>> this weekend and washington at 8:00 a.m. and later, todd harrison from the institute for strategic studies speaks about donald trump's proposal for a space force as a new u.s. branch. host: this is an opinion day at the supreme court with six opinions yet to be announced at the court finishes its session. some of the court's decisions not only will determine the fate of president trump's travel ban, but also the future of public sector unions. in the house this week, questions on if a compromise immigration bill will be passed and even if such a bill could get support from republicans in the senate. there are reports as of this morning that a bill only looking at family reunification could be the bill that gets voted upon. and so many reactions to white house press secretary sarah sanders being asked to leave the premises of a virginia

restaurant last week. some legislators over the weekend encourage such behavior, others came to the defense of mrs. sanders, and now we want your opinion in this first hour of the program this morning. not only on the incident, but what it says about the larger issue of civility in politics. so if up to the give us your thoughts on sarah sanders being asked to leave that restaurant and issues surrounding that, 202-748-8001 is how you call us if you're a republican. democrats, call us at 202-748-8000. and then it's 202-748-8002 for independents. if you want to post on social media, @cspanwj on our twitter feed. you can also post at facebook.com/cspan. just to reiterate what happened over the weekend, it was a tweet that was sent out on the white house press secretary's official twitter account that kind of told the story, at least to start, saying that

last night, i was told by the owner of red hen in lexington, virginia, to leave because i work for the president of the united states, and i politely left. her actions say far more about her than about me. i always do my best to treat people, including those i disagree, respectfully and-to do so. when tms cot restaurant owner's reaction, it goes as such, this being reported in "the washington post," saying that when it comes to the restaurant owner, "i'm the owner, continuing saying i like you to come to the pat oh with me for a word. they stepped outside, then to another small enclosure, but at least out of the crowded restaurant, and goes on to say i was babbling a little, but i got my point across in a positive scomplite direct fashion. i explained that the restaurant has certain standards, and i feel it has to uphold such as honesty, compassion, and cooperation. i said i'd like to ask you to leave. sanders' response was immediate, wilkinson said, that's fine, i'll go.

again, that was in "the washington post" over the weekend. there's another story taking a look at the larger issue surrounding these incidents in "the washington post" this morning. dinner with a side of shaming. mary jordan reporting that few law prohibit because of political views. civil rights lawyer said that while there have been many cases in recent history involving establishments barring black people, women or members of the lgbt community, shunning people for their political affiliation has been relatively uncommon until now -- it highlights other incidents that occurred recently, one with the florida attorney general, who often appears on fox news. she was shouted down at a movie theater screening on tampa on friday, you are a horrible person, one protester screamed at her --

host: for this first hour, 202-748-8001 for republicans. 202-748-8000 for democrats. independents, 202-748-8002. mike starts us off. he is in lake villa, illinois, iment line. go ahead. caller: i think it's very unfair to discriminate against people on their ideology or opinion. and people on the right or left like do all the time for discrimination of race or color or gender, but they seem to have the hypocrisy here on the left is quite stunning. in fact, i heard that maximum

een waters called for this publicly to shame and harass. i think those were her words, harass people. i think she should be prosecuted. host: we'll get to that in a bit. anthony, democrats line. good morning. aller: good morning. it's fair. the supreme court just ruled the cake makers didn't have to make the cake because of the moral -- those people were immoral, and this lady at the restaurant, the red hen, saying it's because of immorality, their scomplige whatnot, not because of who -- because she works at the white house, it's because of the way they act. they act immoral, and she didn't have to -- and they cheered when the supreme court came down with the cake ruling. so it's the same thing. you don't to want make a cake

for someone because they're gay. you don't have to make food for someone when they lie. i mean, immorality is morality. host: "the washington post" story highlights the recent supreme court decision about the masterpiece cake shop in their story this morning, aying this --

host: myrtle beach, south carolina, you're next on this question about the sarah sanders being asked to leave a restaurant. republican line. go ahead. caller: thank you. i just wanted to say, i am 76 years old. i have voted democrat for i would say 60 of those years. i am changing. i'm going to go independent, because i'm ashamed of the democrats. host: over this one incident? and by the way, you're also calling in on a republican line, too. is that what you represent now? caller: that's the way i feel like i'll be voting, because i cannot go along with what the democrats are doing. they are making people walk away from them. host: so is it about this one instance concerning sarah sanders that prompts you to do that? caller: no, it's about all the

things they're doing. the people have voted. you need to accept it. host: ok, but to the point of what happened to sarah sanders, what do you think specifically about that, since that's what we're asking people to comment on. caller: i think it's disgraceful. she's there with her family probably. and they ask a person to leave. when she's done nothing except do her job. host: a couple of tweets for you this morning. richard rogers just saying, it was misguided to ask sarah sanders to leave the restaurant. that's with a question mark. and then one says it's hypocrisy. if you advocate the refusing to serve, but then say what goes around -- goes around, he comments. make those thoughts on twitter and on our facebook page. from vermont, independent line. this is peter, hello. caller: good morning. thank you. i would not eat at a restaurant or any place of business that did not want me to be there. i would not know that until i

entered the business. businesses should publicly post their intentions. thank you. shoip you're saying a sign that's saying if you're of a personal political persuasion, don't eat here? he hung up. minneapolis is next, democrats line. andrew, go ahead. caller: ok, hi, guys. i think it's a big mistake what happened. what it does is creates now in the conversation an equivalency between the past, which was discrimination based on race or other protected classes, and now we have this sort of act that's very similar to those types of discrimination just on the basis of political affiliation. that's a big problem. i think that just creates a sense of grievance, and what it speaks to is really the lack of faith in institutions. i think democrats are really upset by the violation of human rights that we've just seen on the border, and what we need to

do, we need a process -- we have processes, but they're weak for dealing with that, and what democrats need to do is talk about impeachment, talk about the legal remedies that are there, not shy away from that. because when they do that, when they shy away from it, then you have people being frustrated. host: so what about this specific act of the restaurant owner? what do you think about it? caller: say it again? host: what do you think about the specific act of the restaurant owner? caller: no, it's a mistake. you can't deny people service. that's going to foment division between americans, really. but we need to have that sort of anger being channeled through the institutions that are there. host: that's andrew in minnesota. a picture in the "washington times" this morning is by the associated press. it's the front of that restaurant, the red hen, and if you were to see it this morning, a picture of sarah sanders, but then a sign placed there by whom, i don't know, but democracy requires prince selled government, thank you, red hen, and another person

leaving flowers at the site of the restaurant. john in tennessee, republican line. you're next up, hello. caller: yes. anybody that acts like democrats do, i don't see how ignorant or evil people, because they stamp murdering babies, they're for homosexuals -- host: john, john, before you go too far, the incident with sarah sanders at the restaurant, talk to us about that. caller: we're in ten. muslims will not neat my restaurant because i'm a christian. and they will be escorted clean out to the parking lot, strong armed or whatever it takes to get him out of there. host: so the restaurant owner in virginia, she was right to do what she did then? caller: we need to open the battlefield is what we need to do. democrats and republicans. remember who the republicans -- host: no, but john, the restaurant owner in virginia, was she right in doing this or

not? caller: democrats are looking for a fight, and they're going to get one. host: ok, gleets to frank. frank's in louisiana, independent line. hi. caller: thank you for taking my call. put me on call block. i think a restaurant owner ought to be boycotted. she's not going to realize just how many republicans go there. these are public figures, so they're an easy target. but she might have a little customers heir because i bet there's a whole lot of republicans or independents that eat there, and that might come back and bite them in the butt. and sarah sanders, she needs to hold her ground. don't give in to these progressive communists, wannabes, and they need to do a

different country and check it out and see how really bad it is. host: ok, that's frank in louisiana. if you go to technology website cnet, there's a story about the service yelp in which you can leave ratings on different things. michelle myers writing yesterday, saying restaurant get yelp bombed for asking sarah sanders to leave. red harn, a farm to table restaurant in shenandoah valley, has been flooded with mostly one to five-star yelp reviews after the white house press secretary tweeted that the owner asked her to leave. it goes on to talk about the tweet, saying that the red hen didn't immediately respond to an email seeking confirmation and comment, and phone calls to the restaurant didn't you go through. someone claiming to be sanders' server posted about the incident, and the post was tweeted out by the executive director of the environmental group clean virginia. it goes on to say, yelpers from all over the country took to the restaurant's page to offer opposing opinions of the owner's reported action says --

host: fenn, that's some of the yelp responses to the incident. we're getting yours as well on the phone line. 202-748-8001 for republicans. 202-748-8000 for democrats. 202-748-8002 for independents. it was over the weekend that democratic representative from california maxine waters at a rally recently spoke not only about the larger issues of immigration and what was going on on the border, but specifically what happened to sarah sanders and her thinking on similar incidents. here's what she had to say. >> let's stay the course. let's make sure we show up wherever we have to show up. and if you see anybody from that cabinet in a restaurant,

in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out nd you create a crowd. and you tell them they're not welcome anymore, anywhere, we've got to get the children connected to their parents. the children are suffering. host: also prompted response from former obama -- president obama's white house staffer, david axle rod, saying that kind of amaze and had appalled by the number of folks on the left who applauded the expulsion of the press secretary and her family from a restaurant. this in the end is a triumph for the real donald donald trump division of america, now we're divided by red plates and blue plates. and also adding sad to the commentary there in the tweet. here's georgia. sheila is in georgia, democrats line. hello. caller: hello. is that me? host: yes, you're on, go ahead. caller: i believe she should -- thrown out the

restaurant. because she works for trump. host: but why to the point of throwing her out of a public lace to eat? caller: they are all right to throw anybody out that they want. i think. host: kimberly is next. pennsylvania is where she's at, republican line. hi. caller: good morning, pedro. looks like everybody's lost their minds. i work for bosses who are total butt heads, but none of the customers ever made me pay for it, being the clerk or assistant manager, whatever. but there are two things that could have been done. one, like the other business that posted if you're not a patriot, you don't need to come in, that would have been a heads up for sarah sanders. not that i'm calling her a butt

head or anything, but you know. and two, she's being herself discriminated against because of who she works for. like i said, i worked for a boss that was a butt head. i've had customers come in and show them to the police, literally in the store in front of me, and try to get me to deal with them, and i told them to leave. that was because of their actions. crazy. whoip protesters were protesting the homeland security -- homeland security secretary when she was eating at the mexican restaurant, that's different, because they did it on their own versus the restaurant's actions with sarah sanders? caller: i don't think it should be legal for anybody to come into anybody's business and protest. no, that is different. but i'd like to know if the restaurant of the hen place asked everybody else who they were for. you know, what political party

they were for and made them leave, too. host: our independent line from jamaica, new york, we'll hear from duane. good morning. go ahead. caller: good morning, pedro. why are we so upset about sarah sanders? we never heard of her until she became a press secretary. i mean, they have a right to ask her to leave. it's their business. when she's on a press meeting, she goes after april ryan. no one ever says anything. so she deserves whatever she gets, ok? host: so the restaurant owner was right in asking her to leave just because who she worked for? caller: who cares? it's his business. it's his establishment. if he wants to, that's his establishment. trump has people going to his hotel. he can tell people not to go there. so why can't he? that's the owner's establishment. let's not -- host: but what do you think about the largerer issue of civil knit politics, if anything, that applies to this

kind of situation? how do you think that applies? caller: we live in a society that's tainted by trump and his minions telling us we can -- we can keep immigrants from coming in. he started this battle. his battle are now being targeted. so what? who cares at this point? host: ok. that's duane in jamaica, new york. editors of the "wall street journal" using the incident to write an editorial this morning. how to re-elect trump is the editorial section this morning, saying the political left is now repeating the mistake as its culture and political vanguard sends a message of conned session and now ost radio significance to anyone who voted for mr. trump or his worked with or for him for the good of the country. their contempt might end up re-electing him o. that score, don't underestimate how the refusal by a restaurant in lexington, virginia, to serve white house press secretary sarah huckabee sanders will resonate politically. republicans know mr. trump

often acts demoreablely and many dislike his immigration policies, especial the recent situation of parents and children. this has caused the white house to change policy and keep immigrant families together, but republicans and other voters also know that when they are being sneered at and marginalized, they don't think it's un-american to ask if maybe immigrant parents shouldn't take their toddle others a dangerous trip across the border. they won't admit it, but they are playing into donald trump's hands. you can read more thoughts this morning in "the wall street journal" this morning. anthony, maryland, good morning. caller: yes, good morning. with the supreme court turning to the constitution and civil rights act spinning on its head, we're going to see more of this, but it's going to happen to everyday people. the only reason it made the news is because sanders is the press secretary. but it's very clear squhurks

