the loyalty of black americans and democrats have keptd -- democrats have black americans are uneducated, ill-informed, incarcerated, and poor. that is why on mandate for trump, we have all of these black americans calling in giving their opinions about trump's personality. for blackke 228 years americans, for the average black family to catch up to the average white family.

228 years. we have been in this country 500 years. we built america. our ancestors built america along with white americans. host: we have your point. we want to give the congressman a chance to respond. guest: thank you. i don't differ about the role of african-americans in making america great. i don't differ with you in the notion that the democratic party has not done all that it can and should do for a loyal constituency. it, but it mention would not differ with you if you had said the republican party ignores democrats. one takes us for granted and the other ignores us. i will not differ with you on those points. i would also add that you are right, democrats are loyal, loyal americans. we are the ones that made cotton king and america great. here is where i would share some information that you may not be in favor with.

the facts are that the president did say that there were some very fine persons in charlottesville who were neo-nazis, klansmen, bigots, not thepremacists, kind of people who will make america great again. the facts are that the president has called a member of congress said that professional football players are sob's. b is a dog. he called them mothers -- these professional athletes dogs. that is not acceptable. fine people among those neo-nazis in charlottesville is unacceptable. sending out that tweet about the muslims is unacceptable. he will tolerate the kkk to a greater extent than he will islam.

that is on its of the mole. this president has committed high misdemeanors. andrew johnson was impeached or less. articles of impeachment will be brought against him today. host: i know you have to go. before you do, how is houston, are you getting what you need? guest: well, no. the state of texas is not. florida is not. certainly, the islands in puerto rico are not. bentcongress seems to be on returning billions to oflionaires, at the expense the least, the last, the people that really need help right now. there seems to be a notion in congress that the very rich need more, need to do more, and that the very poor can do more with less. it seems to be a belief that if you give money to people at the fulfill aow they will

social responsibility, obligation to make sure it gets down to those at the bottom. if they were really sincere with this legislation, they would have included raising the minimum wage. raise the minimum wage to a living wage. they could put that in this legislation, making the minimum wage a living wage. you want to make sure the money gets to the people at the bottom, make the minimum wage a living wage. i don't find favor with what they are doing. texas is still suffering. you ride the freeways, you think things are great. but you go into the communities and neighborhoods and you see people with their homes still got it, you see the problem. you mentioned people i represent. near my office, there is a place where people are asking for help. i pulled up and stopped. the man said to me, thank you for what you are doing for the

articles of impeachment. a lady at a church, as i was leaving, not a very rich person, said this is the right thing to do. i represent those people. i thank you. host: congressman al green will be on the floor around new today. if you want >> c-span capitol hill producer creg cap lynn treat tweething the house impeachment vote today will likely be a procedural on the motion to table the appeal of the ruling of the chair. if it's approved on representative al green's impeachment resolution itself would not be allowed. that happens shortly after the house gavels in at noon eastern. live coverage on c-span. the house taking up a bill to let gun owners with concealed carry permits in one state wear their guns in other states that allow concealed weapons. it includes provisions on the national instant background

check position and the bump stocks. you can read the house concealed carry gun legislation at c-span.org slash congress. lipping to it from our homepage that. will take you to the congressional chronicle. you can read the resolution by representative al green. this morning on "washington journal," we talked to a capitol hill reporter about how the gun bill came to the floor. updated about another key issue facing congress today, specifically in house, the house of a resentatives voting on legislative package that includes both expanded gun ights and new rules on gun restrictions to explain it all, we're joined on the phone by dumane, reporter for mcclatchy. house of at the representatives is voting on the and how this got to floor. guest: well, the house is voting on actually a package of three related to gun ssues, the first is called

concealed carry reciprocity act, of the ive priority national rifle association that would allow conceal gun carry valid across state lines, every state has different standards by which conceal carry permits for firearms are issued and just like a drivers license, permits would be recognized from state to state, they currently are not transferable. the other two pieces of legislation in this package is the fixed nicks bill, the national information for criminal background check system. that federal background check system currently doesn't have in of the mechanisms needed place to prevent firearms from getting in the wrong hands, problem we have seen in some of the mass shootings in and years.hs this would create a variety of

enforcement mechanisms to make agency te and federal are complying with the law, that is already on the books, make guns don't get into the wrong hands, the third require he department of justice to release opinion on whether bump accessory to make assault rifles more lethal are more severe ct to criminal sentencing. that's of course an accessory shooter in las vegas dozens of e out people at a outdoor concert. issues that are important to both gun right supporters and for new gun restrictions, how did this package of bills come together put together?hey guest: yeah, so republicans have wanted to move the concealed carry reciprocity act for months there was republican leaders

intending to move this on the after the august recess. the shoot nothing las vegas made complicated to move any legislation that could be perceived by critics of expanded access and gun loosening of gun restrictions, you know, a public going to be relations nightmare, if you will, with bipartisan coalition around strengthening background concern about the legality to bump stocks. leaders guided packaging, latter two bills, oncealed carry act would perhaps make this legislation more palatable, would perhaps moving a e optics of bill that is such a priority of the nra, which is so reviled and demonized by democrats and members on the left, most democrats. moderate some democrats who will vote for the package, gun owners, they are red states and rural

communities. that thet very well be bump stock component and background check component are good deal,ake this a something worth voting on, but vast majority of democrats are convinced that this is a of deal and there's plenty outrage to go around. i think we will see mostly party vote this actual. host: when does the senate take up this legislation? guest: the senate doesn't have a john cornyn, number two republican, wants to move the background check bill, which he is the chief sponsor in the senate, he wants to move that quickly. actually thinks he could get unanimous consent agreement and having roll call vote on this, which might be correct. however, this cannot move with the concealed carry reciprocity act. not enough support for