the immigration lawyers association discusses the future of the daca program. patrise lee onwuka, on conservatives and women's issues. and stat news washington correspondent lev facher on bipartisan legislation to address opioid addiction. >> what is your reaction today from what you heard here in washington. mocrats 202-737-8 -- 202-748-80000. republicans 20 -74 -8001. independents 202-748-8002. send us a tweet at c-span wj or go to facebook.com-c-span. we'll get to your calls here in

just a few minutes. let's begin with the president yesterday in the cabinet room with the lawmakers. here's what what he had to say about limiting gun access. president trump we have made suggestions to many of you and i think you are going to put a lot of those suggestions in place. you can have your own ideas. certain ideas sound good. you can harden a site to level nobody can get in. if the shooter's inside, if he gets in the door and closes the door we can't get people in it's going to cost hundreds of millions of dollars all over the country. and we'll have nice hard sites, the door closes and now we can't get in. have to send a tractor through the walls. that.e to be careful of we have to create a culture that cherishes life and human dignity. that.going to all sit

we have around, we're going to come up with some ideas. hopefully we can put those ideas in a very bipartisan bill. it would be so beautiful to have one bill everybody could support as owe supposed 15 bills, everybody has their own bill. if we could have one terrific bill that everybody started by the people around around, we're going this table. special people. these are the people that seem to be just most interested, very interested in this problem. there's a big problem. so, with that i think i'd lake to start -- babe i'll ask john, you can can start off and we'll go back and forth. we'll leave the media for a while. it's something that can be done. there is no reason for this. but again i really believe that those people idealistic, wonderful, a beautiful thing. if you think that somebody's going to be able to walk in a a school and they feel they are not going to have bullets coming at them from the other you are never going to solve the problem. i feel that. i feel that. i'm certainly open to suggestions. host: president trump with the

cameras in the room yesterday met with a group of bipartisan lawmakers asking them to move forward on some gun legislation. take a look at the headlines and how it's framed in the newspapers this morning. front page of the "wall street journal," the president says he wants action on guns. "the new york times" has it on their front page, trump warms to gun limits. jolting the n.r.a. and also in the "washington post," trump sends mixed signals on guns. and also this morning front page of the "washington times" a. conservative newspaper here in washington, trump urges senate bill.s expanded gun check the president, we have to do something about it. the president also sparked a furious response on social medi. the president, from conservatives and gun owners by saying he would go so far as ignoring due process rights to confiscate guns from dangerous. dangerous.

the free beacon as this on their website. n.r.a. response to gun control proposals, discussed during white house meeting with congressional officials. in that article they say, the n.r.a. said this, while today's meeting made for great t.v., the gun control proposals discussed would make for bad policy that would not keep our children safer. the spokesperson for the n.r.a.'s institute of legislative action. instead of pushing law-abiding gun owners for the action-e acts of a deranged lunatic, our leaders should pass meaningful reforms that would prevent future tragedies. what do all of you think? tony in martinsburg, west virginia, independent. good morning to you. on the air. caller: good morning. i would like to know the people who have spouses who have died, who the spouses brought guns for the home, for people who are mentally ill who live in the woods to protect themselves, not

only from people intruding in their homes, but also bears and what have you coming out the woods, for a family members' parents, what have you, who have died, who had guns in their home, as a way of life, to protect themselves once again, not only from people but from bears and what have you -- tonya.k, caller: when do president trump want us to take our guns to? we didn't buy them. and we're in the woods. so what would he tonya. caller: when do president trump want have us to do? host: robert in logan -- chris, excuse me, in auburn, maine. caller: i'm a far left wing liberal. i got 12 guns. and i live in a fairly conservative state in the sense we've got a crazy conservative governor here. i will say, i listened, i read the "washington times," i read fox news all the time. i also look at huffington post and other liberal sources. i get the n.r.a. a weekly

newsletter by email. every single week for the last nine years the n.r.a. has been telling us that obama and democrats want to take away your guns without due process and destroy the second amendment. i think it's insanely funny that trump yesterday came out and said what we have to do is take the guns and worry about due process later. i can't help but think these republicans are all idiots. they are fools because they voted for this moron. it's just been fun watching it. that's my thought. host: chris, as you said here's what the president had to say, he had an exchange with vice president mike pence, he was talking about a california law. the president interrupted. take a listen. >> you have spoken about gun violence restraining orders. they are called california has a version of this. i think your meeting with governors earlier this week individually and as a group, you spoke about states taking steps. but the focus is to literally

give families and give local law enforcement additional tools if an individual is reported to be a potential danger to themself or others. allow due process. , one's rights are trampled but the ability to go to court, obtain an order o, collect not only the firearms, but any weapons in the possession -- president trump: if i take the firearms first and then go to court. that's another system. a lot of times by the time you go to court it takes so long to the due t to get process procedures, i like taking the guns early. like in this crazy man's case, that just took place the due process procedures, i like in f, had he a lot of -- to go to court would take a long time. you could do what you're saying, take the guns first, go to due process second. host: that comment royaled up many of the conservatives here in this country. dana, a spokesperson for the n.r.a. reacted. re's the examiner with her

quote. the president, the n.r.a. quote. the president, the n.r.a. is also going to protect due process for innocent americans. and then a statement about the meeting, strong leaders don't automatically agree with the last thing that was said to them. we have the second amendment and due process of law for a reason. we're not ditching any constitutional protections simply because the last person, the president talked to today doesn't like them. we're not the president just tweeting out moments ago here, many ideas. some good and some not so good emerge interested our bipartisan meeting on school safety yesterday at the white house. background checks a big part of the conversation. gun-free zones, after many years a bill should emerge. respect the second amendment is also what the president had to safmente we want to get your thoughts on this. as washington discusses this, what do you want them to know what should be done on gun policy? rob inert logan, utah, you're

next. good morning. caller: good morning. i'm a gun owner myself, i have been all my life. i served in the army. anybody who does want assault weapon or owns one, that is the first red flag. they took about these red flags. they aren't good for target practice, they aren't good for hunting. the only thing they are good for is shooting a lot of people. and the government's not out to take everybody's gun. i know that. that's totally foolish. but if you're proud to own one of these darn things, more power to you. thank you for letting me get my talk in. thank you. host: the president yesterday backed or said he would consider tougher background checks for gun buyers, greater police power to seize guns from mentally disturbed people, the outlawing of bump stock device, and

tighter age limits for buying rifles such as those used in parkland. most striking were trumps remarks what he called excessive checks and balances that limited what could be done to prevent mentally unfit people from buying or keeping guns. frank in abingdon, virginia. what was your reaction? aller: he made good sense. they need ex-cops in the schools would be a good thing. i'm not too much on giving teachers -- i have known good teachers and some really stupid teachers. host: what do you think about banning bump stocks? what do you think about raising -- caller: there ain't no sense in having those things. sense in having these crazy ar-15's or whatever they are called. it's stupid to have a gun like that. i've got a couple of friends that's got them. it's just dumb for them to have them. host: how do they use them, your

friends? do they use them for hunting? caller: no. nobody hunt with those. no telling how many trees you'd chop down. i got one friend that's got property out away from everybody, and every once in a while he'll take an automatic or 20 here and do 15 real quick. and then he's home. he wouldn't shoot anybody. host: why do you real quick. and then he's think your friends want them? have they told you? caller: i don't know. i don't know why anybody would want them. i don't understand. ve got a couple of .22's and pistol my grandfather had when he was a deputy sheriff. that's about it. the fellow that you had a while ago that was bragging about being a left wing lunatic and having 12 guns, i can tell him something he can do with two or three of those guns.

host: california, independent. hi, robert. caller: hi, greta. i'm act -- i'm a none voter, card carrying nonvoter in california. just to follow up on your last caller about the fellow that said he was far left. we don't need those kind of people. they kind of scare me. they very much do. my thing is just the f.b.i. had this guy knocking on the door, begging them, and people begging him please take this guy in. the f.b.i. would not do that. they had him. all these little parkland people. and then the cowards, the police department, i'm former police. no way would i have stood out there, none. i would have went in there. i don't care. my daughter was in there or your daughter or somebody's son. i'm just so and -- mad at law enforcement. talking about the f.b.i. today and that sheriff's department.

that's my comment. host: can i get your opinion on this, "the washington post" says, in 2013 just months after the sandy hook massacre, a version of the legislation was proposed by toomey and manchin. those are two senators. it failed to advance on a 54-46 vote. falling short of the necessary 65 democrats and 41 republicans opposed it. the n.r.a. opposed the legislation arguing it will not prevent the next shooting and will not solve violent crime and will not keep our kids safe in schools. they have expressed a willingness to revisit their legislation and a number of senators who voted no in 2013 said since the shooting in florida they might consider -- reconsider their positions. for now many lawmakers want to pass the narrower legislation related to background checks. although that bill is tied up in objections in the senate. democrats, what they are talking about is democrats favoring a much broader expansion of but mandate ecks

them for all private gun sales. including gun shows or over the internet. currently only federally licensed firearm dealers must conduct such checks. robert, do you support expanding background checks at a minimum would mandate them for all private gun sales? 100% yes. t would be but i'll say this. on that gun control thing, we do have it here in california. it's already here exactly what you just read. that's already in california. and our rate of crime is totally insane over here, too. they won't publish it. you might want to look and say, if it doesn't work in california, how is it going to work in the other 49. believe me, we do have that already. thank you very much. ok, robert. christine, in south carolina, republican. hi. caller: yes, ma'am. i have a comment. my comment is, we don't own a gun and 100% yes. my husband ju he was a paranoid schizophrenic, he was not violent at all.

a blatant attack on the mentally ill is wrong and exploiting these children that just died in florida is also wrong. for guns, i agree that they need to take all of them up except for the little rifles people use to hunt because i don't think people should go around killing each other or shooting each other is also wrong. that's my comment. host: we're talking about the meeting yesterday the president held hosted at the white house with a group of bipartisan lawmakers. these are lawmakers who have had an interest in -- with gun policy, have put forth legislation. you saw senator dianne feinstein, democrat of california, who is running for re-election sitting right next to the president, she's been pushing a ban on assault weapons since the ban, 1994 ban expired. the other side of the president you had senator john cornyn, republican of texas, who has been backed by the n.r.a. who has put forth this narrow legislation to improve the

background check system. after that meeting, "the new york times" notes the declarations prompted a frenetic series of calls from n.r.a. lobbyists to their allies on capitol hill a statement from that group calling the ideas that mr. trump expressed badpolicy. republican lawmakers insisted to reporters they remained opposed to gun control measures. margaret, in leavenworth, kansas, democrat. hi. caller: good morning. i used to be a nurse for 30 years and one thing you cannot assume that there's the right people that have guns and the wrong ones. you can tell the mentally ill. people are human beings. they have. they can get drunk. they can have a fight with their husband or wife. they can think they are afraid. you can't judge when a human who has a gun is going to be able to use it even if they start out in what you would think is right. i would like to see a law passed

that we could sue again the drugmakers for their products because think of all these people that get shot and survive. they are going to have health problems for the rest of their president you had senator life. is donald trump going to give them coverage? no. so you've got people that are terribly maimed. who is going to help them get healing t only the psychologically, but we're talking people who get put in wheelchairs, have arms blown off. and they live but there's no recourse to get the health care they are going to healing psychologically, but we're talking people who need. if we care so much about our people that we're protecting, we need to protect them from these weapons of war. and you don't need these weapons of war. we're afraid country, we have to figure out why. not be everybody's hunting and not everybody's going to a shooting range. host: what was your reaction to hearing the news that dick's

sporting goods, wal-mart said they would no longer sell guns to anyone under 21 years old o. caller: that's a beginning. that's a very good beginning and a push. but you know, somebody else will go in there, oh, and then give the person under 21 a gun. we need every purchase registered so you could trace who gave a gun to somebody younger, who bought it for them. so many people making their money off of these bullets and this underground thing with the guns. we need a new mindset. how about training the people how you can can -- to be the heroes instead of the shooters. host: from this "wall street report, rticle, they wal-mart which sells rifles, shotguns, and ammunition in thousands of its stores have stopped sails of assault rifles in report, wal-mart which sells rifles,