somebody to leave a restaurant or establishment, you're reducing your ability to serve the public generally. and when you do that, then you're asking people to think about taking their business somewhere else. so i think that's the bigger picture. we're looking at a civil rights violation. it should never happen. and it's going to affect the red hen down the line and all the rest of us as well. host: so you're saying long term harm because of this one incident. caller: not just this one incident, but it's because of this view of it, because we're getting a larger picture. we're talking about somebody who's in the public all the time. you're seeing more of this going to happen down the line to say, well, this can happen and this restaurant and it's ok, then they should be able to happen in my restaurant. if i walk into a restaurant, well, i don't like the color of your tie, you have to leave, then that's when i'm going to be faced with. taking someone's political opinion where i work or what i look like, it's whether or not i can pay as a customer is wrong, i don't care how else

you police it. host: republican line from wisconsin, brandon, go ahead. caller: good morning to what the other caller said. this is definitely a violation of the spirit of the civil rights act. and it's odd that d.c. actually has a law that you cannot discriminate on somebody based on their political association. but ultimately i think this let vick getting pretty dangerous. it's very dangerous, and we saw last year what happens when a deranged supporter takes his civility to the next level when there was that attempted assassination on the baseball field. host: so what was your reaction, initial reaction when you heard about this incident concerning the press secretary? caller: i was disturbed by it. i kind of -- i'm not really

surprised, given the recent rhetoric from the left. but yeah. host: what disturbs you most? caller: how low the democrats will go. being near wisconsin, you saw this back in 2009 when governor walker passed act 10 and protesters would come to his house in the middle of the night and disrupt the public peace. and it was so far over the top, it actually helped governor walker, and i think the same thing is going to happen here, where the backlash, and you're already seeing it with yelp reviews and whatnot, that people are not going to stand up for this. host: that's brandon in milwaukee, wisconsin, giving his thoughts. he spoke about people protesting the governor of wisconsin's house. it was outside the homeland ecurity secretary kirstjen nielsen's house where protesters were gathering. here's a sample of that. >> shame!

shame! shame! shame! shame! shame! shame! shame! shame! shame! >> history will remember you! history will judge you! you belong in the haig! you belong in the haig! you're a modern day nazi! you belong in the haig! shame! shame! shame sppt shame! shame! shame! shame! shame! shame! shame! shame! host: the editors of "the washington post" this morning taking the time to let the trump team eat in peace is the editorial, saying most obviously passions are running high. those who defend the red hen staff or ms. nielsen's hecklers, mr. trump has ordered terrible violations of human rights, demonizing immigrants by hi actions and rhetoric, and people need to speak up however they can. we none would argue that they should be allowed to eat dinner in peace --

host: that's in "the washington post" this morning. let's go to ma flee south carolina, independent line. you're next. caller: yes, this is just the boomerang is coming back to rest, where the blacks wanted to go to restaurants, you pay at the front, go to the back and get your food. we weren't good enough to sit by them. we weren't even good enough to drink from the same water town dane. but now because they think they're in power they can do anything they want to do and they must go back to them. but think back, think back how you felt. you happy to do it. you sit in the back of the bus and everything.

host: to this specific incident of the actions of the restaurant owner, what do you think about them? caller: the restaurant, i think he should do whatever they want to do. if you don't want to go there, don't go. there's more than one restaurant. host: bill is next from georgia. democrats line. hi. caller: good morning, pedro. to me, it's almost as though the person from south carolina said. back in the 1960's, black people were turned away at a restaurant. that's still taking place today down here in the south. what's got to happen is this right here. people have got to get back to being civil. the republicans, they applaud when the supreme court said they do not have to make a case because they are black. that is a form of discrimination. simple as that. and what the red hen restaurant did was right along the same line. that's not what america is

supposed to be. it's supposed about justice for all of us. but all the since, since trump, goes back to obama, people said black people only voted for obama because he was black. no, people might have agreed with some of his policies. why does one side say it's good for us, but then when the other side does, it it's not. guess what, it's wrong for everybody. if it's wrong for you, it's rong for someone else. host: harry is next. good morning, harry. caller: good morning. first of all, that was despicable. but also why, don't they put a sign that says no republicans? that's point number one. point number two, this started when they stopped the broadway show. as far as maxine waters, every time i seen her, she's a zpick apple piece of human scum. that's how i feel about her. floip new jersey, independent line, darryl, hello, go ahead. caller: good morning. how are you? host: fine, thanks, you're on.

caller: i actually think that this isn't a simple question of politics left and right, democrat and republican. first of all, even if it were, being a party membership is not a part of protected class. that's one thing. the other thing is, there are people, whether republicans want to hear what they're not, there are people in this country that see what's happening and see this administration as a clear and present danger to our democratic norms. and they see it as a danger and a threat. and so, you know, you don't see george will or other republicans being turned away at restaurants. it's specifically about sarah sanders and her actions. she chooses to go in front of the american people every day and lie. and for her to sit there in her response and saying she always treats people with respect, have you watched those pressroom briefings? have you watched the way she disrespected people april rye senate and to come before the

american people and lie every day is disrespecting all of us. host: so that gives the restaurant owner, in your opinion, the trite remove sarah sanders? caller: what i would say is the restaurant -- sarah sanders' membership in the republican party and her position as press secretary doesn't put her in a protected class. does it? host: i'm more stpwhd what you think about the actions of the restaurant owner herself. caller: what i'm saying is, sarah sanders, in her position as press secretary, is not part of the protected class. and listen, the present over the weekend said that maybe it's time that we suspend the due process clauses, the fifth amendment for people seeking asylum in this country. i mean, that's a problem. host: back to this, though. would you extend that same line of thinking then if the restaurant owner found out there was a blatant trump supporter eat nag restaurant? would you support that same type of action? depoip that blatant trump

supporter spoke every day about, you know, skirting the constitution, destroying our democratic norms, lying to the american people, then, yeah. i mean, this isn't about sarah sanders' membership of a party or even her support of a president. there are plenty of republicans who support -- i mean, ask anthony scare muffinee. has he been -- anthony scaramucci, has he been heckled? but sarah sanders is in a unique position. whenever she goes in front of the american people -- remember what she said -- host: ok, you made that point, and we're going to have to leave it there. continue on with your calls if you want to give your thoughts on this incident concerning sarah sanders. it's 202-748-8001 for republicans. 202-748-8000 for democrats. 202-748-8002 for independents. post on twitter and our facebook feed, too. we'll continue those calls in

just a moment. if you were to look outside the supreme court, a line already forming. people waiting for these opinions of the remaining cases that were heard and deliberated by the high court, and now it's just time to see how they ruled on it and the opinions they gave. joining us to talk about these remaining cases and the ignificant ones at play is greg store of bloomberg. how many cases are we talking about? guest: we have six cause remaining. they're going to be decided during this nine-month term. host: do we expect all those cases to have relief this week? guest: we expect them all this week, some of them today. we don't think today will be the last day. there probably will be at least one or opinion day this week. host: when it comes to the remaining cases, start with some of the significant ones, including the trump travel ban. what's at stake, and what's the likelihood we might hear something today? guest: the trump travel ban is

the biggest of the group. that policy has been in effect. the supreme court let it go into effect several months ago when it decided to take up the case. the issue there is this policy that restrictions entry into the u.s. from people from a total of seven countries, five of which are majority muslim, and those are the ones that are at issue at the supreme court. challengers, led by hawaii, say that the administration is both exceeding the president's authority under the federal immigration laws and unconstitutionally targeting muslims. host: that's the one case that is still yet to be decided. also, one of the cases at stake, public unions the topic. inform our viewers what that's about. guest: that's probably a close second. this is a case involving whether a worker in a government job, whether he's a union, whether that worker has

a first amendment right to say i don't want to pay any of the costs of collective bargaining. the supreme court seemed like it was poised to overturn a decades-old ruling and say the worker does have a free speech right, that was a couple of years ago, in a case with california. but then justice antonin scalia died before the court could rule. they agreed to reconsider the issue this term. it's a little bit of a surprise to some of us that it has taken the court so long to get this opinion out, since this was an issue that they're very familiar with. based on conventional wisdom, the expectation is that justice neil gorsuch will join with the other conservative justices and vote to say there is this free speech right. and really, deal with a pretty significant blow to the finances of public sector unions. host: we're looking at a shot of the supreme court with people standing outside. could you walk us through what happens on an opinion release

day, for those who may not know directly, such as yourself? guest: the justices take the bench, and the -- well, they're not always all there. the end of the term, they will probably all be there, or almost all of them will be there. and the chief justice will say, justice whoever has our opinion in a particular case, and that justice will start reading a summary of the opinion from the bench. some of us will be down in the pressroom and will be getting copies of the opinion at the same time. and then when they're finished reading the summary of one case, they'll move on to the next case until they're done with whatever opinions they're releasing for the day. host: before we let you go, a lot of significant cases being heard this term. what did you think about the term as a whole and what sticks out in your mind as maybe some of the more significant opinions by the court? caller: guest: well, there are a lot of potentially divisive cases this term. and to a large degree, not

totally, but to a large degree the court has manages to fee fuse those differences. the two biggest examples of the partisan gerrymandering rulings that came out last week, where the court essentially punted and said we're not going to decide the biggest questions. and then the other very high-profile case involving a colorado baker who refused to make wedding cakes for same-sex weddings and the question of whether he could be sanctions under the state's civil rights law. the court decided that case in a very narrow way, with both of those potentially very divisive issues, the court could take up the issue again next term, so maybe they're just kicking can the down the road. but for now, we haven't seen as many big device si 5-4 type opinions as one might have expected. host: and as of this morning, greg storr, any retirement announcements being planned? guest: i don't know about planned. no retirement announcements being put out. certainly everybody is on the

watch. in the last few decades, justices have tended to announce retirement a little bit earlier in the term, but certainly there's plenty of precedent for justices announcing a retirement right after the last opinion. all eyes will be on justice anthony kennedy, and to a lesser degree, justice clarence thomas, who just turned 70 over the weekend. host: this is greg stohr breaking down what could happen this week when it comes to opinions on this final week of the court. mr. stohr, thanks for your time. guest: a pleasure. host: we return to your calls, taking a look at this not involving sarah sanders being asked to leave a restaurant over the weekend, the reaction it's goten from legislators, your reaction, too. 202-748-8001 for republicans. 202-748-8000 for democrats. independents, 202-748-8002. flint, michigan, up next, democrats line. debbie, hi. caller: good morning, pedro. i think it's sad that she did

it, but i believe it's her right to have done it. you know, for years, republicans and conservatives called democrats murderers because of our stand on abortion or women's rights. that's been perfectly ok. but we start calling people out for lying. and let's look at this. we expect this restaurant owner to have a higher bar of civility than our own president ? because he's the one out there being uncivil to everybody, especially democrats. host: ok, that's deb knee flint, michigan. juan off of twitter this morning says, have you ever seen the restaurant at the restaurant says we reserve the right of admission? again, make your thoughts on twitter, on facebook as well. kentucky, republican line, you're next. caller: yes, i was born and raised in virginia. i since moved out. but the values that's been done by the young lady at the restaurant owner is not the values that i was at.

so i think when you start bringing people in from different parts of the world, which is great, and different part of the country is great, but instead of trying to change things to your values, you should be able to roll into the values of the people there. for example, i don't think this lady is going to last very long in lexington now because of the value of the people that are not going to support that. but this lady, all she's doing is standing up to the rhetoric of maxine waters and the people who want to bring down the people who work for the president. did i 23 years in the military. just the other day, i was called a nazi because i voted for donald trump. so these are the problems we have in this country. it's sad, but hopefully we can work through it before we fall apart. thank you very much. host: republican line, joy in washington, d.c., hi. caller: good morning, pedro. how you doing? host: fine, thank you.

caller: i'm not pleased at all with what happened in virginia at that restaurant. it brings me back to the civil rights act. everybody should be able to go into the establishment and eat without being heckled. well, the restaurant owner was polite, but i just think her actions were impolite. and maxine waters should be prosecuted because she's a legislator telling to us disowe way the civil rights act. host: do you think other similar type of incidents will happen now because of what happened over the weekend? caller: i believe there will be, especially in places. i was born in virginia also as a former caller was, and i night see this coming back. i think it will probably happen at other restaurants also. but it could also hurt businesses. when they allow people to patronize their restaurants. host: off of facebook, you can't have it both ways. if you supported the baker to deny service to a gay couple, then you need to also support the owner of the restaurant. both denials of service were

based on deeply held beliefs. michelle clark saying she should expect it. it's her choice to lie every day. she supports the most vile man. naturally decent people would want nothing to do with her. why do people like this have to resort to actions like this? if you don't agree with someone, that's fine. but the democrats are going way too far. there are some with so much hatred. we are losing our country. that's some of the reaction off twitter. you can post your reactions, too. about 1,000 people so far this morning on the facebook feed. it's at facebook.com/cspan. and then our twitter feed, @cspanwj. tulsa, oklahoma, cliff next, democrats line. caller: don't kill the messenger. this lady is just doing her job. i voted for trump. i'm a democrat. we're going through the same crap for medical marijuana in oklahoma.

