coverage tuesday. on c-span, the house returns at 10:00 a.m. for general speeches and legislative business at noon. on the agenda, a resolution marking the 30th anniversary of the tournament square protests in china. and, president trump british prime minister theresa may hold a 10 conference. then at 10:00 a.m., the senate returns to vote on executive nominations. on c-span3, house into a committee chair adam schiff talks about national security at the council on foreign relations. then, a hearing on facial recognition technology at 10:00 a.m. eastern, another with f.b.i. and homeland security officials on combating white supremacy. that is at 2:00 p.m. eastern. coming up on today's washington our guest from the

brookings institution joins us to talk about how millennials are saving for retirement. after that, our next guest talks about his book "the boy, "the by crisis," why our boys are struggling and what we can do about it. ♪ host: this is the "washington journal" for june force. mitt romney expected to make his first formal speech on the senate floor. the house will ignite the 40th anniversary of the tiananmen square protest -- undocumented individuals who immigrated to the u.s. as minors . some other groups included in that bill as well. we will show you elements of the bill and for the next hour, give us your opinion on these efforts to extend protections for so-called dreamers. if you support the effort, 202-748-8000.

if you oppose it, 202-748-8001. recipient, adaca dreamer and wanted to give your thought, 202-748-8002. you can post on our twitter feed. there is a poll on our twitter feed at -- on our website, c-span.org -- on our facebook, facebook.com/cspan. several elements of this bill that would protect so-called dreamers. it would include this, dreamers who would -- would earn conditional permanent resident if they came years to the u.s. at 17 or younger. they would have to arrive at least four years after the enactment of the original dream check. pass a background they would be eligible for lawful permanent resident status if they complete two years at a

u.s. education institution, serve in the military, or steadily be employed and they would gain access to financial aid and business licenses. this is the effort by house democrats to be debated today. you can see that play out and find more at c-span.org. this comes as the supreme court made a decision concerning the trump administration looking for action on daca. on monday, it rejected the trump administration's request to fast-track a decision over whether they will hear the case. the justices in an onside order -- unsigned order rejected the request. it was the solicitor general who represented the administration in cases before and urged justices to announce their decision on whether they will hear the case because of the importance of the questions presented for review and the

need for prompt resolution. may be resolved before the court costs summer recess. that took place and played out on monday. it was the attorney general of the united states, william barr, making a speech at the american law institute. he assailed the growing trends of the court involving .njunctions including this area for daca recipients. here is what william barr had to say. [video clip] >> appeals have been ongoing for nearly two years and half, but injunctions remain in place. this highlights troubling consequences of the rise of nationwide injunctions. these injunctions have frustrated presidential policy for most of the president's term with no clear end in sight. we are more than halfway through

the president's term and the administration has not been able to rescind the immigration initiative of the pre-see if -- previous administration. the justice department tried for more than a year to get the supreme court to review the lower court decisions, ordering us to keep daca in place, but the court has not granted any of those requests and they languish on the conference docket. unless the court acts quickly and decisively, we are unlikely to see a decision but work -- before mid 2020. at the earliest, right before the next election. envision a clearer necessity of the nationwide injunctions. host: he made that statement when it comes to the deferred action for childhood arrivals program. otherwise known as daca.

of 2012.ted on june 15 it applies to certain people who came to the united states as children and made requests or deferred action for two years. they are eligible for work authorization. it did not provide lawful status at the time of its an action unlike what house democrats will do on the floor today as they debate this bill. if you support this effort, if you oppose it, or perhaps ra daca recipient, we invite you to call. it is 202-748-8000 if you support it. if you oppose it, 202-748-8001. if you are a daca recipient, 202-748-8002 to give us your thoughts. this is from a daca recipient, jim park. he testified before the house judiciary committee in march and talked about this legislation from his perspective and told

those who were listening, those legislators why legislation was needed. [video clip] >> there is a major obstacle between me and the rhodes scholarship. the guidance that allowed daca recipients to get permission to leave the country to study, work, or visit elderly family members was terminated. if i leave the country to study at oxford, i will forfeit daca and there will be no guarantee i can return home to the united states. that is the perpetual reality of being undocumented. i will never know if i have a .lace in america, my home i am supposed to leave for oxford in november, roughly seven months from now, but i feel caught in an impossible decision. how can i leave knowing i might not be able to come back to my home? my family? my friends and the life i have built here? my proposed study includes