shotguns, 2015. early on wednesday dick's said it would raise the minimum age or gun filers and stotch selling at its field and stream location. calls to ban high capacity firearms and raise the minimum age to buy firearms have been partly rekindled by the mass shooting in florida. it comes at a time when u.s. firearms sales have cooled. licensed gun dealers can sell handguns to someone 21 and a rifle to someone who is 18. president trump and florida governor scott have expressed support to raise the limit for rifle sales, but the n.r.a. has rejected any move as a violation of the second amendment. ar-15 s that still models and similar weapons include bass pro shops which lso owns carbell hofment's outdoor chain. daniel, florida, independent. caller: i have a suggestion that all guns should be painted orange. it gives the humans advantage to

see the gun shooter coming. somebody can ask him what are you doing? or take him out, or whatever. nobody would have to lose a gun for second amendment. president trump could stand being the orange president. host: john, vancouver, washington. democrat. caller: yes. what i was going to say when the second amendment was written all they had was muzzle loaders. and blackpowder guns. none of this automatic fire. if the second amendment -- we would not violate the second amendment by stopping the ar-15's. we ought to look at what our founders were writing about when they wrote those second amendment. all they had was muzzle loader,

pistols, and rifles which were one shot at a time. thank you. host: fort lauderdale, florida, independent. good morning to you. what's your message to washington on gun policy? caller: first of all good morning. as far as gun policy, i truly believe in the second amendment because that's what our country was actually founded upon. also another look i think people should really look at ssri drugs. nobody's asking these questions bout these things that's actually causing very harmful repercussions. they also have a website you can look at ssri.net it will show anti-fressant nightmares

that happen when people take these drugs. even if they lower the doses it causes them to react actually causing in a vastly nightmarish way. they basically live out their nightmares while sleepwalking. people should really look into that before we try to take away the guns from the law-abiding citizens. host: what about background checks? what about expanding background checks? the president yesterday as the "wall street journal" puts it threw his weight behind a senate proposal to expand background checks on gun sales. caller: i totally agree with background checks. i totally agree with that. i believe everybody should have firmly checked out. especially if they are not mentally capable of holding a firearm. some people shouldn't even hold a knife. so definitely, i do believe in it. but also we do have to look at these ssri drugs.

seratonin, inhibit tors as well. host: let's listen to what the president had to safmente this is an exchange between him and the connecticut senator, chris mur at this. -- murphy. i want to bring this back to the issue of background checks because i think there is real opportunity. there is no other issue out there in the american public today like background checks. 97% of americans want universal background checks in states that have universal background checks, there are 35% less gun murders than in states that don't have them. and yet we can't get it done. there is nothing else like that where it works, people want it, and we can't do it. president trump: you have a different president now. you went through a lot of presidents and you didn't get it done. you have a different president. i think a i want to bring diffe too. i think people want to get it done. >> in the end, mr. president, the reason nothing has gotten done here because the gun lobby has had a veto power over any legislation that comes before congress. i wish that wasn't the case, but that is. if all we end up doing is the stuff that the gun industry

supports, then this isn't worth t we're not going to make a difference. i'm glad you sat down with the n.r.a., but we will get 60 votes on a bill that looks like the manchin-toomey compromise on background checks, mr. president, if you support t if you come to congress, if you come to republicans and say they re wooing go to do a manchin-toomey-like bill to comprehensive background checks, it will pass f it meeting ends up with vague notions of future compromise, then nothing will happen. i think we have a unique opportunity to get comprehensive background checks. make sure that nobody buy as gun in this country that's a criminal, that's seriously mentally ill, that's on the terrorist watch list. but, mr. president, it's going to have to be you that brings republicans to the table on this because right now the gun lobby would stop it in its tracks. president trump: i like that responsibility, chris. i do. i think it's time a president stepped up. i'm talking about democrat and

republican presidents, they have not stepped up. host: the president there saying he wants the responsibility of taking steps on gun violence in this country. your message to washington on this. the president sitting down with lawmakers, telling them they need to act. the time is now. the senator there, chris murphy from connecticut, who has narrower legislation with senator john cornyn on background checks, it passed the house, but it included a concealed carry proposal that the senators have said is a nonstarter. "the new york times," at the meeting, the president repeatedly rejected the n.r.a.'s top legislative pryor. a bill known as concealed carry reciprocity. which would allow a person with permission to carry a concealed weapon in one state to automatically do so in every state. to the dismay of republicans, he dismissed the measure as having no chance of passage in congress. republican leaders in the house have paired that n.r.a. priority

with a modest measure to improve data reporting to the existing instant background check system. joyce in north carolina. you're on the air. ood morning. caller: good morning. host: your thoughts. we're listening. caller: ok. just think that people ought to be asking why is it they want to buy the gun in the just thin place. record d be kept on the for that and that would lay a legal ground to start with. there should be a reasonable reason why a person record should want that would lay a gun. and these assault weapons should be banned from just sale to anyone. they shouldn't -- there is no reason why. i can understand handguns. i can understand shotguns for hunting. and occasional should want high powered

rifle for the large game that some folks do go to other places to hunt that. but just having guns, assault weapons just to display, oh, i own one of those, does not make any sense. there should be a real reason why they should ever be so -- actually they should be banned because they make no sense to have them. host: joyce, may i ask -- before you go, may i ask how old you are and if you always had this position? caller: i have always had this position. my father was a hunter. he taught me how to shoot a 12 gauge shotgun between his knees when i was 12 and i have a high regard for weapons. i own a handgun and a shotgun. but they are for my protection. and that is all that they get used high for. host: are you a member of the n.r.a., joyce? caller: no, i'm not. but i have no objection to being

a member. i'm a senior citizen and i just prefer not to have to add any expenses, which they would require membership fees and all that sort of thing. host: ok. joyce in north carolina, a republican. "washington times" reports, overall there were 3.7 million rifles manufactured in the united states in 2015. according to the report from the bureau of alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and explosives, that was up from 33st million in 2014. down from the nearly 4 million in 2013 during the post newtown boom. joe, montana, hi. caller: good morning, greta. host: we're listening. caller: thank you you. i agree with the lady, margaret, who was mentioning who is going to pay for the damages. these gun manufacturers have complete immunity from

liability. they used to be held libel. i live in montana. everybody out here has guns. the past couple elections have turned on who supposedly upheld the second amendment, but it's not -- the second amendment shouldn't be a license to kill. which essentially it is with these unrestricted sales of these assault weapons. the element of negligence is foreseibility, with those large magazines it's foreseeable it's going to be used to do one thing only and that's kill people. the people that manufacture those things ought to be held libel. you tute have the right to go to court and sue. there was a young man here in montana who died when one of the remington guns went off automatically. his dad wage add campaign for years trying to hold remington responsible. -- waged a campaign for years

trying to hold remington responsible. what they ran into is deliberate deceptions on the part of manufacturers wanting to deny their responsibility. but they need to be held accountable. i fully agree with margaret that you get damaged by gun use in e hands of somebody, the manufacturer should be held to account. host: "wall street journal" in other news, sessions hits back after trump insult. trump treating out yesterday asking the inspector general to potentially investigate massive fisa abuse l take forever. has no prosecutorial power. why not use justice department lawyers? disgraceful he said n. all caps. the a.j. in a rare statement responded saying as long as i am the attorney general i will continue to discharge my duties with integrity and honor. this department will continue to do its work in fair and impartial manner according to the law and constitution. the "usa today" has a story

about the back and forth between the two of them. the attorney general acknowledged tuesday he has asked the justice department inspector general to review possible surveillance abuses raised by house republicans as part of an investigation into russian meddling in the 2016 election. republicans accused the f.b.i. of misusing a secret surveillance court to get approval to wiretap trump campaign advisor page. the president wants justice department lawyers investigating i.g. ot the this is from "the new york times" this morning. trump tears into sessions in dispute over inquiry. and the last paragraph of this story in the i.g. this is "new york times" says that the reverend jerry falwell jr., the president of liberty university, suggested that mr. session has never really supported mr. trump in the first place. take a look at the tweet he put out. a.g. dn't agree more u.s. sessions must be part of the bush-romney bsh mccain

establishment. he probably supported real donald trump early in the campaign to hide who he is or he s just a coward. the "wall street journal" editorial board, they have an opinion about this this morning. trump versus jeff sessions. it is true his appointment dates to 2012, talking about the i.g. at the justice department, but also -- the i.g. was also appointed to the federal sentencing commission by george w. bush in 2012 he release add kansas citying report on the obama justice department of handling of fast and furious. the bust operation that put weapons in the hands of mexican drug cartels. mr. trum might also recall when the f.b.i. said it couldn't find 50,000 texts between lovers, mr. horowitz announced they recovered them. mr. trump has a point about investigations dragging on without conclusion. he refew u.s. to use his power to declassify the court.

instead of whining about mr. sessions, mr. trump could order him to appoint someone at justice with the sole responsibility of making public the documents that would give the american people the answers they deserve. newspapers noting this morning, calling the tension between mr. sessions and the president a cold war. and that the president was upset when he found ute that the -- found out that the attorney general responded to him in a statement. back to our conversation with all of you. lee in maryland, independent. we're talking about this debate in washington on gun violence. what do you think should be done, lee? caller: good morning. i just -- i watched the whole thing and i just find it to be amusing and frustrating at the same time. trump is in there saying he wants to keep guns out of the mentally ill hands. you got to be strong on that. then just last year when he came into office president obama had

something in legislation that he took tsh-that trump removed to help keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill. a year later he's asking for the same thing he removed. that is just frustrating. then last week he's saying where's the due process? where's the due process? this week, he's saying, skip the due process and take guns and then go to it. he doesn't even know what due process is. this is just amazingly frustrating and amusing. host: "the washington post" was, president trump sends mixed signals on guns. do you agree? caller: absolutely. i don't believe he has a position. he just goes into a room and tells people great things on both sides. i would love to see this. i would love to see that. he never tells what his policy is. what his position is. he never gives anything that you can can hold him to. somebody out of position, it's going to give mixed signals

because you don't know where he stands. host: "the washington post" says this, the session was reminiscent of a bipartisan white house meeting 2ru78ped convened in january on migration in which the unpredictable president promised to sign any compromise solution congress could craft only to reject the outcome days later. behind the scenes administration officials had sabotage add bipartisan bill on that. -- sabotaged a bipartisan bill on that. mark in pennsylvania, a republican. hi. caller: good morning. you asked a question i'm going to answer why people need ar-15's it's an insurancepolicy. most people are never going to use one. it's like where you can get an insurance policy on your house. if civil unrest would take place, we have seen that in this country multiple times where there's been riots, potential attacks from foreign countries with the m.p.'s. society breaks down quickly. and if you notice in the l.a. riots will were store owners standing in fronts of their stores with an ar-15 to protect

themselves. it works. don't you have to shoot somebody to have it work. it's a deterrent. the second amendment does not provide hunting provisions. i wish people would stop saying that. it's not a hunting provision or target practice provision. it's there to give us the right to hold arms, to protect ourselves. machine guns aren't illegal to own. they are very difficult to own. there's over 300,000 of those in this country. the heller decision provided that any gun that is normally used in society, which is like ar-15's, all police departments have them. there's tens of millions of these in circulation, will not be banned. even during the ban during the 1980's, guns weren't technically banned, you were allowed o own them and sell them, you couldn't buy new ones. there's never been a true ban on any gun that i know of. i don't understand why people think that's going to work because it doesn't. there's over 300 million of them in this country at this point. that's just impossible to try to regulate. host: mark, what about raising

the age from 18 to 1? -- 21? caller: i am anot that opposed to that but i still think it's a restriction on your amendment rights. people go to war at 18, people vote at 18, people drive at 16. when do you determine a person is capable of owning a firearm? the government is trying to make that decision. this is one of the few times -- there are a couple times kids under 21 cause add mass murder. it's not a common practice. most of the time they are older. i don't think it's going to accomplish too much. if they feel it's necessary, i'm not opposed to it i think younger kids aren't at the age they should be as stable as more older people are. you never know. host: mark, your reaction to this. "washington post," gun control group gives an f to 25 states, including florida. california, for example, ranks at the top of the list receiving the only a grade for strong gun laws and relatively low gun death rate. 4 rd in the nation at 7.9 deaths per 100 thousand.