everywhere we go, they ask to us leave because we have our stickers. we've been pulled over with stickers on the back of our car supporting medical marijuana. and this lady is just doing what she was hired to do. this is just ridiculous. host: an interesting exchange on nn's program on sunday. this was between david irvin, who worked on the trump campaign, the 2016 presidential campaign, and carlos gutierrez, the former commerce secretary under the george w. bush administration. the topic at hand was the incident involving sarah sanders. here's a bit of the exchange. >> you can have civil discourse in america, disagree. america should be a marketplace of ideas. we want to have a civil discourse and dablet and be able to do that. you shouldn't be asked to leave a restaurant. look, if you do, let her suffer the fate. if the people don't to want frequent her restaurant, that's great. >> i'm sorry that sarah huckabee sand hers a bad day.

i'm not worried about sarah hawk bee sanders. i'm worried about the african-american kid in school who gets harassed by kids who think they have a license to harass because the president says so. i'm worried about the hispanic kid, the hispanic american citizen who is harassed at school and called a member of ms-13 because the president calls immigrants from hispanic countries members of ms-13. i'm not worried about sarah huckabee sanders. i'm worried about millions of kids that today are seeing a different america. host: a viewer brought it up, but the "new york times" some of the president's tweets over the weekend concerning those who illegally enter the country. the "new york times" reporting this morning under the headline trump wants no due process at the u.s. border. katie rogers writing that the president unleashed an aggressive attack sunday on unauthorized immigrants and the judicial system that handles them saying those who cross the united states illegally should be sent back immediately without due process for an appearance before a judge --

host: later on in the program, we'll talk about the status of the legislation, how it plays out in the senate, and the larger issues, plus other topics as well. that will be later in the program. from sandy, ohio, independent line. hi. caller: hi. yeah, on the media is stoking all this highlight red, like

that spanish guy that says . ump says to harass hispanics he doesn't want to harass anybody. he's trying to bring the country tofplgte he's just against illegal immigration. host: so to the point of sarah sanders, talk about that, since that's what we're talking about. caller: well, i think it's wrong. how about the murder of trump in the park place? stuff that never was done to beating up tifa trump supporters. this is like the nazis. they say they're anti-fascists, and they're acting like the fascists. it remuneds me of nazi germany. host: so you equate all that with the owner asking sarah sanders to leave? caller: no, with how about the socialists going after nielsen? that's what they did to the jews. jews, get out. jews, get out. host: let's go to walt, pittsburgh, pennsylvania, independent line.

caller: yeah, i agree about the last three callers, and welcome to the big red wave in november. keep it up here. whoip say you totally agree, explain that. caller: explain that. the people that say that trump and his cabinet are fascists and nazis, that's exactly like the fascists and nazis. it's so hypocritical. this senator baldwin on tv the other day -- host: no, no, no, back to the incident at the restaurant. stick to that. tell us about your thinking on that. caller: what do you think about it, pedro? do you think that's right? host: no, you're the one who called us, and you're the one poor looking for an opinion from, so you tell us. caller: it's the most ridiculous thing i've ever heard of. i don't know where we live anymore. honest to god, coming to that secretary nielsen, not only does she get harassed at a restaurant, she lives in a

public place like a condominium. she's not the only one in there. and these people think nothing of coming and disturbing the peace at 7:00 in the morning, 5:00 in the morning. where's their heads? host: ok, that's walt in pittsburgh, pennsylvania. the president sending out a tweet on this topic, saying the red hen restaurant should focus more on cleaning its filthy doors and windows, badly needs a paint job, rather than refusing to serve a fine person like sarah huckabee sanders am i always had a rule, if a restaurant is dirty on the outside, it's dirty on the inside. and that's the president's twitter account there, talking about that incident that concerned sarah sanders last friday. let's go to dave. dave is in cincinnati, democrats line. hi. caller: good morning, pedro. i have two points to make. no one brought this up, but i think the woman owner said she was doing this on the grounds that she was standing up for

her gay employees. that was the point that made her have her leave. and i don't know that triggered that, so much to trump is so sarah sanders' father, who's been vehemently anti-gay for decades. host: what do you think about -- if that's the case, what do you think about using that as the grounds to ask sarah sanders to leave? caller: well, that's my second point, pedro. there's a local restaurant here . the owner has a restaurant in lexington. and o.j. simpson came in one day, and he walked over to him and told him, i don't want you hear. please leave. he told him that you are not wanted her, and i'm not going to serve you. now, all these people that are calling in would probably agree with that, even though most people think did he commit the murder, but that was a moral

stand. and i think this woman took a moral stand, and that's the perfectly acceptable in america. it's the consequences are negative at a restaurant, so be it. but she stood up for gay rights. and this is gay pride month, and good for her. host: that's dave in cincinnati, ohio. sarah huckabee sanders' father, you probably know this, governor mike huckabee, sending out a tweet on this topic, response to the actions toward his daughter, saying bigotry on the menu at red hen restaurant in lexington, virginia, or you can ask for the hate plate, and appetizers are small plates for small minds. in kansas, we'll hear next from joe, republican line. caller: yes, good morning, pedro. three quick things. this reminds me of jesse jackson back when he was running for president. he told everybody that when he used to be a server when he was a waiter, that he used to spit in white people's food.

you can look that up. that's a fact. i believe second point is, things are going to get worse, much, much worse. you guys need to look at the bigger picture. and for all those on the left, you gave everybody an out. we're now bakers. just ask people to bring in the registration card, and if they're democrats, don't bake them a cake. host: what did you think specifically about the incident? caller: i think it's -- i kind of agree with a lot of people. if they don't to want serve them, that's their right, don't serve them. but i wouldn't want to eat in a restaurant where a person wouldn't to want serve me, because i'd be afraid what they put in the food. sanders did the right thing. it's like, hey, if they don't want me here, i'm out. because you don't know how some people are vindictive and what they would put in the food. i'd be out of that restaurant in a heartbeat. because if she's going to kick the person out, you never know what she's going to put in a person's food. republicans do not eat in that restaurant. host: ok, that's joe in kansas. there's an update this morning

on a legislator, a congressional candidate running for congress was involved in a severe auto accident over the weekend. this is in politico, south carolina congressional candidate was listed in critical but stable condition yesterday after a car accident friday night that left one person dead. the campaign says despite the injuries, she's not expected to have any lasting neurological issues going forward. her campaign said in a statement the doctors expect her to be out of bed and walking in the next few days. she will remain hospitalized for the next two weeks and many still require -- and may still require one more surgical procedure, which the statement described as minimal. on sunday, she underwent two major surgeries. the first was an operation that complemented the initial surgery she underwent friday night. the second surgery was for a spinal fracture, which went very well and with no complications. almost two weeks ago, the republican state representative defeated mark sanford in the

primary of the g.o.p. nomination in the first district. she received a last-minute support of president donald trump from the race, some who joined a number of well tpwhishes tweeting prayers for her over the weekend. virginia is next. we'll hear from frank, republican line. good morning, go ahead. caller: i hope the lady in south carolina does get better and manages to win the election. joe beat me to the draw on jesse jackson. i just want to be happy she was asked to leave, because some fool in the kitchen would have probably spit in her food. host: what did you think about her being asked to leave in the first place? caller: well, you know. like i said, i think she should be happy that she was asked to leave. you got stupid garden complements like the woman who owns that place and like maxine waters.

it's crazy that people like that are ever put in any kind of authority position. and would you please keep us informed on what happens of that restaurant in case somebody decides to burn it down? host: ok, that's frank in virginia. primary day tomorrow. utah being one of those states that has a primary, and the salt lake tribune, one of the senate canneds mitt romney, where i stand on the trump agenda. he writes, on the one hand, those believe supporting the president's agenda means supporting every policy the president proposes whether or not they actually agree with that policy. i take a different course. i will support the president's policies when i believe they're in the best interest of utah and the nation. i have noted the first year of his administration has exceeded my expectations. he made our corporate tax code globally competitive, worked to reduce unnecessary regulations, and restored the multiple use of utah public land. it goes on to say that i have openly expressed my disagreement with certain of the administration's decisions

such as withdrawal from the trance pacific partnership. i want more markets open. i also oppose broad-based tariffs, particular when will they are imposed on our allies. it goes on from there. that's the "salt lake tribune." he talked about tariffs and the such. "the wall street journal," their front-page story takes a look at potential new curbs on china's products. this is bob david saying that president trump already embroil in addition trade battle with china plans to ratchet commercial tensions higher by barring many companies from investing in u.s. technology firms and by blocking additional technology exports to beijing, according to people familiar with the plan. the twin initiative set to be announced by the end of the week are designed to prevent beijing from moving ahead with plans outlined in its report and become a global leader in 10 broad areas of technology, including computers, aerosmith, electric vehicles, and

biotechnology. luter is next. luther is from massachusetts. go ahead. caller: good morning, pedro. i'm a democrat calling on the democratic line. i want to say that the lady was wrong when she denied service to ms. sanders. yes, i understand the restaurant's owner''s anger at the statement and the actions of the press secretary. but the fact that they are abominable does not mean i must conduct in the same way. we need to have a civil society. we need to maintain that civility. and yes, it is doyle maintain that civility when you're spit in the face, but you still maintain your civility. that's what dr. king showed us. that's what all the people who went into those woolworth and places to sit down and eat were denied. they maintained their civility through all of that stuff.

we must always maintain our civility. thank you very much. host: alabama, line for democrats. hi, good morning. caller: good morning. what you know? to the gentleman that just called from massachusetts, i am so sorry. you could not maintain no civility with donald trump as president of the united states. you cannot -- you can't have civility with him being president of the united states. look how he just tweeted out and said that about this woman. that's so childish and immature for the president of the united states to make a statement like that. host: what did you think about the actions of the restaurant's owner? caller: i think she had her rights. and pedro, i want to say it's about c-span. host: so wait a minute, before you go further, do you think it was appropriate what she did? caller: yeah. host: why so? caller: because that's somebody she could ask for leave and say

i don't want to serve me, and that's just the way i feel. that's my opinion. but i want to make this point to c-span. while we talking about sarah sanders leaving the restaurant. we need to be speaking on mike huckabee and her father tweeting out that racist ms-13 tweet that he did about nancy pelosi. why are we not talking about the republican person that works on donald trump's campaign speaking to a black gentleman on fox, telling him yesterday morning, you out of your cotton picking mind. that's very offensive to black people. host: ok, ok, you mentioned those things, already out in the public discourse. this is the one thing also out. we're focusing on that from new hampshire. independent line. todd is next. go ahead. caller: hi, yes. the framing of this whole discussion is very interesting. by all accounts, this woman did not refuse serve to sarah sanders. what she did was politely ask

her to leave. both sides have said the same thing. i think she's well within her rights to do that. i think as americans, we have the right to express our views to public officials. host: by extension, isn't that refusing service? caller: she asked her to leave. host: by extension, that's refusal to serve. caller: no, it's not. if she may have been asking her to leave because she didn't want other people in the restaurant to come up to her and say, sarah sanders, i think what you're doing in supporting this administration is un-american. host: new york is next. syracuse, republican line, this s rita calling, hello. caller: well, sarah sanders, her right to leave, because i've been to that red hen, and nothing to talk about. host: what do you think about the argument the restaurant

owner used asking they're leave? caller: well, i don't think she had the right to do that. but it's her business, so i guess sarah sanders did the right thing, and she left. host: so again, the back and forth that took place between the restaurant's owner, stephanie wilkinson and sarah sanders, goes as such, according to "the washington post," the restaurant owner saying at first i'm the owner, she goes on to say that i like you to come out to the patio with me for a word. again, they stepped outside into another small enclosure, at least out of the clouded restaurant. she went to say in telling "the washington post," i was babbling a little, but i got my point across in a polite and direct fashion. i explained the restaurant had certain standards that i felt it had to uphold, such ads honesty and compassion and cooperation. i said i'd like to ask to you leave. she also said that her response was immediate, telling the owner that's fine, i'll go. steven in kentucky, democrats

line. hi. caller: yes, hello, pedro. i came to the conversation late, so i don't know if this was mentioned at all, so i'd like to say. i'd like to invoke the golden rule. do unto others as you want them to do unto you. it seems to me that ms. sanders is getting a dose of her own medicine. aren't these the same people -- there was a gentleman that made reference to her father earlier and his stance opposing gay rights with the bakery owners. i seem to recall mr. huckabee going to kentucky to support kim davis when she opposed, you know, same-sex marriages, doing her job for that. and it just is amazing to me when i hear these people calling in, that woman in washington, d.c. that talks about civil rights. i wonder if she oppose -- if she supported the bakery owners doing this before. host: how does that apply to the incident from last friday? caller: well, it applies

because it's just light on the hypocrisy of these people. they'll sit there, they'll and i can choose their morality, for instance. it's ok for them to support these business owners. i mean, first of all, these people that were wanting to marry who happened to be gay were not inviting they were not asking them -- they were not engaging in sexual activities in their businesses. why would they oppose them? this is different because of the way that ms. sanders lies on a daily basis. they are putting our country at risk every single day with the for example --s, host: we have to leave it there because we're out of time. this is abc news reporting. shootingho 18.