fieldwork where i grew up. how can i do that if i cannot get into the united states and how many others found themselves at a similar crossroads faced with an impossibly difficult choice? we know some of their stories. studyingca recipient in california state university unable to visit her father in mexico before he died. and we know of a recipient diagnosed with leukemia who had to choose between saying goodbye to his family in mexico and receiving hospice care in the u.s. every year they are left in limbo and it inflicts unnecessary pain, suffering, and hardship and it will only get worse if congress does not take action to provide protection for daca recipients. host: you can see that presentation as well as william barr on our website at c-span.org. if you go to the box and type in daca or any of the related search terms, it will pull up everything we have taken in

regarding this topic. your thoughts on this legislation being debated in the house about those protections offered for those under the program. from georgia on our oppose line, this is ed who starts us off in lawrenceville. caller: good morning. the reason why i am opposed is -- theythe democrats created this situation to begin with. unless we are going to get a wall to stop these people coming over from hundreds of thousands, this reminds me of what the democrats did right after world war ii. they brought all those nazis over here and now they are complaining about white supremacy. it is funny. host: back to the topic at hand. are you saying you are okay offering protections, but a border wall has to be in place first? caller: that is correct. host: why is that? tell us why.

caller: because they won't stop coming. they are coming at 100,000 a month. georgia,m atlanta, supports this effort. hello. caller: hello. host: you are on, go ahead. caller: yes, i am in support for the daca. host: why is that? caller: i think everybody become aa chance to citizen and be a part of america if they follow the rules and become a legal citizen and abide by the rules as opposed to how they got here. i don't agree with people just invading our country. that is not what i am saying. those who have already gotten favor in the past should be allowed to become citizens. host: that is katrina from atlanta georgia giving her thoughts on this topic. --will hear from clyde next

pushed the wrong button, sorry about that. clyde in bridgeport, alabama, opposes this effort. tell us why? hello? caller: hello? host: you are on. go ahead, please. thatr: i am against all crap. host: why are you against this legislation specifically? caller: huh? host: why are you against the legislation specifically? caller: they are taking things away from us. and they are letting these other people come into the country and getting all this free stuff, food stamps and food and all that kind of crap. host: clyde giving his thoughts this morning. you can go to our facebook page and there is a poll you can take. not scientific, just lets you register whether you support or oppose this opinion.

there are comments you can leave as well. this is john saying i supported it before, but we tried to give support to three times the amount of dreamers in support for wall funding and dems would not have it. i say we stick to our guns this electric stifle -- election cycle. along with immigration reform, that completely protects our borders, the bill will only immigration and deportation issues, tightening laws for those that defy them. dreamers contribute to our society, pay taxes and are persecuted by our system of justice. there is no valid reason to deny them citizenship and james from facebook, there cannot be a blanket acceptance, it has to be evaluated person to person. you can leave your thoughts on the pole and leave your comments

on our page at facebook.com/cspan. for -- come off calla delray, california. richard. caller: you have to understand something that the original intent of these people to be here, they are here illegally and you keep changing the phraseology and the narrative to assume they are here legally when they are not. you keep on ignoring that .eality we have homeless people in the streets. we have veterans who don't have nothing and these people go ignored and we are supposed to worry -- be worried about people who never should have been here in the first place. why are you giving them exceptions? missouri, is very -- this is from steve in robert's veil. go ahead. caller: thanks for taking my call. i oppose it because we just cannot take no more people. i wanted to collect your first

caller. massive immigration started under ronald reagan. i wish you would show your chart . under george w. bush, they were letting in a quarter of a million a month. this is not even half. this is the reason we do not like obama. this is the reason we got obama because he comes up with goofy stuff like that. i have been a truck driver for 30 years in this place is packed. it used to be people would speak english and now you go to places to load or unload and they don't speak english. host: dreamers were brought here as children and many already exist, why oppose efforts for those protections? here asthings brought kids, i can understand that. what is going on right now, this ain't the same deal right now. we have got to stop it right now. host: the migration policy

institute tells us as of august last year when it comes to those who received daca protections, the total number of recipients 699,350. the estimated of those meeting the criteria to apply in 2018, 1 .3 million plus. that makes the program participation rate about 54%. to show you the first bill we showed you when it comes to what is being debated, this is a piece of legislation. if you stay tuned throughout the morning as they start this debate, we will show you elements of what house democrats .ould like to see passed you can go to the website to find out more and stay tuned to watch that play out. angel in maryland on our oppose line, you are next up. caller: good morning. i only partially oppose it.