alaska which receives an f grade has the nation's highest at 23 per 100,000. massachusetts had the lowest gun death rate 3.4%, 100,000. in florida, one of the states to get the lowest rating, a permit is not needed to buy guns and there is no limit to the number of firearms that may be purchased at one time. cruz, 19, the alleged shooter in the park lapd, legally purchased ar-15 assault-style rifle that authorities say was used in that attack as well as numerous other guns he collected in the year prior. mark, your reaction to gun control groups saying if there is more gun laws on the books, you are looking at a lower death rate. caller: well, i studied all those statistics across the states. and you could pull states that will fit into the narrative. if you look at it as a big picture, there is no concise issue. there are states that have very lax gun laws that have low

murder rate per capita, and also the ones you mentioned that go alonth narrative f you take the whole thing in general, you'll find -- host: mark, you still there? you find what? caller: you'll find that there is no definitive proof that any of those particular -- any cohesiveness to that process, whether you have strong gun laws or not. they seem to balance out if you look at the whole picture. including countries. countries, too. it's kind of the same thing. they all kind of balance out. there is no real definitive proof that if you balance all and untries in the world take the most extreme gun laws versus the most liberal gun laws, they don't seem to really have any effect on o the murder rate -- on the murder rate. it says consistent. there may be variations, but it's not the proof of anything. host: did you vote for president trump? caller: i did. host: -- caller: i'm not happy with the way he's handled this second amendment stuff at all. he's screwing up as far as i'm

concerned. he's not protecting the second amendment. i do believe in background checks. do i believe mentally ill people shouldn't be getting guns. there are a lot of people i think shouldn't have guns personally. they are not stable enough to have a gun. they have violent outbursts, can't control their emotions. i agree with that. don't agree with restricting people's rights who haven't done anything wrong and a law-abiding citizen. it's a fine line to balance, we have to find a way to do that. host: mark, let me ask you this. he said he's running in 2020. he has a campaign manager. if this legislation goes through because he pushes for it, do you vote for him in 2020 because of this issue? of second ot amendment supporters are single issue voters. i think he's going to lose a lot of his base because of that. it all depends who the other candidates are. of course if there are some more liberal that would do that or someone that is more strong on the second amendment, he would lose based on that issue. i don't think people will support a president that is just

violating our amendments. i don't think -- that's not his job. he's supposed to support the amendments not undermine them. i think he's crossing the line amendment there. especially with that and immigration, too. i think he's on a slippery slope here. he needs to tighten himself up a bit. host: mark, banning bump stocks? caller: i don't have a problem with that. i think they are useless. don't see any need for t more of a novelty item. it's more the thrill of shooting a fully automatic gun because they are so difficult to get. really, people don't need them. it's not something you use. they got to be careful with that, also. the way the machine gun thing is set up, it's one trigger pull for multiple shots. that technically doesn't fit into a machine gun category. they have to revise the whole machine gun provision to get that to be banned. he can't ban it the way he's saying. that's another fallacy he came up with. he's really not -- he's not

really on the right side of the law with any of this. host: let's listen to the president yesterday talking about banning bump stocks. >> talked about the bump stock issue that senator feinstein cares about. president trump: and i'm going to write the bump stock essentially write it out. so you won't have to worry about bump stock. shortly that will be gone. we can can focus on other things. frankly, don't even know what would be gd in the bill. nice to have a separate piece of paper where it's gone. they are working on it right now. yesterday resident repeating what he's been saying for the past week that the justice department can go ahead and ban these bump stock devices. the a.g. yesterday repeating what he's been repeat in the week and said an announcement coming soon. bill, connecticut, hi. caller: hi. how are you? thanks for c-span. what i want to knock is both sides on the issue.

first of all, it's not very christian for the right wing to ar-15 over thean rise of those children -- lives of those children in florida. and it's one of the big problems the assault weapons because you go to any other industrialized country in the world, they have low murder rates compared to ours. and the reason being there's no assault weapons and no n.r.a. but also the damage in connecticut from the left is they made it so hard to buy a box of bullets. i'm going to give you an example of a woman that's having a crazy ex after her and her children. you have to spend $700, basically, to buy a box of bullets. they have to take a course. i think got to be from the n.r.a. get permits. i'll tell you laws like that

that get passed, that poor oman's not there any more. also the crime, connecticut, i'm just saying this state, they are letting criminals out left and right. so they are making it a little more dangerous who are going to need guns. i think both sides are keeping these issues going because -- if they straighten everything you out and made everybody happy they would be out of business. host: bill in connecticut. glenn in tallahassee, florida. republican caller: hello, greta. thank you for c-span and all you do for us. i could not agree more with mark who recently called a call or two ago. to the ssed my feelings t. i just wish people would pay

more attention to his argument because he seemed to have done quite a bit of research. he knew what he was talking about. the second amendment was not made for -- host: we'll let you go. seems like you're getting buzzed there. we're going to keep -- by the phone. we'll keep taking your phone calls here about gun violence and what you want to see washington do here after the president meets with a bipartisan group of lawmakers, televised conversation there. if you missed it you can can nd it on our website c-span.org. i want to show you this from russia, the president there, putin, addressing the legislation both about new russian nuclear weapons. take a listen. >> after the united states withdrew from the treaty

unilaterally we have been working hard to create new promising -- this enabled us to make a big step forward creating new strategic arms. global missile defense systems is mainly ballistic missiles. and ballistic missiles, this is the core of our nuclear deterrent just like with other nuclear powers. this is where russia has been developing very modest price wise but extremely effective our m to defense and all icbm's are equipped with such systems now. also we have developed a new generation of missiles. mainly, currently, the defense ministry works together with

defense companies in the space industry and they are lefting a new missile system that uses a eavy icbm. this is new system will replace the old system that we had during the soviet period. and was considered a highly effective weapon. our foreign partners even used a different name for it. but some others are much more powerful system with a pay a oad of 200 tons. it is hard to be intercepted by missile defense. capability range of this new missile and the number of warheads is higher than before. it will be equipped with high percentage, high yield systems. ith capabilities for bidding

missile defense systems. this new system can be used under any conditions. host: president putin there in his address to the legislature in russia. we will have his entire remarks. c-span.orgur website earlier this morning in russia. other news as well to share wufment "the washington post" front page, robert mueller, special investigator, is digging into the president's attempt to force sessions to quit. this was happening last summer as you-all know. and "the washington post" says that the president was shocked that despite his public pressure to get the a.g. to resign he did not do so. then "the new york times" has this headline, trump tears into sessions over russia investigation. challenge to the attorneys general authority and smolder feud erupts in public. below that is a story about loans. loans to the kushner company after visits from the white

house. a founder of power global management was advising trump administration officials on infrastructure policy during that period. he met on multiple occasion was kushner, president trump's son-in-law and senior advisors. among other things, the two men discussed the possible job for mr. harris t never materialized, but in november, he sent 184 million to kushner's family. the loan was to refinance the mortgage on a chicago skyscraper. it was one of the largest loans kushner company's received last year. an even larger loan came from citigroup which lent the firm and one of its partners $325 million to help finance a group of office buildings in brooklyn. that in the "new york times" if you want to read more on that. also "usa today" front page a.v. plot.sed of one of the top secretaries actily lobbied capitol hill to demand his boss' resignation.

the assistant secretary for public affairs asked a senior aide at the house committee on veterans' affairs to persuade law maketories call the white house and say they wanted shulkin out. he's the second's highest ranking aide and tasked with publicly defending him and the agency. he denies he tried to out shulkin. then also many of you heard the news that hope hicks, the president's communications director and also long-time aide for him, been with him for the last three years since he launched the campaign, has decided to leave. the white house says that decision was in the works for weeks. hicks has been interviewsed by mueller's team and on tuesday she testified for nine hours before the house intelligence committee as part of a separate russia investigation. she admitted to telling what one person familiar with her tamm characterized as white lies. hicks told the committee she sometimes stretched the truth on minor matters at trump's direction but that she had never lied about anything relevant to the investigation. that is in "the washington post"

this morning. also in political news from the "washington times." the anti-establishment wing of the g.o.p. which had been relatively quiet following the white house's public break with former advisor steve ban none was reinvigorated wednesday when state senator chris mcdaniel announced he will mount a primary challenge to senator roger wicker in mississippi. mr. mcdaniel, who had mulled the decision for months made clear his intent was to shake things up. that in the "washington times" this morning. let's go to doug in fairfax, south dakota. democrat. hi. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you this morning? on he guns, i'm trying to-- the guns if they could get the capacity on them guns down and make it a special license to get over 15 shots. most -- some of your hunting rifles are automatics, too. also on teachers holding guns,

if some teach every just went crazy in some school, heard the other day on the news, and also fox news a while back they had some lady that was getting robt. you see she didn't have control of that gun. she was popping shells off all over f you can imagine kids running and chaos what would happen there. that's the thought on that episode. and an ar-15 they are light. they are a military rifle. ou're never going to ban them. host: tom, wisconsin, independent. hi. caller: good morning. about this stuff with these guns. i have been listening to this for a long time and i think what it comes down to is paranoia. and the people that want these guns they are afraid of everything. all forms of authority. from local to federal.

to d.n.r. they want to have these guns because they think everybody else is coming to take theirs away. so they want to have something just as big as the people that are coming to shoot at them. hunters, man, not even in the depths of the deepest part of of michigan are people going out with those of michiga going out with those kinds of weapons for hunting. not even to protect themselves from wolves and bears and stuff like that. something needs to be done with it. they talked about laminated glass in school. an inverted locks. if that's a place to start i think it's a place to start. the people that have guns are going to be just like violators of other thing. they are going to find ways to get around it. it's a sad state they are in. then you listen to the stuff every day on the news with the president and jeff sessions and stuff. it's just a dumpster fire.

i still remember listening to the interview that charlie psyches -- sikes did with president trump when he was in milwaukee and if you can see what was coming from listening to that interview with him, man oh man, the writing was on the wall. host: tom, you didn't vote for him, then? caller: no, i didn't. actually i wrote in evan wellington who ran from utah. i thought as a republican once john kasich was out we probably lost our best, most consciencious man. i listened to the interview with donald trump with charlie. you could tell right from then that -- it was going to be a dumpster fire. they always say don't wish for too much because you might get what you wish for. thank you for c-span and everything you do. host: we'll leave it there. on capitol hill yesterday a couple things to note.

our producer up there, craig kaplan, tweeted this out on this on this vote the yeas are 49. the nays are 49. the vice president votes in the affirmative. the nomination is confirmed. the v.p. cast his ninth russeaking vote to confirm as the o.m.b. deputy director. as many of you know yesterday in the capitol rotunda, the late reverend billy graham was laid in honor there. the "washington times" says that america's pastor, as he was known, becomes the fourth civilian to lie in honor at the capitol. it says that mr. graham's public addresses were broadcast nationwide from 1947 to 2005. the speaker of the house, paul ryan, mitch mcconnell spoke and gave remarks, as well as the president. and of course billy graham's family was there in attendance. the public then had -- it was

opened up to the public yesterday. all day. all afternoon and into the evening. the casket carrying the body of the late reverend will leave the capitol this morning. first take a listen to what the speaker had to say about his legacy. >> he shared his love of god. that love had no end. that love had no barriers. he ministered to all walks from some of the great whose statues line this very hall. eisenhower, kidge, ford and reagan -- king, ford and reagan, to everyday citizen-s lining up to pay their respects. no matter how long the lines grew, how much the times changed, his message never diminished. that love was so infectious, wasn't it? the man had such a gift for connecting with people.

when listening to reverend graham, it's as if he's right there next to you, praying with you, turning you to the glory of god. he did not profess to have all the right answers. look to the bible he would say. but he sure did point us to all the right questions and challenge us to look up and look within. o reflect and to repent. and in those moments when we felt weak in spirit, when our country was n its knees, he re-- was on its knees, he reminded us, he convinced us that is exactly when we find our grace and our strength. few loved others as billy graham did, and few were as beloved as e was.

here lies america's pastor. host: if you missed the congressional memorial service for the late reverend billy graham, you can go to our website c-span.org and watch the comments there of the speaker as well as the senate majority leader mitch mcconnell, and the president of the united states. all of them, including the first lady participating in a wreath laying ceremony. back to our conversation with all of you to president trump pushing lawmakers for action on guns. he wants a comprehensive, a one bill, one beautiful bill, not 15 little bills. and telling the lawmakers yesterday at the white house that it's time to act. another story to share with you on gun policy, this is from the "wall street journal," studies sought on gun violence. for more than 20 years federal law has effectively halted the government's ability to research gun violence. now the shooting that killed 17 at the florida high school in february have prompted a bipartisan group of lawmakers to

take another look at the restriction. a 1996 amendment backed by the national rifle association, according to medical journals, prohibits the c.d.c. from using funds to advocate for or promote gun control. the language and the measure didn't prevent scientific research but it was ambiguous and drew close scrutiny. after the amendment passed congress redirected a way $2. million, the amount the agency used to research t and the crrkts d.c. has sharply curbed its research. since the initial package has been renewed in the spending bills congress passes to keep the government operating. now its critics are pressing to strip it from the sweeping spending bill that congress must pass before the government's current funding expires on march 23. let's go to ellen in greensburg, pennsylvania, republican. hi. good morning. caller: hello. host: you are on the air. what could you think -- do you

think about the president yesterday saying he's ready to act. he's willing to take steps on gun violence. caller: i think it's caller: i think it is a good idea. you know, gun violence -- it is not the guns that kill people, i think people kill people. i think it is wrong. i do not think it is his fault. he is trying very hard to make it right. host: leonard. wheaton, illinois. independent. caller: good morning, c-span. host: good morning. caller: you know, my dad was a surgeon in the army in world war ii, and i received my first rifle when i was eight years old. he picked a great one because the never shut anybody. .t is not guns that are violent it is people that are violent.