had been harsh and aggressive. the witness was standing on a nearby balcony and started recording the last moment. in the clip, he is seen running from the car before three shots are fired from the police officers firearm. and in the exclusive interview the abc news, -- wearing a blouse in honor of the late teen said the officer fired without provocation. a continuing story going on there. a lot of events are happening in congress this weekend. two guests are joining us. and alayna treene will join us and also todd harrison of the cs i.s. on the force." of the "space

you may have heard our previous guests talk about significant cases like the travel ban and the case with unions of foreplay. it could be released today or tomorrow. but our cameras are at the supreme court, watching it. we will be back in just a moment. ♪ >> this week, the c-span bus alaska withneau, the help of our cable partners. the tripontinues across alaska by fairy, ahead of

our stop. be sure to join us when we feature our visit to alaska. watch alaska weekend on c-span, c-span.org or on the c-span radio mobile app. >> this week on the o'riellytors, michael on the elimination of net neutrality and the expected surge in corporate mergers after the at&t-time warner merger. he is interviewed by a telecommunications reporter paul kirby. administration, wheeler and the head of the antitrust division felt that it shouldn't be changed. so at that time, they did not try to merge. should there be nationwide carriers? don't have such a structure.

i want to take the applications before and analyze that in terms of what the data presented are. what is in the marketplace. and are the qualifications capabilities of the providers. what are they providing and what of the opportunities they need to be able to bring to the american consumers? they arehe debt load taking on? will they be able to meet that? i look at the application as forthright as expected and i don't have an artificial number in my head that it should need this or that. there are benefits to having more or stronger providers. i want to see what the circumstances may be with the applications as they are presented to me. i ontch the communicators c-span2. washington journal continues. host: joining us about topics happening in congress and washington, d.c. is alayna

treene and lisa mascaro, from the ap. thank you for joining us. immigration was a big topic last week, especially in the house. some voted and some did not. lisa mascaro, where are we in this? guest: a big week for immigration in the house. the house republicans have been trying to pass this bill on their own without democratic input. onpresent something immigration that trump could sign into law. of course, they got close last week. two were set to vote on bills. one was a more conservative measure favored by conservatives. and they were supposed to do, also, a compromise measure, something negotiated between the house conservatives and the more moderate republicans.

is whatpened last week often happens on immigration measures amongst republicans. they just can't get to it on their own. they have been struggling with immigration for years and last week was no different. so they voted in the house on the conservative measure and failed which was it. it didn't receive the majority threshold which was needed. this was hanging in the balance. they wanted to see if they could take one more swing at it. try to craft different provisions to bring on more support. that onoon as they did friday, trump jumped in and said, you know, quit wasting your time. let's just get through the elections and then we deal with immigration. host: so what does that do to republicans who have to vote? guest: this makes it so much more difficult. so now, but in the pressure on

congress and lawmakers to fix this crisis that his administration created. ,nd if they put forth this bill now he says, just wait until after november or the midterms so we can fix this which is optimistic. he says there will be a red wave and there are questions about whether or not that will happen. so there could be a lot of haveculties and now we been told that we see republicans wanting to put forth a more narrow bill looking at ending family separation first. something that from the beginning, more comprehensive legislation to overhaul the system. is watchingident cable news and is looking at images of children and it got to him and melania and a ivanka trump were pushing to end this issue. but there are still so many

things in the air that they need to fix. lawmakers are now looking at doing a more narrow bill. they still want to put the vote on the compromise bill but a lot of people think it won't pass. (202) 748-8001, republicans. (202) 748-8000, democrats. independent02 callers. that bothmething sides can come to an agreement on? bill goesdepends what forward. we have been told that ted cruz and feinstein are looking at creating these bills they have before. before trump signed the order. and you see people now come together from different factions of each party. because everybody wants to end this. so it isn't just moderates or democrats.

host: lisa mascaro, even if some compromise is made, what is the likelihood in the senate to follow suit? guest: the senate has introduced a bill which would address this issue on a narrow basis of what to do with the families at the border and how to keep families together while their immigration cases are being adjudicated or while they're being sent back to their home countries. house republicans are expected to introduce a similar bill address that. the problems for house republicans -- test just to back there is widespread concern amongst republicans and democrats. in congress. they need to have a vote. not only to end this policy but heading into the midterm elections, to show they are on record voting against what the president and his administration

has done with the zero-tolerance policy. -- a numbercerned of lawmakers are concerned that having this on them and not taking action ahead of the election does not look good for them. so there are lots of interest in passing voting on this. getink something could widespread support. but they are running out of time. this is the last week they are in session before the fourth of july break. they have a lot of things to do. ryan has made the moderate republicans a promise that he would vote on this broader compromise bill which is day going out there. so they have a lot to do this week to resolve this. i think there is a lot of interest in trying to get to the bill but we will see if they can get there. host: one of the constant voices was michael mccaul.

the status on the sunday shows yesterday -- we will play a little bit and get your reaction. under the bill that i hope to pass this week, we provide a solution. we treatem is that people from other than mexico -- central americans -- different than the mexicans coming across. we want to treat them the same. when you come from mexico as a child, you are detained and removed from the country. thatink if we could do with the central american population, it would go a long ways to this incentivize smugglers and cartels and traffickers from bringing kids in the first place. >> is their first talk that if your bill, their needs -- >> at a minimum we have to deal with the family separation. i am a father of five and i think it is inhumane. and the pictures we have seen,

that is not the face of america that most people in the country want. host: that addresses the skinny bill part of it. but they went into this with the ambition of widespread reform and here we are. is this a congress that can't make these large-scale changes such as we saw under reagan? guest: immigration is such a hard issue for congress. 2006, 2007 -- under george bush. again under obama with the bill in 2013. and i think all sides are realizing that fixing immigration problems will require bipartisan consensus and it is difficult to get to in this congress. the republicans wanted to try to look at this on their own. they wanted to bring something that trump would signed into law.

is, there is a irreconcilable difference on immigration, what to do with the folks who are here, living illegally. people, dreamers, people it came to the country at a young age, or the broader population. there is a divide in the republican party that some republicans are willing to legalizationonly but a path to citizenship for the young people who have enormous empathy and the country. a lot of people support them. others say that they are here illegally and they shouldn't be status.y legal and that is the bridge that republicans have been unable to -- the divide they have been unable to bridge and it shows if they want to address that issue, at the core of so much of the immigration debate, they are

going to need to bring and democrats. and at this point with the republican congress and president, a have been unwilling. host: what are they willing to compromise on? anything else as far as the republicans? what they might be able to sign on to? guest: we saw this play out earlier this year. aey came close to passing bipartisan bill that at the last minute, the president did shut it down. but they're willing to put more money towards border security. order enforcement. several people are against the wall. been an issue across both parties. the wall, what kind of security do we have. that is something the president really wants. when it comes to daca and dreamers, that is a huge issue that people on the left get fired up about. and we saw this over and over again with the senate till last

year. protesters pushing democrats to do something about dreamers. the supreme court push that deadline back. it has been less of a push as their status is unclear. so that is something i think democrats will never give up on. they will not concede on. they want to find a way for the dreamers who came here. host: alayna treene and lisa mascaro. the first caller is from georgia on the democrats line. thank you for calling. caller: republicans will not bring a compromise bill. because they want the majority of the majority. that.e for and they are not going to bring it. vote.ill not bring the host: what do you think about that?

widespread reform, they would like widespread reform. guest: it is difficult to do. it is an issue that is difficult to come together on. family separation is pushing people to want to compromise. an issue that is much larger than what we have seen with the zero-tolerance policy. there are things that lawmakers want that they are not going to give up. that they have wanted for several years. issues aside, they don't address zero-tolerance at all. republicans respond to that? do they want to see changes to that policy overall? guest: right. the bill voted down on thursday, the compromise bill that is coming and the bill in the senate, they are looking at pulling back on a long-standing,

it is in theng -- law that it is a court ruling that was put in place. youngically prevents children, miners, from being detained for longer than 20 days in the immigration holding facilities. this was agreed on in the courts in 1997. the legislation in the bills does is list that, eliminates so thaton 20 days families can stay together. because right now, the parents are sent under the zero-tolerance policy, parents are sent to a detention facility. minors are sent to another facility. and then the miners would need to be released. and presidents -- and parents would stay as they are proceedings unfolded.

by raising the cap, you open the the indefinite detentions. and people say that they could go on for months. something else that was mentioned yesterday is the idea fromeating all immigrants all different countries equally. but what that opens the door to his of right now if an immigrant comes from mexico they can be turned around and sent back. but those from central america, honduras, guatemala, they are not treated that way. and what legislation is looking and turnto go ahead those folks back immediately but it is an enormous undertaking. because you can't send them back the way they came. put them onis to airplanes and you have to have a home country willing to meet them. a great logistical undertaking.

these are some of the solutions they're talking about. they are clearly not perfect solutions. they are ways to address the problem to keep families together but you open up other issues that will come up. host: let's go to eric in maryland. caller: thank you for taking my call. i have a couple of points and then a question. i first point is that -- i am in law enforcement. i came into this country more than 14 years ago. i followed the process. to become a u.s. citizen. i did it legally. secondly, law enforcement. the way the democrats are -- wezing law enforcement have to understand that an officer is only there to enforce the law. we don't enforce the law the way we think about the law.

if democrats want to have an open border policy, change the law and make america open so anybody can come here. host: your question? caller: the democrats and republicans, both sides are just playing games. host: we leave it there. guest: these are difficult issues. to his point, are they playing games? i think both sides are trying to resolve this in a way that is politically helpful for themselves. they want to resolve the issue but they also want to stay by their voters. and that is always an issue. as we see on the republican side there is a great divide amongst republican voters over what to do. is great passion over

helping immigrants, especially young people who are here without legal status. so it makes it difficult. guest: i agree with lisa's point. there are political motivations and it is an election year and everyone looks towards november. but this is an issue that people are impassioned about. and i don't think they are entirely playing games. it is hard to know with the way our system is set up with the majorities and different votes you can get in session. they want to do something but it is difficult to do so. host: is there a sense that wants to move on? guest: there is a sense that people don't want this debate to happen. it will be a mess to deal with it now. but to push along with it is something that several people don't want.

this has been an issue that keeps coming up and it will keep coming up and people want to put it behind the midterms. this is in the case with the zero-tolerance policy because it calls for being dealt with immediately. host: pennsylvania. hello area caller: good morning. i wanted to ask your guest -- ima eerie pennsylvania. the first time in 50 years that they voted for a republican for president, trump. i'm not a trump supporter. but if you go around this town, it seems like trump is more onelar today than he was year ago. underneath the surface is a great big story about dirty cops and the fbi and how the doj was tied up.

i don't think it has got the press conference. guest, theyask your are bringing the heater struck guy up there to testify. do you think they will have him testify open, not behind closed doors? just addressing the fbi discussion, something we --orted from this morning trump has the highest approval rating that he has had area this is something is more that he addresses statements by bashing the fbi, calling into investigation -- calling into question the investigation, these things help his approval rating. with the immigration debate right now, it is something that a lot of people, democrats and the left are pushing very hard.

break'sther side of the acting out on twitter. and it helps rally his base around him. but as to the question as to whether it will be open, we won't be a will to say. will want to have closed-door testimony. there are a lot of questions there. guest: that is spot on. in the campaign resolve what is going on in pennsylvania where longtime democratic strongholds -- someone painted their house in support of candidate trump. the caller probably does several experience there on the ground in the shift that we saw

in pennsylvania. this is just an issue in this country that has been polarized by where you stand. oryou support the president not. and if you support the investigation or not. and we see it over and over again. it plays out. people see this as an attack on him but people on the other side pound the investigation to say we have to get to the bottom. these issues continue to divide.