first of all as latino and secondly as a millennial, i have grown up with the current immigration problems this country has been having. someone who is married to someone who immigrated here legally, my wife is venezuelan and seeing the hardships we had to go through to get her status changed and all the hurdles you need to jump, to see someone brought here as a child, you make that exception. with any daca and legalization, their change in status, that kind of forgives that "crime," there should also be a solution to the problem and the root cause, people crossing the border illegally and either a couple being within days of birth and giving birth to the child and the child is now an american citizen who is the child of illegal immigrants. what do you do?

either they hide in the shadows for 5, 6, 7 years and when it is time for deportation, my child is a citizen, let's keep them together. you have people taking advantage of the system and i think there should be a solution to the root cause. do this or you say pass this bill, but alongside of it pass stronger border protections? caller: yes, absolutely. that is the thing. compromise -- and this is a great way to work together. you have democrats on one side that want to provide protections and republicans also, you see the humane side of things, you do not want to kick out 18-year-olds or 19-year-olds that have been here this and tight their entire life, but someone has to reach out and say we have to pass this bill and legalize x amount of people brought here as kids. on the others, they want to secure the border and cut the --

stem the flow of the issue. what better way to work together then immigration? host: stephen dinan reporting for the washington times that one of the actions of congress yesterday upon their return from break was passing a 19 billion plus disaster relief bill, but he highlights the fact that bill left out the $4.5 billion in money president trump demanded to help stem the border crisis. democrats tried to clear the bill last week when the house was on vacation, but they complained about the price tag and the lack of action on the border crisis. on our support line, charlotte, north carolina. good morning. go ahead. caller: how are you doing this morning, pedro? host: fine, thank you. caller: that guy that got off

the phone, he is right, but one other thing is the democrats and are frustratedh because they see these people coming in here and they think they are taking their jobs and such. the biggest problem we have got right here is the companies that hire these people. you go down to your city council and they give these contracts to these people and bring 6500 dollars -- to go to work. that is the reason the american people don't get these jobs because they are cheaper labor. host: should the support or this type of legislation include tougher punishment for employers who do that? should include more border

security money? or stand on its own? caller: you need more border security, you need that. you don't need no wall, but you need border security. what is happening here, pedro, is the companies. like china, people complaining about china stealing their technology. how are they stealing their technology when the company taking care of their places over there and giving their people the right to build the right to build this stuff and send it to us? it is a simple thing. they have to use the technology to do the work, right? you cannot complain about that. a bill that would consider protections for so-called dreamers. if you want to give us a call on that, 202-748-8000 if you support this effort.

if you oppose it, 202-748-8001. perhaps you are a dreamer yourself and you are under these protections and you want to give us your thoughts. it is 202-748-8002. wisconsin on our support line, this is bill. caller: yeah. his stupidcaller and wall. these people come in with high don't care how high or how wide they make the wall, these people are coming in and the only way to stop this is by putting people in jail that hire these illegal aliens. host: to the idea of supporting how dofort on dreamers, you feel about this bill being worked on? caller: they should made -- be made citizens. if you are born in this country, you are a citizen. host: this bill deals with those brought to this country by other

people as young people. should they be offered those protections, too? caller: they were young people, they did not know the difference, make them citizens. go toat first caller andp's casino in las vegas see how many hispanic people are working there. host: in tallahassee, florida, opposes this effort. you are next up. good morning. caller: good morning. yes, i do oppose it. i don't think it is right. i am sorry their family brought them, but that is not our responsibility. i do agree they should be allowed to stay as residents, but not permanent residence.

when they hit legal age, they can file for citizenship legally and get in the back of the line like everybody else has to do. host: if they are in the country and someone made the argument because they are paying taxes and working and country bidding to society, why not offer protections because of those elements? caller: when 63% of them are on welfare, there is not that many of them taking care of business. whatever money they are putting in, they are getting it back. number two, they are always punishing our forefathers. my father came from norway in 1919 and telling us we have to pay reparations to everybody and protect all these people. they can punish american people to this day for some thing that happened 400 years ago. we are their children and we may be citizens, but we are constantly called i cannot -- all kinds of names.

