see the president's comments live at 7:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. and if the senate is out for the night by that time, we'll bring that rally to you live on c-span2. >> this week on the communicators. f.c.c. commissioner on the elimination of net neutrality and the expected surge in corporate mergers after the tatis time warner merger -- at&t-time warner merger. >> the last administration under obama, both chairman wheeler and the head of the anti-trust division, felt that it should not be changed and go to three. so at that time they did not try to merge. should there be four nationwide carriers -- [inaudible] --

>> i do not have such a structure. i want to take the application that's put before the commission, before us. and analyze that in terms of what's the data that's presented, what are the circumstances in the marketplace. what are the qualifications and the capabilities of the current providers, what are the promises that they're providing, what are the opportunities that they may be able to bring to the american consumers? what is the debt load they're taking on? are they going to be able to meet those obligations they're talking about with us and with the department of justice? so i will look at the application as forth right as expected and i don't have an artificial in my head that it should be this or that. there are benefits to having more and there are benefits to having stronger providers and so i want to see what the circumstances may be and i take the applications as they're presented to me. >> watch the communicators d tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2. >> on tuesday, health and human services secretary alex azhar will testify on prescription

drug prizes before the senate finance committee. live coverage begins at 9:30 a.m. on c-span3. and then coming up wednesday, housing and urban development secretary ben carson discusses oversight issues at his department. he'll appear before the house financial services committee. live coverage wednesday starts at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span3. and wednesday afternoon, the confirmation hearing for robert wilkie to be the next veterans affairs secretary. he'll testify before the senate veterans' affairs committee. he would replace david shulkin who was fired by president trump in march. that hearing begins live wednesday at 2:30 p.m. eastern. also on c-span3. 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 t them e 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,amily 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 tre s 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 wave. a lot of democrats 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. ant: and access -- >> c-span's "washington journal" live every day with news and issues that affect you. coming up tuesday morning, a discussion on immigration policy with texas republican congressman louie gohmert and congressman hakeem jeffries will join us to talk about immigration. watch c-span's "washington journal" live at 7:00