host: a treat -- saying that i do not legally have two. and now this is discredited with the expensive witchhunt. but you do not ask why the doj and fbi are not giving over the requested documents. guest: they have talked about holding them in contempt if they the documents.t speaker ryan has been unwilling to seek and bring that up for a vote on the floor. they are giving a long leash to members of the committees. chairman nuñez and others who push for these documents. so it is a continued tug-of-war. along with the broader investigation as we head into the midterm. widespread concern over what metal and will continue to happen. and so there is a desire to

continue pushing to see what is being done by the outside forces. , and (202) 748-8001 republicans. (202) 748-8000, democrats. (202) 748-8002, independent callers. , andam paul ryan right now i'm considering the whole working of the house, which i look at? this petition was something they didn't want to happen. he didn't want to address this issue. he wants to get to november. he wants to keep as much of the majority as he can. pushing the proceedings with different arms of that and spending a lot of money on that. ass is something they see something that is not a political win right now. it is an election year so all eyes are on november. and now that they have to deal

with it, paul ryan sticks behind the compromise bill. trying to get action to show that republicans and congress are acting on this issue that people care so much about. but this is it something they were hoping to address. host: there have been calls for soaker ryan to leave earlier where does that stand? guest: there are questions about whether he can stay through january, as he plans. fundraising is coming in and folks say you should hold on because he is the top fundraiser. but let's be clear. this entire debate of immigration and what is happening with the rush investigation and the doj, it doesn't just hit paul ryan anymore. mccarthy, steve scalise, and how they maneuver this episode this summer could very

well determine who becomes the next leader of the republican party in the house. whether they keep the majority or whether they lose the majority and that becomes the leader. there is a rivalry going on between the top leaders and others. you have congressman jim jordan , they're notows necessarily throwing their name in the ring but they are having folks support the conservative leaders, jim jordan. and how they maneuver through this will help determine who becomes the next leader. have a lot at stake right now. host: let's take a call from new jersey. bill, go ahead. caller: good morning. -- in thestions are 1970's and 1980's when reagan became president, i used to make

$45 a square for doing roofing and siding. to my areaicans came that i had to do the job for $12 a square. is immigration. 100% of the democrats are getting paid by their donors and they want these people to come to the country where cheap labor -- you know it. all politicians are liars. host: as far as the economic proponents, is this strictly on the family reunification? what about his argument that it is an economic argument? something argue that it is an economic issue. a lot of people i've spoken with have different groups. americanone called the economy that looks at the economic case for legalization. and it is an issue.

and i think for a lot of people, of what the trunk space voted for. they think that immigrants are taking jobs from them. luckily right now under growing -- now, unemployment and job creation is doing really well. what people think if they are not legal than they are not paying taxes. speaking with a sense of what is going on on the border. so definitely, and economic case is firing voters up. guest: hair starkly in this country, the immigration system has been a family-based system. so a few comment, you can bring in your immediate family and some extended family. you can apply to bring them in. what republicans are looking to do is to change this into the merit-based system following off what trump proposed which would shift the family dynamic that

creates a lot of the folks coming in who are able to take the different jobs. and records to so many jobs in america now. they limit the number of folks coming in. and then only allow folks in with a merit-based system. that is what is being discussed right now. it would be an enormous shift. it could definitely shake up some of the economic factors. i will also say that on the economy, we see enormous churn in the economy. are going away, jobs that historically were done here going overseas. so there's a broader enormous churn going on. we haven't even started losing to robots yet. a lot of jobs are being lost.

a lot of jobs that folks had for years. making a good living are being lost. host: from bethlehem, pennsylvania. john on the independent line. caller: i was just thinking that in the age of misinformation, that we all are finding ourselves in. it is incredibly important to get our information directly from the source. said, i have looked up the flaws on asylum and it is very clear that matter of location you cross the border at, anyone can claim asylum. hell is it that no one has thisd trump visibly on policy and that it is a violation of the u.s. code? guest: but i think people are

talking about that. there are from fish stories and a lot of the major newspapers today about the president suggestion that folks don't need to go before judges. sentthey should just be's back which flies in the face of the current asylum protection. conversation about that but with immigration there are so many issues that you simply took to a lot of different factors. there are conversations but sometimes things do get muted with other conversations that are happening. guest: a great. something think that that the trump administration is focused on is something that has been driving how they have acted towards the zero-tolerance policy. the one thing he doesn't want to concede on is catch and release. being processed through courts could take several years. they need more judges which is

something they're looking at doing to process cases. and this is why they are looking at maybe overruling the settlement because instead of detaining families, and then releasing them, they want to keep them in detention. so these are things that the trump administration doesn't want to concede on. the we have the u.n. issuing a public statement towards the trump administration saying that asylum is the law. so it is figuring out how to accomplish that with the other priorities that the administration has. host: our guests joining us this anding is alayna treene u lisa mascaro. we have spent a half-hour on immigration and it would like to talk about spending. this week, the house and the senate continue working on issues. set up the broad contours of the debate this week.

what will be in the space for the defense spending? there will be defense bills. broad policy, they are setting pay raises for the troops. they set the levels of spending for different branches of the military. a lot of the spending is predetermined by the budget agreement reached earlier this year. in congress. one of the key issues in the defense bill has nothing to do with -- well, i shouldn't say nothing but much less to do with traditional defense but it has to do with the broader trade issue that trump has embarked upon. and there is a provision in the senate bill that would really ability to slap let me see if i can or

how this works -- the president reopen the chinese telecom country -- telecom continueo allow them buying component parts from the united states. that company had been slapped with restrictions because of the concern that there was a national security concern that foeswere selling parts to of the united states. north korea or iran. the president was concerned and wanted to allow the company to continue because it was an enormous hit to this company. potentially putting them out of his this. republican senator said no. they said that trump had gone too far in unilaterally deciding that this company can engage in

purchasing u.s. parts. senators tried to rein that in. by slapping a provision in the defense bill that says that if the president is going to make the case that he wants to do this for national security grounds, it needs to come forward to congress. for review. and a stronger version that would have set up didn't actually happen but they did put rakes on that and now it is up to the house to decide how to resolve the issue. is the case, tells about the house right now, the differences between democrats and republicans? up bothhis has fired sides. it was labeled as a national security threat. so originally when they were banned in the u.s. and then the president and his close relationship with the chinese

president, he asked the president personally, can you pull back on these restrictions for zte. so he did. but people in the house and senate say that is not enough. saying why are we making deals with china if it is a huge start from a telecom company when on the other side we are seemingly putting similar tariffs on canada and european allies. so this is fired up the international perspective in congress. and among the things they are proposing with the spending bill is that with that, china and the trade were happening right now -- well, not a trade war yet but it increasingly looks like one. the administration is also looking at putting any sort of chinese company that has 25% owned by china restricting

americans to do business with them. and that is another issue that drives these forces, including what is going on with cte. host: is this price tag acceptable to congress? this is the figure we will see when all negotiations are done? guest: a lot of people will say this is way too much but it depends. defense is something that the president and republicans are pushing. more defense spending. but at the same time we have the national that issue. a lot of that comes into it. i'm not sure what the final amount would be. guest: i have to sink back to what happened two weeks about on that. but i think that is the right assessment. up once they start changing

the top lines on the spending bills, it does create problems elsewhere. so there's probably a sense that they need to stick within the guard rails a little bit. sticking to some of the agreed-upon caps they have set. but i need to take another look. host: one of these votes that billplace last week was a that has been debated for a while. the end result has been interesting. what is the end result and what do you see as the issues? guest: the farm bill, the house and senate have taken different approaches. they were finally able to get this over the finish line. the house takes a different approach because they look at making changes not on the farm side -- as there are farm subsidies and the different farm agricultural programs, but on -- food security, well care

welfare reform side. so imposing work requirements on people who are receiving food stamp benefits. that is something that the senate republicans and senate democrats have no interest in. so the senate will be taking up there version of the farm bill this week, which is a much more traditional bill. the big bills, the way they are able to get them through is by creating a bipartisan product. you have farm subsidies and funding for programs in the agricultural community which farmers in the red states need. and you also have the food aid , the programs for folks in the cities and elsewhere. people who need food security. and that acai i you get democratic votes and republican votes.

and that is what the senate is sticking to, the traditional format. the house took the other approach but eventually they will go. for thenarrow result republicans. guest: one thing important to note is that they originally looked at tying immigration to it and pushing an immigration vote along with the farm bill. which clearly is a huge issue right now. so that was one of the things holding up this vote. they tried to push immigration with it. so if it happens in the senate there will be a lot of hurdles to address. a lot of people, a lot of senators and house members, their voters are confirming and it is a huge issue. someone like senator mcconnell. thistate wants to push bill forward for his own constituents. so that is another thing to look at.

it will be the deciding factor. let's go to jenny. thank you for waiting period go ahead. concern is -- i don't mind helping people. america can't help their own children. are living children in shelters through the welfare department and state. and no one wants to address the issues about how people can take care of their own. disability people. housing. there isn't enough money to go in when there are millions of children and families in shelters now who live on concrete and floors. no place to go. but as soon as someone from another country comes in, we have to save them. but then we can't save our own

family. put a program and to help disability people. mothers with children. make a gateway to take children away. host: i got your caller. issue play in congress? the debate over immigration? guest: they are separate issues. homelessness and disability and all of the welfare programs that the caller mentioned are huge issues that are being debated. immigration from the standpoint of the immigrants early in our country, i don't think they look at them together. as immigrants taking from those programs. i do think that it is a point that there is a huge issue with homelessness in our country.

and how we deal with veterans and things like this. and this is something that the administration is looking to help fix but i don't know if it is tied to the immigration debate. also, the college point goes to the great meat that is out there. there is a lot of inequality in the country. people are doing very well and a lot of people are doing not well. and we struggle to even it out or make sure that folks are taking care of who are in need. and often, i think when there's a lot of need, people look to somebody else who get something -- in this case, looking to and that just goes to show that we talk about a lot of need. we haven't even talked about the drug crisis and what happens in those communities where there is there is ad area so lot of that and there is a lot

of appetite to continue spending. a rising deficit load. and there is a reluctance in congress to pour more money into the problems but there are a lot of problems that need to be addressed. host: grand rapids, michigan. hello, you are on. caller: i have a question. i want to know if the immigration issue with people coming from mexico and south america, if that is the only immigration issue? or is it across the board with every country? guest: icad point and i don't have the numbers in front of me. the issue of folks living in the u.s. illegally comes from a lot of different races. it isn't just people crossing the border. people who live here

without legal status are people who stayed on their visas. those two will fly in from other countries and they stay. so there certainly is that. what we see on the border right now is the crisis situation. in part because of this new policy that the administration put in where they do the clampdown on the zero tolerance seth is now quickly -- and this being a civil proceeding, having these folks charged criminally which starts the separation, family which makes it different from the traditional immigration in fromith folks coming other countries and staying beyond the time allowed. guest: that is a great point. i also will say that it isn't just an issue in america. central america and central america and mexico come to the u.s..