i am american indian and norwegian. we did not have any part of that and we work every day to take care of our kids and they should be taking care of their kids. i feel for them that they were brought here as children, but that is their fathers and mothers sins and they are collecting welfare because the children, the illegal parent does not get anything. we have one on the block raking in $45,000 a year because she has seven kids and she brought them all here when they were young. , thereo apply for daca are several requirements you have to meet to get those protections. he would have to be under the age of 31 as of june 15 of 2012. he would have to have come here for reaching your 16th birthday, have continually resided in the united states since june 15, 2007. if you were physically present

in the u.s. as of june 15, 2012 at the time of making a request for daca had no lawful status, you are currently in school, graduated, or obtained a certificate of completion from high school, or an honorably discharged veteran of the armed forces and part of those requirements, you have not been convicted of a felony, significant misdemeanor, three or four other misdemeanors or pose a threat to national security, u.s. citizenship and immigration services offering those guidelines. opposer.next, also an caller: if you would give me time, i want to give you some stats out of the center for immigration studies because this is what changed my mind. according to them, 80% to 90% are hispanic. they recently took an objective

english literally -- literacy test. 44% of those who said they spoke english well or very well actually scored below basic, a level sometimes described as functional illiteracy. andspoke no english at all of those, a good percent could not even read or write and only college.ed host: for those statistics you offer, what does that mean of whether your idea of you -- whether you oppose this effort? in 5 arehey think 1 going to be on food stamps within 10 years because they live in low income houses and 73% are currently getting

welfare. host: again, for those statistics, why do you oppose this effort? caller: there needs to be changes if they want to integrate in our society. i believe if they want to integrate, all they have to do is speak english, get some kind of skills that they can provide for themselves and if they can provide for themselves, then i think they should be allowed to be citizens. host: if someone currently here speaks english and is providing for themselves, they should be providing protection -- provided protections? caller: yeah, sure, absolutely. host: you are saying you don't think that is the majority of people? caller: according to the center for immigration studies, they are feeling a lot. they are not doing what they are supposed to be doing and the idea is to integrate them into our society and make them citizens and get them educated. host: ellen is next on our

oppose line. caller: good morning. i am very opposed to this. 1986f the main reasons is when the illegals were granted amnesty, the flood of illegals crossing our borders has not ceased. -- the young gentleman, mr. parks, who was the poster child, if democrats are trying to put over that all the dreamers are as capable as that butg man, that is nothing -- i will not even use trump's not of fake news, but it is representative of the whole group. secondly, there are no consequences for any of these people illegally crossing the border since 1986. we have got to not give them advantage over those who participate in the legal

immigration system. mr. park, for example, if he wants to go to oxford, should and he can apply for citizenship because he has something to offer the u.s., to repay the u.s. for all we have done for him. mr. park do you think is only one example, but does not represent a good majority of the whole that fall under this program? who convinces you of that? caller: i live in california and i see the number of illegals here in our sanctuary state, which is a blessing from pelosi. this is the worst thing and i am opposed to the whole thing of protecting our illegals. they are not our illegals, they are the politicians's illegals. host: even as this discussion goes on when it comes to border security, the washington post taking a look at a story about a

suit in an effort by house democrats to block money to be used for wall construction done by trevor mcfadden. he denied that request to temporary -- temporarily stopped spending on the wall. "while the constitution bestows tomorrow -- many powers, it does not grant standing to hail the executive branch in court claiming delusion of congress' executive authority -- legislative authority. of the court lacks jurisdiction to hear the claims and will deny motions. the suit -- the decision is at odds with the may 24 ruling that blocked part of the plan because it was using money congress never appropriated for that purpose." in colorado,ronson supporter of this effort. hello. caller: good morning, america. host: you are on, sir.

go ahead. why do you support this effort? caller: well. i want to quote from the holy dictionary. if you claim to be a christian and you practice racism, you are a hypocrite. you cannot be a christian and a racist at the same time. host: to the specific legislation being debated, why do you support that and offering protections for dreamers? 60% of citizens of the united states are white europeans. we have already got enough white europeans. africa, 40%. 16%.o, obviously there is institutional racism here. you know what i mean? host:host: do you think this legislation will reverse that? caller: it is a start.