i hate the term gun violence. it is people violence. it is like blaming gm for dui with cars. it is like blaming large spoons for obesity. it is not the people -- it is not -- it is the people, not the guns. host: leonard in wheaton, illinois. our last for this conversation. only come back, we turn our attention to immigration. he will talk to greg chen about programhere the daca stands. onwuka joinse lee us to talk about women in the workplace. we will be right back. ♪ >> sunday on c-span's "q&a,"

politico" magazine contributing editor where -- talks about his book, building the great society about the members of president staff who helped implement his great society programs. zietz: it is about how an administration built these programs. how did they build medicaid and medicare from the ground up in one year? how do they create programs like heads start -- headstart and food stands, and how did they do this while desegregating one-third of the country and also fighting a war in the in

the -- in vietnam? night at 8:00y p.m. eastern on c-span. >> for nearly 20 years, "in-depth" on booktv has featured the best nonfiction writers for live conversations. we are featuring the best selling fiction writers for our program "in-depth -- fiction edition." a, whosefor jeff shaar book was made into a motion picture. to count the military history of america from the american revolution to the korean war. we will take your facebook, tweets and email messages. sunday, live from noon until 3:00 p.m. eastern on booktv on

c-span2. >> "washington journal" continues. our table, greg chen, the government relations director for the american lawyers association here to talk about the deferred action for childhood arrivals, daca. where does it stand right now? there is a march 50 deadline coming up. will -- march 5 deadline coming up. will congress act before that? guest: think you for having me, greta. it is a pleasure to be here. for decades, i am struck by the amount of momentum we have in washington and more importantly in the united states. if you look at how much public support there is, americans want overwhelmingly for congress to pass permanent protection for these young people brought here that we call dreamers now who future becausein they do not have legal status to

say -- stay in the united states. cnn came out with a poll -- 83% of americans want permanent legal status for the dreamers. that is consistent. abc poll, a lot of major network have shownociations, the majority of americans want to send that momentum is being heard in congress. when i talked to legislators, they seriously want to get this job done. now it is a matter of when the political will will be there. out: the president tweeting -- uary 21, "dem host: who is talking, and what could the deal look like? , decidehe president's on twitter, it is remarkable conversations are actively going on. i am talking to senators and members of the house every day. this is a bipartisan effort now.

that is very much notable. we had just a few months ago republican house members -- over 30 of them sent a letter saying we want to get this done -- we -- passprotect protection for these dreamers now. the senate debated immigration reform, particularly protection for these young people. they could not get a bill passed, but they got a majority on a couple of the bills offered. that shows how much support there is. it comes down to a couple of things. the president needs to act. he needs to sell that show leadership. this is an opportunity -- he needs to show leadership. this is an opportunity for him. he has said he cares about the dreamers. every time a bipartisan agreement has been made, he has made efforts to shoot it down. that needs to stop. he cannot say no to everything after he said he wants to see a real deal. when senators come together from

both sides of the aisle and say this will give jim is an opportunity to stay here to me needs to support it and back it. host: could he, by the executive action, located previously, pushback by another six months -- like he did previously, push back another six months this deadline? host: he has the authority to do -- guest: he has the authority to do it. he rescinded on his own. host: let's back up -- he rescinded what? guest: thank you for asking. he rescinded a program president obama administered before, the daca --the deferred action for childhood arrivals, daca for short. he said it was not part of the previous president's authority. the deferred action basis is a long practice that has been done

not just by president obama, but by several other presidents for using this kind of authority. the legal authority is there. president trump rescinded that september. he had the authority to continue it. he could let it stay, but he has made such a strong public position that he does not think it is ok to keep it going, i do not think he politically can back away from that staunch, from position he has taken. it is caught up in the courts now. march 5 is the deadline the president said this has got to end, that he is going to terminate it. it is caught up in the courts of that you are suing i'm saying here is an that is are suing, saying he rescinded in a way that is not well before these young notle -- in a way that is lawful. people in their

20's, they are sisters, and the fear they describe, which strikes any american's heart, the fact they have young children themselves, in fits or toddlers can -- infants or toddlers, and they worry will happen if their mothers have to leave the country. any american would understand that. i think that is why american support protecting dreamers. have the courts said -- the judges that will be hearing these cases --about the daca program? guest: right now we have two courts, two federal judges from two different parts of the ,ountry that have said, look the president, the way he rescinded the program, daca, was unlawful, and he was saying the president could not just end this way and terminate it march 5. that is on hold. it is on its way through the courts.

the president try to do a run around through the appeals process and go directly to the supreme court and the supreme court just monday said you cannot bypass the usual process. this needs to go through the court of appeals. right now the daca and how the president rescinded it will be appealed to the court of appeals and that will go through the summer and the fall through the regular process. host: does that impact of march 5 deadline? what the judges have said hearing these cases -- doesn't give relief to daca? guest: right now, those courts, they are called injunctions -- they prevent the president from terminating the program. because of those rulings from the courts, the president has said he will allow the program to continue to stay open and allow people who have already received daca to renew their applications. the problem is this is the court system and it is unpredictable. people who have not gotten daca yet, cannot apply in new.

they are still waiting. it is only for someone that has already had it that needs to renew it to keep it going. because the courts are so unpredictable, that uncertainty will live on for those dreamers. i think most americans realize that is not the way to run a country -- to have programs like these that affect hundreds of thousands of people's lives depending on whether a judge will -- world -- rule a certain way. host: byu to join in the conversation. -- we want you to join in on the conversation. we have a line for daca recipients. host: quickly, before we get to calls, how long can it take for the lower courts to hear the case and make a decision? guest: so, for just the two cases currently before courts in the second circuit and ninth circuit -- that would take several months for those courts to hear it.

if the president were to bring it up to the supreme court, the court would make it efficient to review it for the next coming term that starts in the fall. it will be several months before these cases get reviewed. it is important to realize that during this time the people that don't have any protection as dreamers, and we are talking a larger population of over one million, they don't know what their lives will have in store. they don't have any protection yet. and the president, the way he has been running the department of homeland security is extremely harsh. he has picked up dreamers. he has picked up family members and daca recipients and put them into enforcement to have them removed from the country, deported. that threat is real. host: let's hear from our viewers. christine. rhode island. a democrat. you are up first. caller: yes, good morning, c-span. i wanted to make a comment, and also a question. i was watching a documentary on some daca children -- 17 years

old -- that were basically kidnapped on their way to church. the family members did not know where these young people were. he was being held in detention six months.r he tried to commit suicide. he has been there for six months along with other people, other children. where are these people being held? my heart goes out to these children and families. also, the president is saying that a legal -- why don't they start in the prisons? these are not criminals and they are going at -- going after, ice. these are just people being bullies, going to take our children, and i consider them our children. they are in this country. host: we will take your question about detaining mothers and children -- immigrants coming into this country. guest: thank you for the

question. it is important to distinction we are talking about. you mentioned in the end who are criminals in the prison system. first of all, if somebody is in violation of immigration law, there is a process the government will go through to basically enforce law against you, and typically you would appear in front of a judge that would make that decision. sometimes, in some cases, those people would be held in detention. that is not for a criminal purpose. that is for civic immigration law violations. the courts -- i'm sorry, the immigrations customs enforcement is supposed to make a decision as to whether or not you are to be detained based on whether you are a flight risk or you might pose some kind of public safety threat. the fact is we have seen this president tell his immigration customs enforcement officials to detain far more people, and as i mentioned before, these are dreamers, family members --

these are people that have lived here a long time, have jobs, who have contributed to our country, and have not done anything wrong except being in violation of the u.s. immigration laws, which is not a small matter, but does it mean to have to be detained in jail at a huge, incredible cost to the american taxpayer? over $30,000, $40,000 a year to keep someone and attention. that is on the back of -- in detention. that is on the back of taxpayers that do not need to be detained. he just need to be told to go to court. the tragedy is we are saying young dreamers like a prison you mentioned before who are being apprehended and put into jail hearing.tion pending a some have protection, but there are problems for the system. host: how many are being arrested compared to the other, you know, illegal immigration that is happening? guest: that is a good question. the total population that has received daca is about 800,000,

and the number of dreamers that could receive dream protection of the bill is passed as a little over 2 million, possibly 3 million. the fact is we don't know how many people who have daca protection or are dreamers have been taken into custody by the administration. we hear from immigration lawyer members across the country that these cases are happening. some of them get attention in the news, and they are tragic. they are a real tragedy for the government would want to do this to young people that i think most americans support providing -- protection allowing to stay here, let alone be put into detention. host: the supreme court ruled this week that immigrants can be detained indefinitely. does that apply to all immigrants, including daca recipients? guest: so, that supreme court ruling is a more narrow provision about the authority of courts to detain individuals. it is not as directly relevant to the dreamer population we are

talking about here. the fact is the government has wide latitude to detain people for immigration proceedings, but has to exercise at very carefully. the real question is the same kind of question any kind of judge would make for a criminal case as well, and that is whether or not the person poses a risk of flight or a danger to our community, and in most of these cases, especially dreamer cases, that is just not going to be present. jose inet's go to rogers, arkansas. you are on the up. -- thatyes, to mr. chen was wrong. second, as an immigrant myself, i feel offended when these daca recipients are waving the mexican flag were wherever they came from. this is a country of law and order, first of all, and american people feel offended when they see all the counter

flags waving in downtown los angeles were whatever. they need a break, but at the same time they have to understand that to become an american citizen is a privilege. it is not a right. you have to ask. you have no right to demand. that is all i want to say. host: ok. we will have mr. chen respond. guest: do i for the call. -- thank you for the call. a couple of points in response -- as the association of immigration lawyers, ala has members representing businesses and families in every state. we understand the rule of law. that is something to be taken lightly. what president obama did in creating the deferred action for childhood arrivals was to draw something based in regulation called deferred action and based on

long-standing authority that presidents dating back to the 1950's have used to grant temporary reprieve from enforcement based on the assessment someone is not a priority to enforce the law against. this has been done by president bush, president reagan, for various populations over time. president obama was the first to do it for the dreamer population, but it was a lawful exercise of his authority. of course, president trump doesn't think so, and that cases in the court, as i mentioned before, but from ala's assessment, it was a lawful use of authority for the president has. we know anyone can member whatever -- can waive whatever flag they want, but what i am struck by by the german population is that these young people really know no other country as their home except for the united states. they call america their home. they have gone to high school, sometimes gradeschool, and they cannot even speak the language

of the native tongue. they are working, going to school. that is what really strikes in to heart of most americans protect this population whose status is really tenuous now. they are hanging from a thread. that is why the president -- i think he understands this and wants to act and why congress needs to put a bill onto the floor of the house and senate to act and make it happen. host: bill in ohio. democrat. caller: yes, i have been listening to this daca thing, and obama was wrong when he done the daca thing to begin with. we are giving amnesty to these people. you can say it is a different program or whatever, but it is amnesty, and i am not for amnesty. i mean, i know they have been here since they have been kids, but that is their parents' fault for bringing them here. now, i would give them citizenship, which is what trump is looking to do, and that would

be fine with me, as long as it is just them -- nobody else and their family. i must they want to bring one person, that is fine, but this chain migration, bringing eight and 10 people in, i am not fine with that. host: host: let's talk about that, chain migration -- it is a word used by republicans. what does it mean? guest: couple things to bring up, and just a response to bill's question about the action the president took -- i think the president -- i think president obama did this within legal authority, but knowing this was not a long-term solution. president obama recognized the need congress to act passed actgration reform that -- to pass immigration reform. businesses and families are waiting a long time to get the visas needed to bring workers here or to bring family members. i have had so many friends, i think we all do -- who have not

been able to have a spouse, or are waiting a long time. not allowation does that because under the legal immigration system, quotas are established for how many people can be brought in as workers. businesses will sponsor or petition them. for a family member -- a u.s. citizen can petition for an immediate family to come here -- your spouse, your child, and for u.s. citizens, they can bring and also their parents. uncles can be brought in and that process takes a long time because of the quota that you can only bring in a certain number each year. for some of the categories we are talking about, they will be waiting for years if not over a decade to rina -- reunify with her family. some people will call and say mr. chen, why do i have to wait so long to bring my family member? that does not make sense.