it is easier because we have the border but we see a lot of the issues play out in europe. germany, they are having a huge issue for chancellor angela merkel. a huge political issue. people don't want as many migrants coming in and she initially was open letting them come in and now she is changing her policies which is affecting voters. we also see this play out in france and other countries. is very loud right now. attention from international media attention but it is an issue playing out in other countries as well. that thet is the mood president didn't say, i like this bill or this bill. supported bothhe bills initially and was unclear whether he liked the more downrvative bill voted

last week or the customer's bill, because they had different elements that suited what the administration was looking for. the the president, endorsement helps. what the hell and republicans who push that, they want the endorsement that he gave it to both so it didn't make clear what would happen. when you look at the conservative ill from the start didn't look like it was going to get the votes. and into this weekend they vote on the compromise bill that was delayed from last week. it is still unclear whether they will get the needed votes. an endorsement from the president and the administration is obviously something that could help. if anything it would be a push to -- it would be a cushion fall back on. guest: one of my presidents got a number of quotes in the halls after the president tweeted that they should stop wasting their

time and a lawmaker told my colleagues that you tread -- you dread that tweet. a cousin president hasn't thrown himself into the latest grounds .f the immigration debate republicans met behind closed doors trying to figure how to address this issue before the crisis at the border hit but the president wanted to stand back. the ap wrote a story talking about the president's role and wanting to let the republicans work it out themselves. and that is hard to do. is the leader of the party on a difficult issue. what he says matters and will provide some cushion and cover for republicans who are uncertain which way to go in facing voters who have conflicting demands. so his reluctance to weigh in early and now this mixed signal,

it really makes it difficult for republicans to figure out which way to move. host: north carolina, democrats line. caller: i'm calling to make a comment about the farm bill and the republican agenda to deprive people in need of the nutritional food that could help. i want to say that i offer gratitude to farmers and their families. grateful. be more at the age of 72, i found myself in a situation to two horrific increases in rights that i had to apply for snap. and even with snap assistance, i could only afford one healthy meal a day. it resulted in bone loss and muscle mass loss. after three years of trying to get into housing that would be affordable for me, it would

succeed but the impact on my health is long-lasting. and it want to say how grateful i am to the farmers markets. they accept snap. and sometimes she will even get to for the price of one. so i just wanted to say to the republicans, remember. ofdoesn't about the number dollars. it is about human beings. we are real. of the long-lasting impact health and depriving people of nutritional benefit, it will be on your shoulders. reject thesenate to changes that they want to make. host: do they feel that weight in making the decisions? guest: i don't know that they feel the weight but they are strong proponents of the snap program so i guess they do. inre are folks who are

congress who have constituents know ups caller who well and close how difficult it is for people to access food and to have healthy food. and i think it is partly why you see the senate -- the way the system is set up, with house members, they represent their smaller districts. still many hundreds of thousands of people in most cases but they are more tailored to either being more democrat or republican. senators have to represent the whole state which is why you see the senate take a different approach on this issue. agree with everything lisa is saying. and i think where snape is involved, it doesn't get a lot of attention in the media because it isn't as sexy an issue. but it is important and there are proposals out there putting inth to be fiercely fought

smaller districts and states. and to the point about the senate having to look at the state of a whole, not just smaller communities that house members have to deal with. that definitely ways more to figure out who receives the nuclear -- he nutritional programs. so i think that is why they take more time with this. host: louisiana, hello? caller: hello. i would like to look at the economic issue of people coming across the border. i had personal experience a job in done on my house, $17,000. and these people came in and i gotere undocumented and the worked done for $6,000. so it was a substantial reduction. but local people are -- they are

disappearing. nobody's doing work around me except for the illegal immigrants. so it is six to one and half a dozen of the other. think of for taking my,. host: let's go to ebay and you will from colorado. caller: i don't understand why it wall isn't built from keeping employers from hiring illegal immigrants. why are they talking about employer sanctions? to stop illegal immigration is not providing them jobs. isst: that is an issue that coming in now with outside groups who focus on immigration on the right, looking at the employer impact and what is on them to deal with their workers and hiring.

legal versus legal illegal immigration. it is the only an issue playing out. i think that with what is being proposed right now to deal with this zero-tolerance policy, they are looking at dealing with this crisis of family separation on the border but i think the economic issue and looking at what is put on employers are some of the more long-term debate so we may not see that play out now in the immediate immigration controversy we are for a to vote on but longer standpoint, that is definitely an issue. guest: i would add that late last week, one of the ideas emerging from the house republicans was to check on to the compromise bill to other provisions. the e-verify and the agricultural worker.

so a number of republicans had wanted to make the worker verification system mandatory. something that has been talked about for years. never fully implemented. and also to broaden the agricultural worker program to have fees is for folks coming into the agricultural industries. they rely heavily on illegal immigrants. there was discussion late last week of marrying those two issues. in a provision that could be tacked onto the compromise bill the way.to broaden speaker ryan promise to vote on those two topics as a stand-alone bill in july. but a number of republicans thought, let's not put it off until july. let's go ahead and put it on this bill this week. so that is where things left off this week. we will see if they get to it this week and actually tax that

provision onto the compromise bill and if it even gets a vote this week. so clearly there are moving parts. and to the caller's, addressing the long-standing issue of theiring employers to five. host: a report last week with a republican pollster saying there was a at her the number chance that the democrats will take back the house. do republicans in the house feel that as it stands today? guest: leader pelosi gave an interview out a month ago or so and she said something like -- she isn't expecting a blue wave but she is expecting it drop by drop in districts and i thought ,hat was probably smart politically downplaying expectations and to show what a grind it will be. there has been a lot of polling that shows that voters are

ineresting -- are interested democrats and favor democrats in thesef the races but races, you have new, untested democratic candidates who are enthusiastic and who are generating an enormous and on the left, they are untested candidates. they have to get out there and really run their races, and republicans are working really hard to keep their spots. i agree with her point. what we need to look at are the swing voters. that is going to make the difference, come november. andhe midterm elections, not a presidential election, you are looking at senate and house as well as governors. you see the super polarized voters. those are the ones who are engaged and will come out more so. but it is the ones in the video -- in the middle that are creating uncertainty of which

way it will go. redident talks about a say it is going to be a blue wave. i think that comes from this energized aspect. a lot of democrats are really fired up with the president winning the election in 2016, and then both chambers of congress also having the republican majority. that will fire them up. of people who voted for the president and are very against -- the super radicalized ones -- they will be the ones as well to come out. it is unclear. the 2016ooking back at election, it is hard to make predictions. an axios access -- reported joining us, and the chief correspondent for the associated press. coming up, we talk about the and what itcall involves. todd harrison will join us for that discussion. later on, it is decision day. opinions at the

supreme court. our c-span camera is at the court, and if anything happens, we will let you know about it. there is a shot at the supreme court. we will be back in just a moment. ♪ >> best-selling author brad

thorp will be our guest on in-depth fiction edition. his latest book, "the spymaster" will be published on july 3. other books include "the lions "blacklist," plus 13 other thrillers. our special series, in-depth fiction edition, with author easternr, live at noon on c-span 2. >> c-span, where history unfolds daily. in 1970 nine, c-span was created as a public service by america's public television companies. today, we bring you unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court, and public policy events in washington, d.c. and around the country. c-span is brought to you by your

cable and satellite provider. >> this week, the c-span bus travel to juneau, alaska as part of our 50 capitals tour, with the help of our cable partners. the bus continues the trip across alaska by ferry, a head of our stop in fairbanks. be sure to join us july 21 and 22, and we will feature our visit to alaska. on c-span,a weekend or listen on the c-span radio app. washington journal continues. host: joining us, taught harrison, the defense budget analysis director for the center for strategic and international studies, to talk about the call by the president for a space force. what does the president envisioned by the space force,

and why do you think his call comes now? caller: he is talking -- guest: he is talking about crating a separate military service to put our space forces into alignment. part of the motivation is that right now if you look across the military, all the different organizations that have responsibilities, authorities, and budget to do space, they are fragmented all over the military and intelligence communities. what he is looking to do by this is to integrate all of those existing space forces into one service that will be dedicated and focused to this task. host: is this separate from space exploration? guest: absolutely. this is only about national security space. space expiration is the job of nasa. they are not part of the military. the civil space programs to do science -- that is not going to be affected in any way. this is not to protect us from aliens or to conquer territory

anywhere in space. this has nothing to do with this. that is science fiction. but really, this is just about how the military can better organize, train, and a quick the space capabilities it needs to prevail in conflict here on earth. more aboutll talk the space force. if you have questions about the president's call -- the president spoke about this last week. here is a little bit about what he had to say about it. pres. trump: when it comes to defending america, it is not enough to merely have an american presence in space. dominanceve american in space. so important. very importantly, i am hereby directing the department of

defense and pentagon to immediately begin the process necessary to establish a space as the sixth branch of the armed forces. that is a big statement. we are going to have the air force, and we are going to have the space force -- separate, but equal. todd harrison, what then? if space is what the president wants to deal with, what are the things we have to look out for in that space? guest: i think of it as the four d's. there are more countries using space, more private companies using space, but we see the number of satellites in space growing exponentially. space has also become more disruptive. in particularies are doing things in space that used to be the exclusive domain of superpowers, dormant like the united states. private companies have the ability to create high-resolution imagery of the

earth, to listen in on what is being transmitted around the earth. that is a new development. space is also getting more disordered. there are not a lot of rules in space, what you can do and cannot do. there are not norms of behavior. good example is in 2007, china conducted an anti-satellite test. they blew up one of their own satellites and created thousands of pieces of space debris that are still in orbit today, and are still threatening other military and civilian satellites. finally, the fourth d is, space is becoming more dangerous. we see countries developing not just things that blow up in space, but that can jam communication signals. cyber attacks take control of your satellites. we are not as prepared as we need to be. a lot of our military satellite -- as general -- as the general in control of strategic forces for the united states has said,

a lot of our satellites are big, juicy targets for adversaries. we have to change the way we operate. we have to improve our defenses. we could lose some of these space capabilities in a crisis. think abouto you the president catching this in terms of american dominance? does this have concerns for you? guest: it is not a choice of words people probably want to hear. there has been a lot of reluctance to do military things in space, to weaponize space, to try to claim territory or claim ownership. some of that is prohibited i the outerspace treaty that we are a signatory to. so are many other countries around the world. you cannot claim territory. there are no borders and space. it does not even make sense to try to claim territory in space, because satellites are always moving over other countries. that is the utility of them, in many cases -- that they can fly over other countries without permission. so it is probably not the best choice of words. but really, it is about

protecting our space assets, so that we can protect u.s. interests here on earth. a lot of people forget that the gps that your phone uses, that little chip in your phone -- that is relying on military satellites. gps is a military satellite constellation. in other countries are developing ways to defeat that, to cause gps to go down and to not work. we need to be better protected against that. union forrding to the concerned scientists, last year about 800 u.s. based satellites currently orbiting the earth. 470 six commercial. 159 military. 150 government. 18 civil. .ou talked about gps what are the capabilities if those satellites are disrupted? guest: wii's satellites for everything from monitoring the weather -- and noaa will tell you one of their biggest honor abilities is cyberattack. there have been documented

instances in the past where what we believe our state actors have hacked into the command and control system for some of our noaa satellites, and could have destroyed those by taking control of them. we use satellites for things like missile mornings. to detect a missile launch coming at the united states so we can respond in time, we rely on space to do that. use satellites for communications of all kinds -- commercial, civil government, and the military as well. communication signals can be jammed from space. we don't have a lot of protections against that right now. our satellite communications that our military uses is not protected. those are all things we need to improve. there are many other missions we use for space as well. imagery, signals intelligence, and gps -- one of the reasons we don't have as many collateral damage victims in conflict today

is that we have precision guided weapons. if we do not have gps -- if we do not have all the great imagery from space that we get from our satellites -- we cannot find and we cannot hit targets precisely, and there would be more collateral damage. it would fundamentally alter and weaken the way we are able to fight and defend the country if we did not have space. host: cap harrison is with the center for strategic and international studies, here to talk about the creation of a space force. on the iowa democrats line, go ahead. caller: good morning, pedro. todd, are you there? guest: yes. caller: ok, my first -- i see there is something to do with budget analysis director. this is just a big dog and pony .how, another republican ploy they bankrupt the government with tax cuts, and now we are going to grow government? i am not saying it is not

necessary to coordinate and use technology to protect these assets, but to militarize in a way, or to grow government when they have no intention of paying for it, no way to pay for it -- corporations and rich people get away with all the money. my point is made that it is ludicrous. he is crazy. host: made your point, caller. anst: the budget question is important one. simply creating a space forest is not actually add more money for military space capabilities. what you would be doing is carving out an existing organization and people, resources, infrastructure, budget -- all these organizations that are already working on space issues for the military -- and moving them under a unified single chain of command. you would be adding some overhead, some headquarters staff to that. so there would be some additional expense there, that would be relatively small

compared to about the $10 billion a year we currently ourd unclassified on military space capabilities. it would just be reorganizing where the money is spent within the org chart, not adding a new $10 billion. host: active military, if you want to give your thoughts on this -- north carolina is next, democrats line. richard? caller: yes, i wanted to ask the why would someone a -- of tour of the v.a., why someone does not do a , each veteran administration in each state, and why they have such a problem with doctors. host: caller, appreciate the call. not the topic we are discussing right now. cape canaveral, florida, independent line. caller: hello.