white haver than been restricted. they are put in a bottleneck. a lot of restrictions. 60% of white europeans. we already have enough white europeans. we cannot get people elected in office because we are always outvoted. int: we will hear from cindy pennsylvania on our oppose line. caller: good morning. i am opposed to this. we have plenty of people legally applying to come into this country that are having to wait in line because of all this nonsense with the open borders and these people are coming in and not offering anything except to take welfare. host: this legislation deals with dreamers who are already here, you oppose protections for them as well?

caller: yes, i do. host: why is that? caller: because the majority of them are not supporting themselves. they are living on welfare and this country cannot continue to afford all this welfare for all these illegals coming into the country. host: for those you say are living on welfare, what do you base that on? caller: the statistics. host: just as what -- such as what? caller: that are coming under the immigration authority. host: go ahead. caller: this country cannot continue to afford to keep paying all these people. they come here, they cannot speak english, they cannot hold a job. they cannot make money to support themselves and we need to change our laws and cut out the loopholes and only have these people come in on merit. host: that is cindy in penn about this the house will debate

today, some other groups in there, too. if you want to give your youghts, 202-748-8000 if support this effort. if you oppose it, 202-748-8001. perhaps you yourself have daca protections and want to give your perspective, give us a call at 202-748-8002. president trump continues his trip through the united kingdom, currently in a meeting with theresa may. if you were to be there yourself, you would see not only a police presence, but several protesters who have come to register their opposition to the president and his policies outside of 10 downing street. that meeting will continue and he is expected to make a press statement later on this morning. several of those events as part of this three day state visit. it was last night at a dinner with the queen of england president trump offered a toast

during that presentation. [video clip] belovedday, the queen's father, king george the sixth delivered a stirring national address. that day he said after nearly five years of toil and suffering, we must renew the crusading impulse in which we entered the world and met its darkest hour. our fight is against evil and for a world in which goodness and honor may be the foundation of the life of men in every land . this evening, we thank god for the brave sons of the united kingdom and the united states who defeated the nazis and the nazi regime and liberated millions from tyranny. the bond between our nations was forever sealed in that great as we honor our shared

victory and heritage. we affirm the common values that will unite us long into the future. freedom, sovereignty, self-determination, the rule of law, and reference for the rights given to us by almighty god. from the second world war to today, her majesty has stood as a constant symbol of these priceless traditions. she has embodied the spirit of dignity, duty, and patriotism that beats proudly in every british heart. on behalf of all americans, i offer a toast to the eternal friendship of our people, the vitality of our nations, and to the long cherished and truly eign of herr

majesty, the queen. host: if you go to the new york times, there is a piece out of london talking about the president's fascination with the royal family saying it was one of his earliest memories, watching his mother watch television and some rolled for hours on the day queen elizabeth was crowned. he was only six years old, but he understood the gilded spectacle unfolding of more -- more than 3400 miles away. as his mother watched, a poor girl who immigrated from scotland and worked as a housemaid in a grand mansionund. you can read the piece in the new york times. --k to your calls on this these protections being debated in the house for dreamers. we will hear from alex next. caller: thank you for taking my

call and i do support the dreamer effort. i am not too concerned with children who are raised here. i think everyone is capable of committing crimes. against lot of people dreamers are scared of crimes. i am more scared of things .oming out of boston everything going on with the dreamers, i am not too concerned. if they are born here and raised here, they have the same values. i don't see them as a legitimate threat. if you are going to come to this country and you are not going to be a threat, then i really don't see an issue with you staying here. the stuff out of boston with the institute, they are more of a threat with replacing people.