that is not how america should work. the president has used this term chain migration before and many times, and i think it is an inaccurate term for a variety of reasons. first of all, it implies that one person can bring in and petition for many, many family members and the next person will turn around and suddenly petition for many, many more family members. he has sometimes said uncles or nts.-- au uncles or bring in ants or grandparents. because of the backlog, it takes a long time to bring in more than one or two people of their close family. it is a misuse term. it is inaccurate. most go understand why waiting in the immigration system take so long. -- most people understand why waiting in the immigration system takes so long. that is why americans want congress to act illegal

immigration system so businesses get the workers they want and families can be together. host: florida. john hurray republican. caller: a couple -- john. republican. caller: he is wrong on the percentage people want this. he said 82% is for it. everyone i talk to is against it. i do not know where they are getting their polls, fake cnn or what. these people smuggle illegal country, aliens in the and now they are taking the kids in our country's medical jobs, and they are illegal when they come into the country. they are illegal aliens when broughtught them up -- them across the border p we are sick of paying for these people. -- border. we are sick of paying for these people.

denveran article in "the post," it cost american people $539 million for taxes to support these people as illegals in this country, and $23 billion of the child-earned income credit they are getting and they are claiming kids from over in mexico. we're sick of these people taking all of our kids' job, our jobs.hool kids 's' host: we understand the sentiment, american citizens are paying for immigrants in this country, and they're getting benefit taxpayers said the bill for. guest: i appreciate that question. the facts do not bear out the point you are making that americans are losing their jobs or having jobs taken away by dreamers or other young people coming here to the united states. the fact is that the economic

growth that is provided and contributed to by just the dreamer population or other people who are undocumented is significant. a recent study showed that is just the daca recipients were to ouremoved from this country gross thomistic product would incline by over 4 -- gross domestic product would decline by over $400 billion over the next decade. that is a real loss to our country and it would hurt jobs. deporting these young people and the undocumented population overall would be devastating to our country. many economic sectors, agriculture, the farming industry, depends on immigrant workers. many of them are unauthorized. they are waiting. the farm industry is looking for a solution. if you are looking to remove all these people, we would not have the food picks in our grocery store that you want to eat. i relate that does not take away the concern you mentioned that if you have a young son or

daughter that you might feel they are taking jobs away from your children, but that is not borne out in the statistics. wages, high school-educated or college-educated people across the country are not negatively impacted by immigrants in the united states. that is not true. there might be that perception, but across the country that is not true. host: what about illegal immigrants on welfare or other federal benefits? is that true? don't have the exact data at my fingertips, but by and large immigrants do not take more from the public welfare system than they actually contribute to it. i think that is a perception. that is just not based in reality. the fact is most immigrants that are working here in the united states, if they are undocumented, they are going to pay into the social security system and typically not be able to receive those benefits later on. they are contracting more just and those specific terms and

they will ever see back in social security payouts. host: don is in chesapeake, virginia. republican. don, you're on the up. caller: thank you. -- on the air. caller: thank you. good morning. people -- i believe they need a fair shake, but i do not believe they need to become citizens. they are taking our jobs, they are not just working out in the fields like you say. don't even go there. they are taking over the construction companies -- they are taking over all the construction that is around. i used to work in construction. you go into a construction site now, you see 90% are mexican people, and they are not legally sorry for theel people that did get here the legal way -- doubt all the money they had -- dished out all the money they had to for lawyers and such. come in the right

way, not the other -- not the daca people, but the other 11 million people here that are sucking off our system. host: mr. chen? guest: i already addressed the economy and wages, but a couple of things in reference to what you were saying. first of all, for the daca population, these are young people who are here, contributing to our country, and i think it is important to recognize that even if there is a perception that they are working and taking away jobs, they are mostly here working and contribute to our country, and as i mentioned before, the economic impact is just not present. we don't see that taking place in the way the caller mentioned. you, final question for greg chen -- "the hill" , "senators introduce a

three-year daca, border security deal." do you think this could pass? what are you hearing about this legislation just introduced on tuesday? guest: this is a short-term extension of the daca program that congress is talking about bringing forth, and hopefully in the next several weeks. ala really thinks that the dream act, which provides long-term protection for the dreamers, is what needs to be passed. before said he supports protecting this population and many of the callers have said the same thing. that is important when we look at the lives of the young people we are talking about. to have daca extended for just three years, that means these young people will still be living in a tenuous situation, but if that is all congress can do, if that is all they can reach agreement on, then that is something that's it she recently

-- that should seriously be considered. on the flipside of what was introduced, substantial border security funding for a period of three years. that deserves a little bit of attention here. first of all, the border is more secure than it has ever been. we are at an all-time high spending almost $20 billion on border security and interior enforcement each year. we have about 650 miles of fencing on the southern border. viewpoint, we do not need additional border security money at this stage. the president's wall is just a slogan. i think most americans get that. spending more money on border security when we do have jobs that are needed that the federal government could be spending money in a wiser way, i think americans would support that. would ala support economizing deal that includes that? if it is done in a smart, sensible way with border security, we would look seriously at that, because this

is about compromise. it is important that congress rolls up its sleeves because if they cannot get copperheads of reform done to have the immigration -- comprehensive reform to have immigration work the right way, at least congress should pass the dream act or some kind of short-term fix to protect the dreamers we know american support in overwhelming numbers. host: if viewers want to learn toe about ala, you can go aila.org. we will take a break. when we come back, we will be to talky patrice onwuka about women in the workplace, summiter a drug crisis will be held later today. we will get an update with stat facher coming up here on the "washington journal."

♪ >> this weekend on booktv, saturday at 2:30 p.m. eastern, programs on guns and the second amendment starting with wa michaelldman examining -- then a waldman, and survivor describes her book. "shall not be infringed," the new assault on the second amendment. then author and generous joanne

lipman discovers -- discusses her book "that's what she said." eastern, what it means to be a latino immigrant in the country with his book "stranger." sunday at noon eastern, our special series "in depth -- fiction edition" is life with best-selling offer -- authored ra.f shaa watch booktv on c-span2 all we can. monday, on landmark cases, we explore the civil rights cases of 1883, the supreme court decision that struck down the civil rights act of 1875, a federal law that granted people access to accommodations like trains and theaters regardless of race. just as the great dissenter cast

the lone vote in opposition and his dissent eclipse the legacy of the majority opinion. explore this with the dean of howard university's law school, and an attorney and member of the u.s. commission on civil rights. watch "landmark cases" live monday at 9:00 p.m. eastern on c-span, c-span.org, or listen pp,h the free c-span radio a and for background order the companion book available for $8.95 at c-span.org/landmarkcases. for additional resources, there is a link on the website to the interactive constitution. >> "washington journal" continues. joins usrice onwuka now, senior policy analyst for the independent women's forum. let's begin with what your group is. guest: sure. howelp women understand

free markets, limited government, and more personal freedom and independent -- independents are more helpful. host: a conservative philosophy, then? of centipede we focus on paid leave, texas, budget. we're looking for common sense is -- right of center, certainly. we focus on paid leave, taxes, budgets. host: what is your goal? guest: we want women to understand there are common sense solutions from a right of center perspective. we spend a lot of time demystifying the statistics, the data, and the talking points narrative out there around women as victims were women just in general. we want women to feel empowered. we want them to know they have so many opportunities, so many things at their disposal, but where there are issues, where there are obstacles -- how can government play a role, how can the private sector play a role?

host: the focus is women in the workplace -- what has president trump one year later done to benefit women in the workplace? guest: the national conversation of how women can take time off to have a baby, adopt a child -- that is one of the most exciting things we have seen since the 2016 campaign, specifically coming from his daughter. it is a great conversation to have. we are seeing women start to work again -- women's employment -- on implement is down. it's as women are getting into the workforce, particularly -- unemployment is down. as women are getting to the workforce, particularly young women, they want to do that. how to ensure they can take time off that is not costly to us as taxpayers. host: you give the president credit for more women entering the workforce? under the economy president trump is starting to improve. we will give credit to president

obama. the economy started to improve under him. there has been a terminus amount of wage growth over the past year. wages had been stagnant over the past nine years prior. this is good for women. they are able to find work if they want to leave their jobs and they are able to get paid more. i will toss in tax cuts. we are seeing as of february a lot of americans are getting a 100 -- an extra $50, $100, even $1000, and for women making the household decisions on spending, they know what the money will go towards. i will give president trump credit for how the economy is going and what is happening at the household level. recent paid parental leave -- that is highlighted as something that benefits women in the workplace, however that is not law. where does that stand now? where is legislation, and what criticism do you have of this administration that is not into law? guest: we do have the family

medical leave act, which provides up to 12 weeks of unpaid, guaranteed leave. that is good, but how do you afford that if you cannot afford to take time off without getting paid? that is where there has been a little bit of a golf. we have seen private sector he -- private sector companies, paidtle, walmart, extend leave. you see mandates on companies providing paid leave benefits. that has unintended consequences i can talk about in a minute. i think there is opportunity for government to think about creative ways of providing, helping workers get the paid leave access. one of the solutions we talked about is looking at social security --using it in a way that is beneficial to younger workers. host: how? guest: our social security paid leave plan says young workers can tap into the social security system and get parental benefits. we are talking about up to three months of paid time off paid out

of a partial right, and then they differ the social security retirement benefits at a commiserate level. in essence, you are paying up to 12% of your pay -- you yourself, 6%, your employer 6%, but a lot of young people do not think they're are going to get any social security benefits, so while you are young, not earning as much money, and why you need to take time off to have a child, why not use some of those benefits, and then pay for them later down the line? this is totally self-financing. it is a budget-neutral idea. from a cost perspective, there is not a lot of additional administrator of cost to get it done. this can all be done by the social security administration. we think this is another solution. host: does the president have the authority to do this by executive action? guest: i think we would have to work with congress and that is why we are working with the administration and members of

congress to talk about this issue of paid leave from a right of center perspective and then to see congress do that -- do it. it is important. this is something that if we really want to make a lasting impact for women in the workforce, this is something that should be enshrined in law. host: how does the group feel about mandating that businesses have to pay for parental leave? seeing that at the state level and it has negative, unintended consequences for women. it is costly. unfortunate, number two, they may eliminate some of their own current benefits giving to employees because you have a one-size-fits-all requirement for everyone, regardless of whether they want it. for women, you will see employers that look at young because of this mandate, i am looking at my staff, what i would have to provide for it, and maybe i would reconsider or consider whether i want to hire that

young woman. what is interesting, when we look overseas at different countries that have generous paid leave benefits, we see young women are not progressing up the corporate ladder's. we are seeing them not going into more senior levels. they are also not necessarily working full-time and they are forced to work part-time jobs. there are a lot of -- while it seems like the heart is in the right place around mandating leave, there are better ways to do it. you can talk about personal care accounts, which are like private, tax beneficial accounts, the way we would put money aside in our 401(k) or in our 529 for our kids education -- why not put money aside to take time off to have a baby or take care of an ailing parent? that puts the individual in the driver seat and it is not a costly benefit. host: do you think men should also get this benefit? guest: absolutely. it is gender-neutral. it is exciting to know that men want to be able to stay home with their kids.