my question is, you are talking about the space force. my son served in the army for more than 10 years. he was in afghanistan. he was at the border of north korea. and then he joined the space force one month before president trump took office. the first italian, they were called, spartans. theyn,t space bata were called, spartans. you are talking about a force that already existed. you can go back to ronald reagan . host: got your call. guest: you are absolutely right. there are forces already in our military. -- army, as your son is in the army already has a space and missile defense command. within that, they have space battalions. they're completely separate and independent from the space forces within the air force. the air force, almost all the

space forces are in air force space command. the navy has space forces of its own. the navy builds and launches and operates a fleet of satellites that the other services use as well. mainly, there 's is are in san diego. there is a program executive office for space. it goes on and on. there are all these different space organizations, space forces, scattered around different parts of the military intelligence community. spy satellites are not operated by the air force. they are operated by the national reconnaissance office. all these different space capabilities -- that is one of the problems we have. there has not been a unity of effort. there has been a lot of disjointed mess, a lot of lack of coordination. there are examples of where one service has gone off and a constellation of communication satellites. another service was supposed to

build the radios that can communicate with the satellites. they got behind and cut the budget for those radios. so we had satellites in space and could not take full advantage because we did not use them.adio to that is what happens when you have these disjointed organizations that are not aligned under one single budget, one single chain of command. in "the washington times" and undersecretary for defense under george w. bush, he says "say no to a space force." has beenhe air force spending 30% of its budget to fund and launch a spy and reconnaissance satellites. it also operates several satellite constellations. they have been doing a good job using the launch services. the air force successfully hundred 20 payloads since 2006. he is making the case that other branches are doing these kind of things. absolutely.

our military has tremendous space capabilities. we should not disregard that at all. but the fact remains that we can do better. we need to do better. our ability to use space is being increasingly threatened by the space capabilities other countries are developing, and we are not responding quickly enough. that is what is behind this push to make an independent service. if you have an entire service that is devoted to space, they will jealously guard it. they will advocate for it all the time. right now, when a lot of our space capabilities are in the air force, and some sprinkled in the other services, they have competing priorities in the service. the air force is focused on air power. how do we do better in the air? and space has not been the primary focus of the air force. by creating a separate service, we would create an organization where it's primary focus is space.

depending on nasa commercial space companies. do you see a commercial aspect or should it stay in government and military? guest: the military already leverages commercial space capabilities to an incredible degree. iraqe peak of the wars in and afghanistan, about 80% of our satellite communications our military was using for things like drones flying around the country's -- 90% of that bandwidth came from commercial satellites. we had the least transponders. the military did not have enough capability on its own. we are increasingly dependent on commercial space capabilities. launch today, it is a thriving commercial industry for launch of large payloads. you have companies like spacex that are coming in and disrupting the market, bringing down the cost. but that is not due to anything the air force or dod did. it is in spite of what the air force and dod did.

innovated using private capital, and managed to win these government contracts, even though the military was resistant to it at first. now, it is bringing down the cost of launch for the military. there are a lot of things in the culture that need to change if you need to leverage the innovation happening in the private sector for the military. host: oregon, democrats line. caller: can you hear me? i did not hear the other collar. i meant to hear him to talk about the budget. just talkedat trump about the fact that we need to reorganize government, that we are doing too much spending, and now we cannot spend money. i guess no one realizes he is going to cut basic services like social security, medicare. health insurance. retirement. disability. these tax cuts -- you are foring all this self-defense, and money that is not even needed. there is/funds.

it is ridiculous. what about basic services you are going to lose that people need to live? guest: i will put on my budget had for a second, because i do two different programs, aerospace and budget. you are right that in the trump administration's 2019 budget cutsst, it proposes steep in nondefense spending, with the exception of veterans. .eteran spending is growing it will be up to $193 billion a year, one of the fastest growing areas of the federal budget. we can argue whether it is providing good care to veterans, but it is not for a lack of spending. nondefense side, a lot of steep cuts are being proposed. it is not likely they are going to make it through congress. but things that will make it hard, especially on lower income people in america. you look on the defense side of the budget, and it is growing. in 2019, the total defense budget will be up to $716 billion.

that is the highest it has been since back in the early obama administration at the peak of the surges in iraq and afghanistan. it is higher even when you adjust for inflation -- higher than the peak of the reagan buildup back in the 1980's. it is fair to question where that money is going and whether or not we have the right priorities. but when it comes to a space force, creating an independent service for space is not necessarily going to grow the budget. it does not require a higher budget. you can do it within existing resources. within the defense budget, you can carve out money to keep our space system safe and reliable for the military. new mexico, independent line, for todd harrison. color from new mexico, good morning? from new mexico, good morning? one more time. caller: hello? can you hear me?

thank you for giving me a chance to speak. as someone who has always supported nasa's desire to explore space, from that generation, as a sci-fi kid, i always supported our exploration of space. but i cannot support this government, this current administration's attempt to go beyond our planet with his misogynistic and racist philosophy. i believe in america. i do not believe in not see as him in space. -- in naziism in space. host: how does that philosophy apply specifically to space? caller: excuse me? what is -- i do not want to see that philosophy go into space. --o not want to see us should we meet another life form, i would hate them to be reduced to animal or --

guest: i would address the saying thencerns by space force has nothing to do with space exploration or nasa, or looking for other lifeforms in the universe. the space force would not affect that. one of the common misperceptions about crating a separate service for space is that we would be putting soldiers or marines in space in order to do something. that is not the case. it is just a reorganization of the things we already do in space. what the military does in space is entirely unmanned. it is all satellites that are operating in space, 24/7, and providing capabilities on earth to protect u.s. interests around the world. that is what the space force would continue to do. it would be reorganizing the existing space forces into one coherent organization. host: you mentioned the

strategic command commander. he spoke last week in a hearing you can still see on c-span. he talked about other countries, technology they are using against u.s. satellites. russia havea and invested enormous amounts of international treasure to build capabilities for the sole purpose of countering the united states advantage in space. they built ground based capability, space-based capabilities, a variety of different technologies i cannot go into in this hearing -- enormous amounts of their treasury going with the sole purpose -- it is not for something going on in the western pacific. tois the sole purpose counter the united states advantage in space. and as the commander responsible for defending the nation in that domain, a have to look at those capabilities as real threats. that means i have to develop counters to those threats. host: todd harrison, expand on

that. guest: he is talking about the counterspace capabilities other countries are developing. there are kinetic outerspace threats like direct descent missile. it strikes a satellite in orbit, rashes it to pieces. there are co-orbital asat threats, where you launch a satellite into orbit and yourver it to collide with target satellite. it creates a lot of pieces of debris. both russia and china have the capability to do that. they have demonstrated that. arend that, there non-kinetic forms of physical attack on satellites. you can use things like high-powered lasers from the ground or from another satellite, to hit a satellite and cause it to overheat. it causes physical destruction. you can use a high-powered microwave weapon that can cause circuits to overload on a satellite. if it is high enough power, you

can fry the circuits and permanently destroy the satellite. other countries have demonstrated the ability to blind imaging satellites. you can use a laser from the airplane, andhe you can totally blind a sensor. no one else will see it. the satellite will become an operation. we recently did a report you can find on the csi website, space threat assessment 2018, where he catalogued all the publicly available information of what other countries are doing to create weapons. one of the things that stood out for me from that project was what russia has done with this plan, and a 60. -- an a60. to put a laser on t of the plane. in case it was not clear what they were using the laser for,

they put an insignia on the side of the plane. it shows a falcon holding a lightning bolt. the lightning bolt is going up into a spy satellite, what looks like a spy satellite. so it is very clear that they intend to use this airplane and the laser on it as a mobile be able toform to blend our imagery satellites. so we have to be ready to defend against this. other countries are making space a domain of modern warfare, and we have to be ready to defend our interests there. host: democrats line, john from wisconsin. how are you doing? this guy on here, todd, you are absolutely right about this space force. i have been working with grandkids and students at different schools. all kind of up with ideas as far as space is concerned. believe it or not, i have got a seven-year-old grandson. he has a plane.

he puts it out in the yard. he takes it off, flies it around. it has got a fence so it won't go too far out of his radio range. once he pushes the button, it comes back, and it lands right where it took off. this is the kind of thing that people need to get into, especially this country. i think we are starting to fall behind on a lot of things. and it is very important that we do get a space force. a lot of things are happening up there that we don't know about. host: thanks. guest: this has been an ongoing debate about how we properly organize the military for space. it dates back at least 20 years. in the late 1990's is when this debate really got going in earnest. and at that time -- a lot of people forget this. in 1999, congress created a special commission to go out and study how we should best organize ourselves and reform the way we do space.

that commission was chaired by donald rumsfeld. this is before he became secretary of defense under the bush administration. there were a bunch of retired generals and admirals. some scientists were there as well. they studied this. they came back in january 2001. they issued their final report. they said that the way the military was organized, and the way it was managing space, is not commence or it with the importance that space had for u.s. interests. and that was back in 2001. think how much more dependent we are on space today. to commission report went on recommend how we reorganize. they said in the middle term that we should create a space corps within the air force, like the marine corps is to the department of the navy. we should have a space corps that still falls under the department of the air force. in the long term, this report said we should have a separate alitary department for space,

space force. this was recommended 17 years ago. and it has been hotly debated in defense circles and persons then. not a lot of that debate has made it out into the public, because it is kind of a nerdy thing. it may seem far-fetched, whimsical, and even silly. i admit when i heard trump say it, it did some kind of silly. he went on to say there is no place like space, and i am thinking about a dr. seuss book i read to my kids. it is a serious issue that has been studied for quite a while. there are big decisions that need to be made. it may be that a space force is not the right place to go. maybe we need an interim step. there are a lot of big decisions. do you carve out abilities from the air force, or from the navy and the army as well? what about the intelligence agencies? and othertner the nro agencies that have space capabilities? the you put all those things in one department, or would that be too disruptive?

what is the timeline over which you make this transition? a lot of big questions need to be decided. this is an important debate. host: senator bill nelson of florida sent out a tweet saying the president told a u.s. general to create a space force as a sixth branch of the military, which generals tell me they do not want. thankfully, the president cannot do it without congress. now is not the time to rip the air force apart. so many important issues at stake. how significant is it that bill nelson said that. guest: it is significant because the senate has opposed this. and he is correct. the air force has the humanly -- ly opposed this idea from the beginning. the air force has not wanted to do this. it would be giving up a decent part of their budget and a lot of responsibility. it fact we are talking about is an implicit indictment of how the air force has handled space. so there has been a lot of opposition. last year, there was a bill in

congress as part of the national defense authorization act. the house version of that bill would have created a space corps within the air force. that passed the full house of representatives. the senate did not include a similar provision. when they went to conference, they were going to take a pause and study the issues some more. right now, dod is mandated to do two different studies. one is near-term reorganizing and doing acquisitions for space better. august toe in congress. the other one is due in december. it explicitly says, you will come back with a roadmap for how to create a separate department for space. that roadmap is due in december. i think that is going to set this up to be hotly debated in congress next year as part of the fiscal year 2020 national defense authorization act. i fully expect that we are going to see the house at least move forward with legislation to

create something like a space corps or space force. .he senate is less certain like senator nelson, there are a number of people in the senate who have come out and openly opposed this. a lot of opposition has been backstopped by the air force telling them, we do not want it. now that the president has ordered the military to get on board with this and start preparing for it -- that is what the statement said. it did not say created. it said "operations. it is going to be difficult for the air force to oppose this, especially the secretary of the air force, who works for the president, at his pleasure. he is not going to be able to get out there and oppose this vigorously, at least not in public. without that opposition from the air force, the senate may actually start to acquiesce to what the house has been proposing. host: joe is from auburn, alabama, republican line. go ahead, please. caller: am i on?

i have been sitting here watching. i find it fascinating. i think what you are saying that you can do -- i am an old man. it seems like just yesterday i could remember them shooting back images from the moon. people's sense of adventure? we have come a long way since then. interesting. i believe you are probably in the district of representative mike rogers, who is the champion within the house and the house armed services committee for creating a space corps. he and his democratic counterpart on the strategic forces subcommittee -- his counterpart is jim cooper from tennessee. they are the ones who have been championing this legislation in congress. has saidative rogers he is thrilled that president trump has gotten behind the

idea, but there is still a long way to go. the caller referenced images from the moon. ors would not affect nasa space exploration. that would not be part of the space force. this would only reorganize what the military is doing in national security space. go, thefore i let you senate debating defense policy goals this week. what do you expect to happen? guest: i don't think there will be anything about this issue in this national defense authorization act. to have to wait until next year. the house and the senate have a number of differences, that there are not a lot of changes were it comes to space this year. are going to get the report back from dod on creating a roadmap for how to transition to the space department in the future. i think we will see a lot of activity next year on it. host: todd harrison, who looks budgets andse aerospace -- you can find more

at the website. harrison, as always, thanks. we will have phones until the end -- "until the end of the program. you can comment on the news of the day, including perhaps what you would like to see come out of supreme court opinions. the president's travel ban as well as the future of public unions may be part of that. c-span cameras at the supreme court on this independent -- on this important day. we will be right back. >> this week, the c-span bus travel to juneau, alaska, as part of our 50 capitals tour. the bus continues the trip across alaska by very -- by ferry.