1 host: when it comes to this effort debated in the house, some people have come up with the idea this should be done alongside streamlining the process of immigration and becoming a legal citizen. should those efforts be done alongside this dreamer effort? anyer: yeah, i think legislation that can be used to protect human beings, americans in general. any effort we can use to protect people should be taken to an extent. we should not stop liberties. i know places such as diamond city, they are very paranoid about people coming in and they might look like you, they might sound like you, but they are not you. they might have all terrier motives. i am not too concerned with the dreamers coming in. i am more concerned with stuff

coming out of boston. host: that is alex and marilyn. antonio in california on our support line. you are next up. hello. z, how areenos dia you doing today? host: how do you feel about this effort? caller: these people have been here a while and it is their country now. they are mostly young people that are established in the united states, they pose no threat just like the last guy said and they are the kind of people we want to welcome in this country. i also wanted to say, there seems to be a lot of misinformation coming from both sides, i hear. i heard one lady and at first she was talking about daca and all of a sudden she was talking about reparations for 400 years ago. she is getting a couple issues mixed up and i think it is from misinformation.

the language thing. i hear a lot of these people saying they need to learn to speak english. i have a problem with that. the quickest way to take away a 's identity is to take away their culture and background and it appears to me that is really what is at the root of these people not wanting to hear spanish when they go to the store. host: back to your original point, this effort being debated in the house, do you think this gives preferential treatment to dreamers and not those who are waiting to become a u.s. citizen? caller: no, i don't. they have been here for a while themselves and they are part of the program. i just think it is the right thing to do. that is what i feel in my heart, that is the right thing to do and it seems like years ago, this would have passed with no

problem at all. it is only in this day in age when things are all fired up that you even have people calling in and complaining about people speaking spanish or daca or any of that stuff. the numbers are not a danger and the numbers aren't enough to make that big of a difference and they are the people we want to welcome. host: connie in florida on our oppose line. good morning. caller: good morning. i have two points. first, i want to say i am an independent who generally votes democratic. on this issue, i want democratic lawmakers to hear people like me loud and clear. do not pass this. i will tell you my two points. it goes back to what happened on wall street when they talked about a moral hazard. the government should not

incentivize or reward behavior it does not want to see go on anymore. don't reward the parents are the families for bringing those children over here and you also do not incentivize future parents to bring their kids over here. when my ancestors came from europe in the 1700s and 1800s, they made a decision and it involves sacrifice and that sacrifice was i am going to be an american. therefore, i may not be able to return to my home country or see my mother die or my sister die. you make a choice to be an american and that involves sacrifice. none of this, i need to go back home to do this or that or the other. they don't even have the financial resources to go back across the ocean. just because we have airlines that go around the world or can cross mexico be able to go back to their home countries?

you are making a decision. people who are immigrants in this country legal and illegal do not want to be americans. they want the benefits of being in america to make money in our capitalist system, but they want to be wherever they are from as well. host: that is connie in florida speaking of mexico in the washington post, a picture of -- issues.h immigration in the story by kevin saying the administration -- trump administration has urged the implementation of a safe third country agreement that would pressure asylum-seekers to apply for residents in mexico rather than the united states, making it easier for u.s. immigration immigrants to turn them around if they show up at the border. the foreign minister saying such a policy would not be so

acceptable. the main proposal to stop migration is to invest in central america. mexico's constitution and its own dignity. if there are only punitive actions, it is not going to work. so far the united states has -- we do not have until today, a single project in place. david is next from georgia, supporter of this effort. hello. caller: thank you for taking my call and thank you for washington journal. there is an easy fix, there is nobody serious in the house about that. a couple years ago when they were saying 700,000 were here, president trump offered 1.2 million daca recipients to receive citizenship to get rid

of chain migration and the lottery program. that is a fine way to show there is no seriousness. another deal. the children turn in the parents .ho brought them here illegally them extradited back to their own countries. in anpresident obama put executive action -- ofouncing the rescission daca. [video clip] >> the program known as daca that was effectuated under the obama administration is being rescinded. the daca program was implemented in 2012 and essentially provided a legal status for recipients for a renewable two-year term,

worker authorization, and other benefits, including participation in a social security program to 800,000 mostly adult, illegal aliens. it was implement it unilaterally took great controversy and legal concern after congress rejected legislative proposals to extend similar benefits to this same group of illegal aliens. the executive branch sot to achieve what the legislative branch specifically refused to authorize on multiple occasions. such an open ended circumvention of immigration laws was an unconstitutional exercise of authority by the executive branch. the effect of this unilateral executive amnesty among other things contributed to a surge of minors at the southern border that yielded terrible