the way parents can't be allowed to take it is they can stagger it. for example, maybe -- can be allowed to take it as they can stagger it. let's say mom is taking 12 weeks of time off, that takes a month off or even less. this really allows for parents to stay at home with their kids. when we look at the research there are tremendous benefits to when parents are able to stay at home, moms to breast-feed. the question is how do we make that happen? host: we are about women in the workplace. wondering, from all of you, what you think about paid parental leave, and tell us your stories about when you have taken parental leave and what your expense was like. let's go to sherry in north carolina. independent. you are first. caller: i consider myself a moderate on both sides. good policies, both have policies that are detrimental. if you don't want to give women

paid leave benefits, offer them contraceptives and health care. in my expense i use contraception until i was ready. my husband and i can we took turns taking care of the child. i was a nurse. i worked on the weekends. he was home during the week. as far as women in leadership positions, in my 20 years in health care working as a nurse and now in management i find women can be just as detrimental in the treatment of women below them -- as bad as a man in high management. we have to keep that in perspective as well. if women are going to be in leadership, they are going to have to be able to work with women that they are leading, and not just managing, and being disrespectful to them. thank you. host: all right. patrice onwuka. guest: your second point first is really interesting about how women treat other women. there was a recent study that of after ahe results decade of having a quota system

for women on corporate boards in norway and they fund more women on corporate boards did not necessarily mean you will have more senior-level women. you won't see women necessarily moving up in the corporate ladder. it may be that a lot of women that are in leadership make decisions that are about the corporation, the organization, and not necessarily about women specifically. it is important, though, that women see there is a pathway to leadership if that is what you want to go. to your first point about contraceptives, i think that is an interesting idea. it is important that women have access to whatever family-planning they need, whether the government is the right entity to provide for that, that is another discussion. but, you know, i do think you raise an interesting point. host: "the guardian" has this headline -- "how has president trump's first year affected women." -- a quote

host: the guardian notes the limited able will to undermine his predecessor to close the gender pay gap. guest: very thing -- the underlying premise is that women's issues are just about reproductive rights is entirely wrong about something we try to push back on. host: pay as well. guest: let's talk about gender pay. often we hear $.81 on the dollar, women make compared to men, and they literally compare not apples to apples, but take an average of men, women, working full-time, but when you consider other factors -- things like security, educational level, the dangerousness of a job, the gender pay gap shrinks to a few cents. pay scale, another interesting

organization that looks at pay, they found very similar results. when you control for different factors of which women do have some control over, you see the gap shrinks to nothing. when it comes to the administration in general and their treatment of women, i will go to the issues that matter to women. when we look at polling, "political" asked women about the top issues on the plate -- you know women's issues are not number 1, 2, 3, were four -- or 4? it is number five. number one, -- number two, national security. number three, health care. number four, aging population issues. it is not at the number five and we get to women issues. when you look at the trump administration what they have done when it comes to those issues, based on what women care about, if women are working more, getting more and their paycheck because of tax cuts,

able to start businesses and keep more of their money because of tax reform and changes there, and if women feel like they can leave their job and find one easily, i think administration and congress right now are actually doing pretty well from that standpoint. national security is another area women really care about. as we are talking about immigration and talking about securing our borders, what is our nation doing -- that is where the administration and congress could have -- could make some inroads. i think they could really say ok, we are trying to make our country more secure. health care is an area where i think women still want to see some work done. they want to see lower premiums. they want to know they can find health care when they need it. i also want to ensure the health care options out there are not going to be costly, but beneficial to them. while i respect "the guardian" and what they are trying to a college, i do not like the idea that women are boils down to reproductive accomplish, i do

not like the idea that women are boiled down to reproductive -- accomplish, i do not like the idea that women are boiled down to reproductive issues. host: we're talking to patrice onwuka, independent women's forum. let's go to kathy. democrat. caller: good morning. how are you? host: doing well. caller: another problem women have is age discrimination. the ability of information -- availability of information on the internet, you are not allowed to ask someone what their ages, but a prospective employer can look on the internet, find your age, and you get the tanks, but no thanks, we have hired someone else excuse. yes, kathy, you're bringing up a good point. we are seeing baby boomers retire at an amazing rate, but for those staying in the workforce, trying to find a job, it can be difficult when employers are not given you a second chance. i want to say, number one, it is this if an employer is

committing against someone based on age or any other protective classes -- protected classes. given that, how do we ensure opportunities for our aging workforce? when we talk about the business world right now, there is a menace opportunity to start your on businesses, and women make up some of the fastest-growing entrepreneurs in this country. black women make up the fastest demographic in that of entrepreneurs, and it is because if you cannot find an opportunity for yourself, you create one. i am really thankful for how technology is allowing workers theirry age to leverage natural skills, their talent, their knowledge that they have gained from decades in the workforce, to then turn it into something that can be -- that money- that they can make out of it i think it is wrong to disconnect based on age or any other factor, -- wrong to discriminate based on age or any other factor, but we want to make sure that is being enforced, but how do we create new opportunities? thankfully this is an economy, a

market come a time in history where it is easier for women to do that. host: kerry is in stevensville, michigan. democrat. caller: yeah, i think women should make the same amount of money as men on the jobs they do, and then i buy insurance, and i don't mind paying extra money for women's birth control, or extra for their benefits. i think republicans -- they forget we are all immigrants. i would rather have money going to the immigrants, our brothers and sisters around the world, then to give all these companies tax breaks that are polluting the air, the water, the food we eat, and getting away with it, and trump is the worst president i have ever seen. they're going to catch him. god bless america.

host: a lot there. terry.god bless america, i agree with you on that one. there are a lot of issues you brought up. i will say i am an immigrant, i came to this country legally and i am blessed to be part of this nation. it is important that we recognize we are a nation of immigrants, and also a nation of laws, and ensuring the nation works is compassionate, and works for all of us. when it comes to paid leave or, excuse me, wage gap and women earning the same as men -- i direct folks to our website at independent women's forum, and check out pay scale. they did some digging into understanding our men and women -- are men and women making the same amount. this is women's history month we will hear a lot about the pay gap. when you control for time out of the workforce, seniority, educational attainment -- men and women -- any difference in

pay actually shrinks. there are some industries where women out-earn men. when you look at men and women over their age -- at a cage -- educated men and women, women out-earn men until he is just 30, then you see the pay trajectory start to diverge. that is what women start having children or taking time out of the workforce. it is not necessarily that employers are discriminate against women who have children or take time off. it may be that women do not want suite-level, ceo position. amy they want a position to provide more flexibility. maybe they are willing to trade higher earnings for a schedule that allows them to come home early one work from home. will we need to talk about is how to ensure our workforce, our workplaces, offer such ability to men and women -- offer opportunities for them to get out of the jobs and careers that they want, recognizing that it is not going to be the same for every woman, every man, at every

stage of their life. dottie. griffin, georgia. democrat. caller: human thing i wanted to say is if this administration is all -- the only thing i wanted to say is if this administration whyll for women's rights, do they put so much emphasis on trying to take health care away from women? host: in what way, dottie? caller: in what way -- ok, most insurance companies pay for vi agara, but then they put a law in that if i don't like birth control my insurance to my people by does not have to include birth control. host: talking about the mandate that was in the obamacare law. guest: hi, a dottie. personally, i do not think government should be providing viagara or contraceptives.

if my body is my personal choice, why is the government trying to intervene? that is more of a libertarian, right of center perspective, but let's talk about solutions in the private market and solutions offered in the private market that lots of americans have access to. if you think about health care out ofnd what drive it the affordable care act is that it mandated psalmody things not every customer needed. i think when we are looking at changing or reforming health care, we want to ensure that as a customer we can find the plans, find the coverage that gives us what we need when we need it, and government's role in that -- we can disagree here -- but government's role is not to provide everything. i think that is when conservatives and republicans talk about repealing and replacing obamacare, they are talking about how to ensure there is a market system in health care that fixes the problems from the past and also ensures customers have a lot more choice and can choose what they want rather than being forced to take these

one-size-fits-all programs that actually drive up the cost of health care. host: we will go to second mental, california. susan is watching there. independent. caller: yes. i am a woman of color. i have been active for nearly 50 years on issues of racism, sexism, which only impact women of color. this kind of organization for for your guest never represents our interest. i have tried for decades to put c-span -- four c-span2 put more representative women of color out to represent our issues. tomorrow, march 1, is women of color day. we have not been able to get the issuemedia to cover this even the women of color day is celebrated in 25 states in this country. the issues that the guest is presenting misrepresent issues. all the things she suggested that all to be taken into consideration are the issues

that cannot be taken into consideration because they constitute dissemination. i am a former affirmative-action officer at a couple of different universities -- major universities, and this is my background. there are many of us, grassroots, working-class women, especially women of color, but not only women of color, working on these issues. i rarely see our voices. yes, we see other women of color on cnn and other stations, but they are not the women that represent us. the major women's organizations will not address racism plus sex is in, and we only get token attention to these issues -- sexism, and we only get token attention to these issues. host: susan, hang on the line. will respond and i will let you respond to what she has to say. guest: susan, as another woman of color, i respect you raising these issues. we want the same thing -- we want to know we can take care of

the -- of ourselves, we want to know that our family is safe, that our friends, our nation is safe. we want to know we have the by thes guaranteed to us constitution and the rights and liberties to pursue our god-given talent. that is what fundamentally connects the two of us. how we achieve those things -- we may disagree with that. i do think a lot of what i talked about today is not just limited to my perspective. i think there are a lot of young women of color who also want to know they can start their business, take their smartphone, for example, turned their instagram page into something for generate benefit themselves. they also want to know when they pay their taxes they are not going to be over-taxed. when we talk about taking care of the poor and needy, we totally agree. i believe there is room for a social safety net, but we need to make sure it is targeted for the people that need that -- need it most, not expanded to the point where the folks that are not able to

get the same level of benefit and care they should be getting. i think that while we may disagree on some things, we actually agreed on the most fundamental things, and most americans -- all americans, really agree on those most fundamental things. we want to know we can take care of ourselves, our communities, and that we can pursue opportunity. host: susan, are you still there? caller: yes, and i am shocked by that statement. 40% of the housing foreclosures in the country are women of color, even though we make up 18% of the population. women of color are dying at the highest rate from every curable disease. organizations like this, if they are concerned for women of color, are not just given us over while women together. women of color have been at the bottom of the society for the entire history of this country, and when organizations front women like your guests to make it sound as though we are all together, all interested in the same thing -- we can start our own business. we can't get credit. you cannot get -- start a

business without credit. you cannot start a business when you are the lowest earning evil in the country for its entire history, and when organizations -- earning in the country for its entire history. when organizations will have legal help for women being discriminate against, but will not address racism in the coverage of that legal help. they are not looking into the current run of eugenics, which is taking women of color's reproductive organs and sterilizing us against our will, as went on during world war ii and is back. we are trying to stay alive and i don't see that there is anything that addresses this. we have tried to get booked on cnn to address these issues. host: we will leave it there. with whatgroup deal she's talking about? the intersection between racism

and sexism? guest: we actually do. i talk specifically about those issues. thank you for raising those issues. whoare seeing black women are most well represented in the electorate. are themen fastest-growing entrepreneurs, however, there are still significant challenges for us. i would agree with you, how do we as a nation address those issues? number one, i take an individual private sector approach and government has a role where it needs to be and that needs to be added. it's important her black women can choose to be educated and get the skills and education they need so they are not concentrated and low-wage, low skilled jobs and can rise above that and get into jobs like health care coverage and

depositions that allow them to have a career trajectory growth. i will not diminish or make light entrepreneurship. young women today are extremely excited about the use of technology to start their own businesses. that is self dependence and independence. when you look at how small business owners are financing, black women are self financing their own businesses which means the money is coming from their primary jobs they used to start their businesses. why not change the tax code so that you are able to keep more of what you earn on a weekly basis and an annual basis when you do your tax cuts? why not look at the occupational that deals with the government permission slip so women can start a business. hair braiding or nail technicians or maybe they have locations that not a college degree and you have cash and you

want to start a business. in every state, the rules are very different so how do we make for those rules make sense the type of job you are trying to do. women. help all black i'm not ignoring racism, it exists but let's also consider how we can ensure that our young people have opportunities and are able to take advantage of what's around them now. host: what is your personal story? also, how did you become a conservative? guest: i was warned in montserrat, a british colony. have aautiful and we nice middle-class lifestyle. my parents were high school educated. we were not connected and did not have a lot of money. my parents do that for my brothers and myself to have opportunities, america would be the place to go. they wanted us to fulfill our potential. and get a strong education in the future. we left the caribbean and came here legally.

we moved to boston, a very dangerous neighborhood during the crack epidemic in the 80's. gun violence in our neighborhood and we found needles in our schoolyard. that was the environment we moved into. talk about a dichotomy of environments. to this day, the parents -- my parents say the sacrifices were worth it. we left everything familiar behind because there is opportunity abundant in this country. topew up in boston, went to your undergrad and got a masters -- went to tufts for undergrad and got a masters. reading classical liberal economics, understanding the role of the free market system and how it provides opportunity for folks. of thezed that a lot believes conservatives have are very fundamental to how i was raised, how a lot of them how a lot of

immigrants view the world, working hard, education, buying property, buying homes, building generational love. what's the best way to achieve that? the conservative role is where i could do that. that's where i'm at now. host: we thank you for the conversation. she is the senior policy analyst for the independent women's forum, thank you for being here. we will take a short bracket -- break and when we come back, we'll talk about the white house holding an opioid summit today as congress begins moving a legislation to combat the crisis. we will get an up date. we will be right back. ♪