be sure to join us july 21 and 22, when we will feature our visit to alaska. watch alaska weekend on c-span, c-span.org, or listen on the c-span radio app. this week on "the fcc commissioner michael o'rielly on the elimination of net neutrality and the expected surge in corporate mergers after the at&t-time warner merger. illy isiley -- o're interviewed by paul kirby. >> chairman wheeler and the head of the antitrust division felt it should not go to three. at that time, t-mobile and sprint did not try to merge. nationwide wireless carriers -- >> i do not have such a structure. i think the application is put before the committee, and analyze that in terms of the data that is presented.

what are the circumstances in the marketplace? what are the capabilities? what are the promises they are providing? what are the opportunities they may be able to bring to american consumers? what is the debt load they are taking on? will they meet those obligations with the department of justice? i will look at the application as forthright, as expected. i do not have an artificial number in my head that it should be this or that. there are benefits to having more and having stronger providers. i want to see what the circumstance may be. i take applications as they are presented to me. communicators" tonight on c-span 2. >> washington journal continues. host: c-span cameras outside of the supreme court as six opinions yet to be released. that finishes the court's session. a decision day today.

probably another coming on top of that. protesters for and against certain causes already at the court. that has been a lot more activity. we will continue to show those pictures at the supreme court as we go on with this final 20 minutes of the program. for you. hones for you. bill starts us off. he is missouri republican line. go ahead. caller: good morning. host: you are on the air. caller: hello. it seems kind of ridiculous to be talking about all this space for stuff in the government is hiding all this ufo stuff that is finally starting to come out. how are we supposed to vote intelligently? rudi's next, sun city, california, democrats line. caller: good morning, pedro. i have three kids serving in the military at this time, two boys

and a girl. i told them last year that if they are ever in a conduct situation and they come back with physical and mental scars back to our country here, they will not be considered heroes of this country. those are not my words. those are the words of this president. thank you, pedro. examiner" washington looks at recent statements by senator mark warner of virginia. robert mueller rusher ssialations, according -- ru revelations to come. he told people to buckle up in the coming months, joking there was information only known to himself and special counsel robert mueller. he said, i will tell you stuff only bob mueller and i know. the election and

whether president trump obstructed justice -- "you think you have seen wild stuff so far, buckle up. it is going to be a wild couple of months," according to senator warner. rudy in california, go ahead. caller: you already got me, pedro, i think. host: silver spring, maryland that is next, democrats line. caller: good morning. my topic is immigration. i think the incarcerated population of the country can be rehabilitated. instead of letting so many people come here and take advantage of the american dream, i think a lot of people, if given the chance -- and i think a great majority of them -- can be rehabilitated so they can have the american dream and not be forced to live a nightmare for the rest of their lives. and i think -- i am very nervous. i think the democrats ask for too much.

i am against chain immigration and i am against visa lotteries. we cannot have our way about everything, but neither can they. i think they ask too much. i basically fundamentally do agree with trump on immigration. ok, thank you. this is "the texas tribune" this morning. kids in exchange for deportation. detained migrants were told they could get kids back on the way out of the u.s. they reported that central american men separated from their children and held in a facility outside houston are being told they can reunite with their kids at the airport if they agree to sign a voluntary deportation order now. according to one migrant at the facility and immigration attorneys who have spoken to detainees -- a honduran man who spoke to the texas tribune estimated that 20 to 25 men who have been separated from their children are being held at the

polk county secure adult detention center, a privately operated u.s. immigration and customs enforcement facility for men, 75 miles outside of houston. he said the majority had received the same offer, reunification, in exchange for voluntary deportation. on detainee, who spoke condition of anonymity and requested use of a synonym for fear of retaliation, said he agreed to sign the voluntary deportation paperwork friday out of "desperation" to see his six-year-old daughter, who was separated from him after the pair illegally cross the border in late may. "the texas tribune" is where you can find that story. from kentucky, independent line, here is robert. go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. i want to just think that i have got a solution for these illegals. illegals causing a problem. the problem is caused by the sanctuary cities run by these

traitorous democrats. ain'tssions eight -- tried them for treason, then do not find them nothing, do not put them in jail -- deport them for life. get them out. that is the only way you are going to stop these people coming in. thanks. host: kentucky, robert, republican line. go ahead. caller: yes, i am sorry. that was not me talking there. when mr. president trump was running for president, we had him visit west virginia and atces like that, and he was these operational plans that made these mammoth -- this mining equipment and everything like that. mr. donald trump seemed like he wants to help the underground coal miners here in eastern

kentucky and west virginia. but we are still struggling in west virginia and eastern kentucky. ift i would like to know is mr. trump is doing his best to try to get those jobs back into eastern kentucky, because those $70,000 to to $78,000 a year. what we have now in eastern kentucky is not near that amount of money, and we cannot afford to pay car insurance and vehicle insurance and electric bills and all that. good money coming back into eastern kentucky, sir. host: that is robert in hauser, kentucky. the c-span cameras outside of the supreme court as opinions are yet to be delivered on six cases pending. that would effectively end the term of the court for this session. session,omes to next cnn reporting about one case the court won't take up. it will not take up the case of

a florist who refused service for a same-sex couple. this reporting saying just back after ruling in favor of the cake baker who refused to make a cake for a wedding celebration. the supreme court monday wiped a decision against a florist who refused to make an arrangement for a same-sex couple. the courts in the case back down to a lower court and asked it to revisit the florist case in light of the masterpiece cake shop ruling. while the justices want the lower court to take another look at the case even the recent ruling, the justices themselves are not ready to jump into the contentious debate for now. that is outside of the supreme court. you are looking at opinions that have yet to be delivered. we take our next call. let's hear from tom in minnesota, democrats line. caller: hello! i am calling as an ambassador from the borgen project, a nonprofit that seeks to eliminate global poverty by

basically asking people to call their senators in a were of legislation that puts money toward that sort of thing. host: what are you specifically advocating for? caller: there are particularly 10 bills we are looking at. one is a tax which invests in foreign infrastructure. the reason we need to do that is because when we have crises like this -- we have national disaster crises, refugee crises -- it has to do with the governing capacity of the governing -- the governments involved. and our age has helped a number of countries -- for instance, -- run for your and fairer elections. when countries can handle their own problems, we don't need to. foreign investment and foreign us, becauseenefit we grow these countries and then we do not have to manage all of

these problems. host: george is from clarksville, tennessee, republican line area -- line. caller: in regard to planned parenthood, shouldn't parenthood girlanned before the lady, , gets pregnant? you cannot really plan for it. it has already been planned once you are pregnant. host: democrats line, good morning. caller: i want to say that trump said that he is -- that he can pardon himself. people cannot pardon themselves. henry viii, if you are the king -- or if you are an emperor like napoleon -- number three, if you are a big hater like adolf .itler or kim jong-un or if you are a person that escape from a lunatic hospital, a crazy person.

trump is acting like all of the above. "the wall street journal," a story about buzz aldrin, who walked on the moon. he received a distinguished flying cross, presidential medal of freedom. now fighting for control of his own space related business with members of his own family. buzz aldrin battled his children. the headline saying that colonel aldrin is in a legal fight with his adult children and a former business manager who he says are trying to grab his legacy and money. at issue are his private company, was aldrin enterprises, and his nonprofit overseen by his son and daughter. buzz aldrin said in an interview he was shocked last ones when his children ask the florida state court to appoint them as co-guardians because he is "in cognitive decline, and wrote and experiencing confusion. that would give them power to make decisions on his behalf and control his financial and

business dealings. their fatheruested undergo a competency evaluation. they say he is associating with new people who appear to be manipulating him, running to document. colonel aldrin denies that. more at the website of the wall street journal this morning. sarah is in tucker, georgia, independent line. caller: i want to make a statement that the data democrats and republicans wake up and decide they are going to put the country before themselves, and do what they are charged to do -- this country might get straightened out. realize that these people have been in washington and they and years, are changing their story about every 10 years. that is sarah in tucker, georgia. if you go to "the new york times editorial section,

there is a cochairwoman of the republican majority for choice. "why we are leaving the gop" is the op-ed. we cannot support a republican party shutting down low-cost clinics offering basic services and family planning services. they want to punish pregnant women by limiting economic choices and reduce access to sex education programs that prevent unintended pregnancy and disease. it is no wonder that women are voting with their feet, up and a recent analysis by the pew research center. women -- 56% of women identify orlene for democrats. the gap is even wider among college graduates and minority voters. the party should note that 70% of millennial women has registered as democrats orlene democratic. -- or lean democratic. in illinois, democrats line. caller: i just wanted to make a

comment and try to just wonder for the country -- we are dispersing these people through our country, innocent children being put in detention and dispersed throughout this country. and i have no idea where i have ever heard or read or seen how they expect to match the kids with their parents when the time comes. is that something that people -- i am just wondering -- is being thought about. are they just went to float around this country and stay here? or is there some process set up for their parents to be reunited, matched up with their children? that is just a comment i had. host: democrats line in hallowell, maine. this is susan. caller: good morning, pedro. i wanted to go back to the gentleman that was there as your guest earlier, the defense budget gentleman.

is, with theon last 2016 election and the upcoming 2018 election, i would be curious to know how much he is involved or the president has given them money to do any server securityork. work.er security i have written to my state senator, susan collins, with regards to what i have seen as the silent majority as the republican party. she said she would use her voice to stand up, to not be intimidated i this president, to protect the state of maine and the people of this country. clean air, clean water, our going to-- i mean, create a space force as part of the military is another money grab that is growing the defense budget, and this guy is out of hand. the people in that party have got to step forward and do something. host: philip is next.

he is in texas. republican line. go ahead. you are on. go ahead. about an was concerned international thing that i heard about, but kind of people do not understand yet. that is how much -- it is the hadron collider. in europe, butis what are your concerns about it? caller: i guess i am curious, what are they really trying to do? i heard a comment from a physicist that said they are trying to open up a door and they are not even sure what will come through. is that right? host: i have not heard that one. what is the basis for your concern? caller: well, it is supposed to be dark matter, and dark matter, they say, is very hard to contain. i just -- i am curious.

i would like to know more about that. host: we will go to morgan in reading, pennsylvania. democrats line. caller: good morning, thank you for c-span. i want a comment that i find it so strange that watching the children being separated on their parents, and we have nothing from the right to life crowd, the religious right to life who care so much about children. they want to close down planned parenthood because every life is vital in the eyes of god. not one of their major voices has stepped up to go against what is going on, which is a travesty. one major voice in the right to life people who care so much the bible says you cannot love god who you cannot see. you cannot love god who you cannot see. you cannot not love your neighbor who you see every day. that shows the hypocrisy of the whole religious crowd, who care so much about children. host: that is morgan in

pennsylvania. the huffington post reporting that after receiving word that her unborn baby no longer had a heartbeat, it was hard to imagine how things could get worse. the arizona mother says a walgreens pharmacist refused to provide her with aerception drug that would help her miscarry her deceased fetus. the company said on sunday it was investigating the incident. "i experienced something no woman should have to go through, especially under these circumstances." 35-year-old says the pharmacist's refusal came one day after her doctor informed her at a pregnancy checkup that her baby no longer had a heartbeat. this was first reported in the arizona republic. we will hear from the wayne independent line. i want to know why the democrats went overboard with [indiscernible]

destroyed the country. host: if you go to the pages of "the washington times" taking a look at what the european union is dealing with, with margaret's -- this is from the associated press, saying if the idea of screening europe bound asylum-seekers in the balkans gained support from central european leaders as tensions for how to best handle new arrivals threaten to undermine unity. an emergency talks in brussels -- 16 countries, led by france and germany, for threshing out who should take responsibility for thousands of migrants landing primarily in italy, greece, and spain -- how long they should take care of them, and how much european partners should do to help out. a deal with turkey has slashed 2013nt arrivals 97% since -- mostly migrants fleeing syria and iraq. the e.u. is ready to greenlight plans to set up screening centers.

max is in pennsylvania. max on our republican line. caller: what are the rules of engagement for alien worms? host: that is our last call on the topic. our c-span cameras positioning outside of the supreme court, waiting for the delivery of opinions. if you go to c-span.org, the cases that were heard -- at least the audio portions of the cases -- some have been processed so you can view them, along with who is talking. a case dealing with public unions, same-sex marriage. the masterpiece bakery. all of those things available at our website at c-span.org. a shot of the supreme court as we leave you for today. a new program coming your way at 7:00 tomorrow. we will see you then.

[captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] ♪