humanitarian consequences. it also denied jobs to hundreds of thousands of americans by allowing those same illegal aliens to take those jobs. we inherited from our founders and have advanced and unsurpassed legal heritage, which is the foundation of our freedom, our safety, and our prosperity. as attorney general, it is my duty to ensure the laws of the united states are enforced and that the constitutional order is upheld. host: you can see that and other issues related to daca when you go to our website at c-span.org. off of our facebook page, a pole you can participate in. you can leave thoughts. gerald off of facebook saying this should be supported with vetting and background checks. nathan say why no third option? it depends on a particular

circumstance like so many other questions in life. you can add those -- add your comments to the mix. in new york on our oppose line, james. hello. caller: hey, pedro. how are you doing? host: fine, thanks. go ahead. caller: i will not redo what everyone else said be -- who opposes it. i oppose it because we need the wall. if we have the wall up and change all the immigration laws, maybe i will accept this daca deal. that woman from -- i think it was washington who was talking about the english language, i agree with her. i could not get a job because i was not able to speak spanish and i am in the medical field. i was denied that job because they asked me, do you speak spanish? i said, no. unbelievable.

it is not fair. host: how do you think the wall changes this idea being debated in the house? caller: you are right, you have to have the wall and you have to change all the immigration laws like the birthright and all that stuff. yes, you are right. it has got to be a total revamp of the whole immigration laws. host: put those things into place and you can accept what is being debated in the house today, that is what you are saying? caller: yes. host: that is james in new york and we will hear from someone in ohio, william on our support line. go ahead. caller: yes. dom a republican, but i support protection for the dreamers act, but it has to be reconfigured. there are illegal immigrants that came into this country for the purposes of the liberties

and jobs and things of that nature. they have been in this country, peaceful citizens contributing to social security and working and paying taxes and things of that nature and they have children and that is wonderful, too. they have not committed crimes except for failing to maintain their visa while they were the pathway to their citizenship. personally, i feel because they failed to maintain contact with the ins and do the proper steps, they should be fined for that. it is more of a civil matter than it is criminal, in my mind, provided they have not committed any crimes or harm against any others, other people while they

are here, just trying to establish a home life, but they fail to maintain their path -- the proper channel of immigration, then yes, they should report themselves, they should have to pay a fine for that and restart the process again without being deported because they have had children here and those children are doing the best they can, just like any other american family would be. host: that is william in cleveland, ohio, on our oppose line. tampa, florida, we will hear from mike. caller: how are you doing, sir? i am opposed against it because it is against the law, it is illegal. it needs to be enforced. it upsets our economy, hospitals, services.

it is unfair to the immigrants being used as pawns by the democrats all for votes. if it has got to be voted on, make it a common vote for all the people in america. whatever is above, let it go at that. keep them in the area, but without federal cash, let eats each place that wants to support them support them on their own dime. any oftary service for them because that is a roman tenant. i would not allow them to vote. their children, that is fine when they come of age. stop them from voting, democrats will stop supporting them. if they catch them, put them on forced labor for a year and a port them. -- deport them. host: we took it back to 2017 when it was jeff sessions explaining the reasons for rescinding daca.

we will go back even further, president obama extending executive actions to preserve these protections. [video clip] >> young people who, for all intents and purposes, are americans. they are raised as americans, understand themselves to be part of this country. to expel these young people simply because of the actions of their parents or because of the inaction of politicians. in the absence of any immigration action from congress to fix our broken immigration system, we try to focus immigration resource meant -- resources in the right places. we prioritize border security, putting more boots on the southern border than at any time in our history. today, there are fewer illegal crossings than any time in the past 40 years. we focus and use discretion

about whom to prosecute, focusing on criminals who endanger our communities rather than students furthering their education and deportation of criminals is up 80%. we have improved on that discretion carefully and thoughtfully. today, we are improving it again. effective immediately, the department of homeland security is taking steps to lift the shadow of deportation from these young people. over the next few months, eligible individuals who do not present a risk to national security or public safety will be able to request temporary relief from deportation proceedings and apply for work authorization. let's be clear, this is not amnesty, this is not immunity, this is not a path to citizenship, it is not a permanent fix, this is a