>> this weekend, c-span cities tour takes you to shawnee, oklahoma. its growth was fueled by the railroad industry and the area was settled after the civil war by native american tribes. with the help of our broadband cable partners, we will explore the literary theme and history of the area on saturday at noon eastern on booktv. carol sue humphries with her book on the american revolution the promise of independence. >> in the years between the french and indian war and the american revolution, the actual fighting, the newspapers played an important part in letting people know what arguments were, what the issues were and also getting them involved in standing up against britain when they were mad about taxes or

other issues. >> on sunday at 2:00 p.m. on american history tv, a visit to the citizens pottawatomie nation's cultural heritage center. here about the history of its people including the forced removal from native lands into indian territory. >> this particular section of the museum, we highlight one particular removal which is what we refer to as the trail of death. it happened the same year as the cherokee trail of tears and we left our homelands within a few days of each other. this is a particularly heartbreaking and gutwrenching removal. our ancestors who were in this removal could not negotiate with the federal government. agence called a treaty council and asked people to meet at menominee village and twin lakes, indiana. our ancestors had to walk 660 miles from our homeland in

northern indiana to a new reservation in kansas. watch c-span cities tour of shawnee, oklahoma saturday at noon eastern on c-span2 at booktv and sunday at 2:00 p.m. on american history tv, working with their cable affiliates as we explore america. "> "washington journal continues. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2018] host: at our table this morning lev facher lev facher, to talk about the opioid epidemic. the white house is holding a summit today with stakeholders and officials to talk about where this is headed. this week theier attorney general jeff sessions outline what the justice department will do. let's begin there and we will talk on the other side. we are attacking this crisis at its roots, the diversion and over prescription opioid painkillers. today, i am announcing the prescription interdiction and

pil task force, as we call it. it will focus in particular on targeting opioid manufacturers and distributors who have contributed to this epidemic. we will use criminal penalties, we will use civil penalties, we will use whatever laws and tools we have to hold people accountable if they break our laws. the task force will work closely with the department of health and human services and we will coordinate with law enforcement at all levels. the task force will examine potential legislative and regulatory changes in existing laws. i'm also ordering the task force to examine existing state and againstvernment lobbies local manufacturers to determine where we can be of assistance. we have worked on this and talked about this before. we are already doing involved in

these cases. i am announcing today that the department will file a statement of interest in a lawsuit against a number of opioid manufacturers and distributors for allegedly using false, deceptive, and unfair marketing of opioid drugs. host: what do you make of the justice department initiative? guest: this is the attorney general threatening to use every mechanism at his disposal to go who in someompanies used misleading marketing practices and a bunch of other mechanisms for disturbing their drugs in ways that have had disastrous consequences for the country as a whole. that the doj itself is waiting into this slew of lawsuits across the country at the local

and state level is really something to keep an eye on. when you see him talk about drug manufacturers, you think about the tom marino nomination for drugs are in great reporting from "the washington post" about the law the senate passed by unanimous consent that rolled back the dea's ability to go after these wayward drug distributors. it's politically convenient as well as something the doj may want to pursue of its own accord but it's also a good look at damage control so many months after that investigation. host: and physicians as well. yeah, you would imagine that would be more of an isolated instance. pill mills as they are called have been a huge driver of drug .iversion you heard the attorney general say over prescription. he is bringing in the

pharmaceutical industry. he is naming the medical community. we will see where it goes. host: we will learn more today when the white house has its summit and other government officials and stakeholders will there to talk about what they will do and you have congress moving on legislation. .0it is calledara 2 guest: that was the recovery act passed in late 2016. president obama signed into law. it's the follow-up of a year and a half later that massively ups the funding requests for initiatives specific to the opioid crisis and mental health issues. about a billion dollars in this and it's essentially a follow-up to the budget deal, what was struck a few weeks ago on capitol hill, that left about $6 billion of room over the course of the next two years for new spending authorization.

you are starting to see capitol hill, there is more money to be spent. fruitas the low hanging and it was a bipartisan bill from a group of eight senators. the house might not pass an identical version. this version is likely to change before it gets a vote but this is probably an accurate framework for what congress can do this year on opioid crisis and it also, politically speaking, is not a bad look to go back to your district if you are a vulnerable house member or senator in a state that has been hard hit. you can say look what we did, we are working on this. in 2017, there is not a lot of that. host: we are showing our viewers what's in this legislation that's being proposed.we want to hear it from those who have been impacted by the opioid academic.

comprehensive addiction recovery act is what we are talking about, $400 million for opioid addiction. what do you make of that breakdown? guest: for a while now, this is not been a crisis that people don't know how to address. it's been a crisis that people have felt the resources are not available to help cities and states address. recovery advocates are happy with the direction of the bill. they would like to see bigger numbers. this is a start that i think people will support in passage on capitol hill. there has been a huge element of

what people want to see from the federal government. factor in the white house opioid commission issued in november. there has been some good reporting about the financial toll the opioid crisis has taken , their budgets are being completely blown up, townsend 40,000 people spending millions of dollars on first responder use of treatment mechanisms and medication assisted treatment is one of the best evidence-based forms of therapy for opioid use disorder and not enough providers as of now offer it. they want to make sure that more of them do. host: questions and comments from our viewers, savannah, georgia, independent. i am a 68-year-old woman who has worked all of her life, primarily in the service industry, standing on my feet, carrying heavy things over my head or picking them up,

caregiver, various things. i am college-educated and i am now, i was forced into disability after a fall on a job and while i was in the hospital, they did all these x-rays and everything and the doctor said aren't you in pain? got three broken ribs from the fall but prior to that? i said yeah, i have pain. he said how are you working? i said i don't have a choice. he said when you get home, go to your doctor. the next thing i knew i had disc, stenosis, herniated a mass in my uterus, no insurance of course. something in my lower spine that 'but i don'tan 's know what it means. and the is twisting

next thing i know, i was on the track to social security and disability. i am a workaholic. that's been my life. i don't have children. i lost my husband suddenly a year and a half ago. now, i am trying to survive on one check. doctor of 17ow, my years dumped me and i cannot lose my license. i went for four years to a pain management clinic. cuba and i said you are nothing but a drug pusher. the queued up around building and they started this in florida when they opened all those pain clinics. you could not get on 95 south because everybody was headed down there to get pain medications. the government, the state of

florida can take the blame for that. pain she had to manage her and getting a prescription from doctors who are afraid to lose their license and also these pain management facilities. guest: one thing that strikes me is the attorney general of florida ended up being on this white house commission, cracking down on pain management facilities that have been deemed to not practice pain management in a way that's medically sound. the attorney general said a huge part of the justice department's response now. there are other concerns about the three-day first time prescription limit that this bill proposes. there are people on both sides of the aisle who are afraid of the federal government legislating medicine, especially -- it's a big step.

it exists in that form in some states and other states is five or seven days on first time pain prescriptions for opioids. there are exceptions for chronic pain that there are worries about access to medicine and i think the more acute worries about whether it's the federal government's role to manage medicine and manage doctors from this high a level. host: pennsylvania, good morning. caller: hi, good morning. my sonmpacted because had oh deed on december 3, 2016. he is part of the 64,000 that have died due to overdoses. he was in treatment for about six months in miami. it was partial hospitalization. and went to buy cocaine and instead bought

carfentanil. it has impacted our family. it has devastated a piece of my heart. a piece of my heart is gone. cartels are making more money off of the fentanyl. they have the money to buy a chemist and have them make fentanyl. they are making more money off of fentanyl than they are off of marijuana anymore. people are being murdered. may i ask how your son first started taking the pain medication? guest: caller: it wasn't pain medication. my son was not impacted. people on pain medication, the epidemic is the disease of addiction is out there.

around andis addiction is around and they are diseases.te not everybody can be an alcoholic but anybody can be an addict, i'm told. what's upsetting to me is the pharmaceutical companies and the doctor who is responsible, i don't know if the word is responsiblese, but for dispensing fentanyl because his wife had cancer pain. they have stockholders. it's on the stock market. they are just not going to prescribe it to cancer patients and make money off of that so they have to make up back pain all kinds of stuff. that's how fentanyl takes off. host: we are sorry for your loss. let's talk about fentanyl entering the market. what is the administration talking about doing to combat

fentanyl? it's coming from overseas and it's on the black market and people are accessing it on the dark web. guest: one of the biggest announcements earlier in 2017, not sure which month it was, rod rosenstein at the department of justice announced indictments for, i believe, two chinese fentanyl traffickers. this is low hanging fruit from enforcement perspective. there is bipartisan agreement. a republican administration, there are many conservatives like jeff sessions who are heavily involved in this response. that means that a lot of the response will be enforcement. upping security mechanisms at jfk airport in new york and ,ndicting overseas traffickers fentanyl is frankly one of the issues you hear talked about the

most because these drugs are incredibly deadly. they were never meant for anything other than medical use in extreme circumstances or end-of-life circumstances. that there hasng been quite a bit of action on. host: we will learn more when the white house gathers today for that opioid summit. david, florida, hi, david. caller: good morning. i have been dying to get on a show like this to express my views. if you look at all the names of all the opioids, i call them heroin which is what they are. names, take these cute oxycontin, fentanyl, it sounds like characters in a videogame. they have to take a harder line on this. you've got to call it what it is.

i did every type of drug manageable when i was growing up in high school and getting out of high school. i did everything but i never did heroin. it was because it was called heroine. they showed junkies. they called it smack. it was all negative things. now, everything is so they disguiseat these dangerous drugs. call it what it is, death, heroin and you won't have all these deaths. host: let's hear from freddie in pennsylvania, independent. caller: i am more concerned about the adolescent population and are school systems with the funding cuts. i went to junior high school in the late 60's and we had a hygiene class and a fantastic teacher and he explained the downfall of what could happen to you if you smoke cigarettes. he said some of you might smoke

cigarettes until you're 70 years old and nothing will happen and other smoke one or two and you and up with cancer. there was a little fear. host: you are kind of echoing what the previous caller was talking about and that's a public health campaign, education. any sort of effort out there to talk about fentanyl and how dangerous it can be or opioids? guest: i don't want to misquote the president. a big, there was beautiful marketing campaign when he introduced, or announced, rather, the direction for the health department to declare the opioid crisis a national public health emergency. the president actually spoke about his brother who himself had struggled with addiction before i think dying in his 40's. this marketing campaign that kellyanne conway has worked on, we have not seen many details,

but we have seen funding directed to hhs and we have seen plenty of discussion about marketing. there are concerns that just say no and absence -- and abstinence-based drug programs are not effective and the reality there is so many americans already struggling with addiction that prevention is obviously a hugely important piece of the puzzle treatment. yes, marketing campaigns and youthically targeting the to talk about the dangers of drug use, opioid use in particular, is -- that plan is very much in the works. there is a question of how effectively is done and how toective it tells people not do opioids and be careful about prescription drugs and don't to heroin. the medical community would tell you that the approach needs to be somewhat more multifaceted. host: a republican in

pennsylvania -- caller: hello? this opioid thing, it's been years.for i have two people who died from it. first my brother died way back in 1977 and my boyfriend died back in 1992. 2002, i'm sorry. it is about doctors stopped giving prescriptions and then you go on to heroin. pain and they put me on fentanyl patches and i did not like them so i got off of them and went on something else. problem of the doctors giving medicine, is when they stopped giving the medicine. the heroine is more the problem the opioids -- than the opioids. host: let's follow up on that. is there a discussion, when you

give people this prescription that you start to wean them off of it rather than taking it away? guest: yeah, there is a lot of interesting advocacy going on in the chronic pain community where people are pointing to statistics about folks who end up using heroin who end up with long-term dependencies on opioids. there is debate as to how much starts as legitimate medical prescriptions. there is a discussion about and the veryain real physical discomfort and mental health issues that can go week having ae prescription for rocks he contin and the next week not. there is discussion about whether someone with an existing chronic pain condition is experiencing that pain or

honestly is experiencing opioid withdrawal. it varies case-by-case. there is a lot of discussion about whether some of these prescription limits, whether efforts to rein in prescription drug quotas which the dea does every year, whether those have the potential to impact those already using these medicines. the jury is still out. host: mike in minnesota, independent. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] i'm wondering caller: why we the peoplee to make who make the drugs, why can we hold them accountable? they are doing all this. they are pushing this. lobbyist are telling our government to give us the drugs. twitter echoesn what you are saying. opioids are affordable. sessions will fail.

we see -- guest: we see pressure on the pharmaceutical industry. paid $600 million in penalties in a settlement agreement for misleading marketing practices. the trade group representing pharmaceutical manufacturers -- in 2017, endorsed a seven day limit on first time open your prescriptions on paying. -- first-time opioid prescriptions on paying. jeff sessions made an announcement federal government is lending his muscle -- the doj is involved in lawsuits at the local and state level.

, names ofin cleveland pharmaceutical distributors and have aims to hold them accountable for their role in the crisis. much of it will center on the marketing of the drugs, whether they have potential for abuse was adequately outlined when jug reps would go into physicians' offices. it is worth noting, perdue announced it will no longer send drug reps into doctors offices octors' offices. nge of thege cha paradigm of drug companies telling doctors these are medicines they need to be described. host: let's get in our last caller. good morning, what is your story? caller: 15 years ago, i injured

my foot, knee, leg, and hip. of doing the hip replacement and the knee paincement, they put me on medication. i had toe deal -- control my pain. micrograms of 200 sentinel -- of sentinel -- of fentanyl for pain. i went to the university of washington. i had my hip replaced. my relationship with my children -- called a drug addict, even though i have never used drugs

in my life. i have no respect for anyone who used opioids for regulation. and i a legitimate injury have been arrested. they blood test you. system --ing in your you are psychotic, you are in a cute point. host: we believe it -- in acute pain. host: we will leave it there. we hear it from people who are discussed dass -- are concerned about their pain medication they argue they need because of what is happening. guest: it is important to say -- will receive recreational use -- sometimes, long-term opioid addiction does start with recreational use of something like heroin. often, prescription drug use can

progress and escalate. in the terms of the three-day prescription and quarter limits, the answer is you would hope andors, state legislators, federal lawmakers make sure that havees drugs high potential for abuse are not overprescribed. in extreme situations where someone is not functional without an extremely powerful pain drug, there are a -- are exceptions made to receive the medicine they need. the national institute of health is working on creating painkillers with the potencies of something like oxycontin that does not have such a high

potential for dependency, abuse. it is a work in progress. i am sure it is easier said than done. will, ofwill see what the white house opioid summit. news.cher with "stat" we will take a break. we will open the phone lines. you can talk about the opioid epidemic or what you saw in washington yesterday with the president calling on congress to act on gun violence or any other public policy. those are the phone lines on your screen. ♪ >> for nearly 20 years, in-depth featured the best nation -- best non-foot -- best nonfiction writers. we are featuring best-selling

fiction writers for our monthly edition. s novel with jeff, who' was made into a major motion picture. his books include "the final plus -- we will take your phone calls, tweets, and facebook messages. life from noon to 3:00 p.m. eastern on book tv on c-span two. c-span -- where history unfolds daily. -->> c-span watch history unfolds daily. in 1979, c-span was created as a public service by america's cable television companies. it is brought to you by your cable or satellite provider.

-- today, we bring you unfiltered coverage. c-span's brought to you by your satellite or cable provider. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are back in open phones for the remainder of today's "washington journal." we can talk about gun violence and the opioid epidemic. things we have been discussing this morning. also, politics and the white house. we will begin with the tension between the president and the attorney general. journal" wallet street hits back --jeff sessions hits back -- inspector instead ofo abuse justice department lawyers. the attorney general wrote in a

statement, "as long as i am a attorney-- general -- and the constitution." tof sessions is reported dine with rod rosenstein in an act of solidarity is what it is being called. you can see the picture on the -- on axois' website. bill, republican, what is on your mind? bill? let me try it again. you're on the air. good morning. guest: i am calling to represent the nine addicted taxpayers of the united states. i am against spending this money.

where is the personal responsibility? a poison. is known as i do not take it for a sore throat. you have to show some personal responsibility. detriment tosuch a our living in the united states, why do we ban it and set of trying to ban guns? it is the most ridiculous thing i have heard. if you had rat poison to kill yourself, i will open the box for you. i do not want to pay for your addiction. host: mary, boston, massachusetts, republican. what is on your mind? guest: i am an independent. we have these people talking about the opioid epidemic. i am not an addict. i have been on opioids because i messed up my back. what may be situation worse --

they make me go to pain management. i was a working person. they stuck the neil and did something wrong and made me in a worse situation. need thempeople who to get through their day. people calling probably do not have a problem with pain. if a person is taking their medication properly and not an addict, cut people a break. a lot of people got addicted to heroin because there opioids were taken away -- because their opioids were taken away. host: what about the amount prescribed? guest: my prescriptions -- caller: my prescription said never change. my doctors are very strict. i do not have doctors who will give me an overabundance of it. i have never asked for more.

i live within what they give me. saying --t of people old people, getting their hip replaced -- they do not want to give them their pain medication. it is not being fairly done. if you are getting your prescription the right way, from your doctor -- one or two pills a day, they should not be messing with those people. patiently those people alone. they should go -- they should leave those people alone. they should go to the people who overprescribed. go to the people who are addicted who do not have an ailment. they are just getting high. host: nate, mark rutte, milwaukee -- nate, democrat, milwaukee, hello. caller: i read how republicans in pennsylvania's state

legislature are spending defend theney to gerrymander maps. the same thing is happening in wisconsin. it is spending taxpayer money to prevent taxpayers' from having honest elections. not -- the elections are not fair. they are not based on where people live. they mess with the map. we had a state legislature that bounce back and forth. it stopped when the maps came in place. it is a rigged elections. host: shane, california, independent, what is on your mind? guest: -- caller: i was taken to the hospital two times in one day two weeks ago because my spine was sitting on my sciatic

nerve going to my left leg. i had been in pain for 25 years. i have never taken anything. i cannot take it anymore. i was going into shock. they gave me no ronson -- me neurotin. -- neurontin -- it cuts off the nerve ending so the pain does not go to your brain. , in i went to the hospital do not remember anything. that was from paying. when your sciatic nerve is being crushed by your spine, you start losing your mind. you cannot remember anything. your memory is gone. i understand why people get addicted to pain medications.

if you have not been through pain -- you are walking around every day and your leg is broken and it is cracked -- both boats -- you have to walk around all day like that. that is the pain people go through. after they are prescribed opioids, the doctors take them away. they need to wean them off of them slowly. sometimes, they cut them off abruptly. that is when they turn to heroin and drugs on the street. host: mimi, charlottesville, pennsylvania, republican, hello. guest: i have -- caller: i have a couple of suggestions, based on my success story. i had a hip replacement and was sent home with 90 pills. also, a lot of support from pt. on myleft to wean myself

own. as i usedwas healing, up the pills, the pain diminished. the need for the pills diminished. we ended up on an even keel. it was a tremendous outcome. there are some success stories. host: did you use all 90 pills? caller: i did. i guess that was a matter of choice. a newd not get prescription. i could have asked for it. i did not want to. i got the best of both worlds -- i use them up and use them well. host: in tennessee, a democrat. caller: good morning.

i want to comment on your guest, nwuka. tom surprised if she tied her allegiance to her party, they would not allow her in the country. thank you. have a great day. host: another story related to jeff sessions. whatront page of over -- of "the washington post." around the time he issued a series of tweets for the living sessions.ittling jeff

they go on to report in the newspaper about the investigation. behind the scenes, the president has referred to jeff sessions as mr. magoo, an elderly character. he has hired the best lawyers, but he stuck with sessions, who is not defending him and is not loyal. sessions has told associates he had been wounded by the attacks last summer. he is insisting he will not resign. the cold war continues. on the anniversary of sessions' confirmation, a senior eight bought him a bullet-proof vest as a gift. the story goes on to go at a stunned. trump was sessions has not quit.

they were hoping you would be so embarrassed he would leave. trump also ordered reince priebus to and in his resignation letter. it was not his first request. conservatives rallied to sessions' defense, particularly congress, and trump back down. laura in georgia, an independent. caller: good morning and thank you for c-span. i was calling about the opioid crisis you work discussing -- you were discussing. in 2011, i was diagnosed with spinal cancer. these are great -- the drugs are great for people suffering. before being diagnosed, i was a registered nurse and practiced for many years. the federalpand on

government's involvement in creating the crisis. we were taught -- because of medicare reimbursement, and was -- pain was a sign no matter what you were admitted for. -- a sign. no matter what you are admitted for, we had to ask about your pain levels and we had to treat it. addicted.ot of people we had no way of helping them. host: let's go to jim in idaho, a republican. good morning. about gun control -- obamacare.d over 50r, there was million hunting licenses

sold to law-abiding citizens. host: president putin addressed his legislative body in russia earlier today. here is a headline from the speech. ow regards nuclear attack on allies as an attack on russia." you can find his comments to the legislature on our website, c-span.org. from illinois, a democrat, good morning. caller: good morning. i am looking at c-span. i have been watching it for some time. you guys have interesting topics. opioid addiction has been around for a long time. we all know that. people are getting things confused. a lot of people are doing the drugs are in pain. a lot of people are using them because they choose to abuse the drug.

you have to have some form of control. as a caregiver, i see a lot of people who do it. most of these people do not want to get rid of the drug. they will not get rid of the drug altogether. they need to have some control over it. doctors are responsible, but we are responsible as people. you must have control over the drugs you take. takenmes, pain has to be in a be form of a diverse way. eventually, you will get at the debt if you are not going to -- you will get addicted if you are not controlling your pain. running to the doctor and getting opiates is not the solution. we all have a part in controlling the opioid addiction, especially in the younger generation. have a nice day.

host: mike, an independent. caller: good morning. host: good morning. i wanted talk about -- host: it is -- i will put you on hold. it is hard to hear you. you sound muffled. let's go to chris in ohio, republican. caller: pardon me? host: you are on the air. caller: i want to comment on the opioid problem. host: yes. caller: we had an opioid problem. those of us who have to have them because of the pain we have because of the things that are wrong with us -- they are not

thinking about the ones who truly have issues. i understand there are people doing what they have to do in seeking the drugs as they can get them. i was seeing a doctor who put me oxycodone 20's a day and six methadone tends a day -- methadone 10's a day. i took myself completely off of the methadone. i never touch them again. i said, it is bad for your heart. i know that. i weaned myself off of the oxycodone. i now go to a pain specialist, who has been working on my back. he has me on three oxycodone 5's a day instead of the 20's. that worked. i do not have to have the six 20's. i do not have to have the six tens.

for those of us who need to have them, they need to take it into consideration. there are people, like me, we need to have them because of the pain. -- usather headlines today -- accused of a plot. lobbying capitol hill to demand his boss' resignation. a man was called to persuade -- he is the highest ranking a past with publicly defended him in the agency. he denied he tried to out shulki n. in the washington times -- a republican of colorado has been a vocal critic of shulkin. he is calling on the secretary

to resign. d in arlington, virginia, a democrat. hello. caller: hello. what we are missing in this conversation on poor health insurance policy and folks with chronic pain. who areussing those using it recreationally. if you are low income and you have a surgery or some sort of injury and you are giving pain meds, insurance will pay for it -- whether it is private or government. they will not pay for alternative methodologies -- acupuncture, iv supplementation. from the very beginning -- if you could avail yourself of those things -- you may not have to take a lot of pain meds and get caught up in the paint cycle you cannot get out of.

you are treated like a criminal because folks who are abusing it. somebody to talk about health insurance in the regard, so folks to not become dependent. byron, ohio, an independent. hello. caller: good morning. host: good morning, you're on the air. caller: thank you very much. i would like to follow up on what the young woman from virginia. i am a patient who suffered since 2010 with severe back pain. because first surgery my lumbar 4 and 5 disintegrated. they are in bars. i have a blown disc below it. i have three discs in my neck

blown. host: are you still there? we lost her. we will leave the conversation there for now. we want to bring you up to capitol hill. lawmakers are starting to gather departure -- for the departure of billy graham. his casket lied -- his casket laid in honor or the casket will be brought out of capital shortly. america's pastor was what he was called. he referred to himself as a simple creature. he was the fourth citizen to lie in honor at the capital -- capitol. we will renew their life. -- we will bring you there live. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]