temporary stopgap measure that lets our folk -- lets us focus our resources wisely while giving a degree of relief and hope to talented, driven, patriotic young people. host: lynn off of twitter says every child under daca speaks english like our ancestors. lucy says democrats want to spend $26 billion to legalize dreamers, but will not spend $5 billion for a wall to protect americans. christopher saying he supports this, these people are americans in every sense of the word and angie saying i support citizenship, that is the protection they need provided they are law-abiding. dimas, is next from san california, on our oppose line. caller: hello. oppose the law as a standalone

law. i am not necessarily opposed to it in compromise, the grand compromise involving passing that as part of the reform of our immigration system and laws and affective border security. law,wise, to pass this that just sends a message to the recipients, daca the second, the third. look at how those people succeeded, let's do the same thing, so that does not solve our problem, ultimately. host: you think maybe this should be a joint effort from democrats and republicans for that package you are looking for? somer: yeah, and there was

discussion between trump and pelosi and schumer before the 2018 elections that did not go anywhere because the democrats ultimately, in my opinion, did not really want a solution to the border. of illegale ways immigration as ultimately benefiting them politically in the long run and -- in much the same way as it has benefited them in california, which is effectively a one-party state, now, is ambling a lot of one-party socialist states. that is their vision for america, ultimately. replacing current recalcitrant newicans with more -- immigrants beholden to their party as the party of come on in and we will provide you with freebies. host: this is pat in new jersey,

a supporter of this effort. becauseyes, i support this is the only country they knew -- they know. i don't see nothing wrong with it. i feel like this is trump's way of dividing people, as usual. i am from new jersey, we know trump. thank you, goodbye. an opposerwyoming, of this effort. caller: yes, sir. i do oppose it because i have work in new mexico when my husband was ill and i had people come in the restaurants where i was a waitress -- host: go ahead, you are on. caller: and i do not believe the about theven care

united states because i have had the children that took the orders for the adults and i had me how comen tell you speak no spanish. am an americani and i live in the united states me.he got really nasty with i think that is not right. if they want to be an american, they should not be allowed to go to the military because i think they are the ones coming back to this country and they are training to be the people that will attack anything or anybody. host: one more call from eugene in connecticut, supporter of this effort. you are the last call. caller: good morning, pedro.

that is really funny what the last caller was saying. there is a lot ofidentity thing. host: why do you support the effort? caller: these people live here. i have worked alongside some of these people. most of these people came from all ethnicities come here. and you feel that maybe this person is taking it personally. a --e not looking that as we are not looking it as a humanitarian thing. this is a right to live, the right to find a job and have hope. host: thank you. that is eugene in connecticut. the last call on this topic. at first guest takes a look retirement savings among

millenials and the issues that face that grew. joshua gotbaum joins us. and then later on the co-author of "the boy crisis" discusses the challenges and struggles facing boys in the united states. those discussions coming up on washington journal. ♪ >> sunday night on "afterwords" george will offers his thoughts on american conservatism. jonahinterviewed by goldberg. >> i happen to believe our country is superior, superior in andsense that it embodies made by a philosophy that is that is not suitable for all people at all times, but

everyone ought to aspire to it. so i say i am a nationalist. i do not to export it. i want to make it available, i want to help people where they can. we have a lot of experience with the civil society and a democratic society. i am a mild nationalist. >> watch it sunday at 9:00 p.m. eastern on book tv on c-span 2. ♪ >> the house will be in order. years c-span has been providing america unfiltered congress of congress, white house, the supreme court, and public policy events so you can make up your own mind. created by cable in 1979, c-span is brought to you by your local cable or satellite provider. c-span, your unfiltered view of government.

>> "washington journal" continues. host: this is joshua gotbaum. he should -- he serves as an economical studies scholar. he is here to talk about the issues facing millenials when it comes to retirement. why this group over others? guest: the truth is, mostly because everyone worries about retirement, but we have been , some of us think over focusing, on the baby boomers on the verge of retirement and focusing on their worries and whether they are prepared, and not paying attention to the fact that everyone else also is nervous. everyone else is nervous that when they retire social security will not be there. everyone else is nervous that they will not have enough money saved. what is happening is it is a good thing that we are beginning to realize that there are about

to be more millenials than baby boomers, and we are not talking to them or thinking about them. that is the reason for paying attention. in thehere is a line report that i want to read you saying "millenials will have several advantages such as more education and longer working lives, and more flexible worker rain bins -- work arrangements." let us start with the disadvantages. what are they? guest: the millennial generation educated, but their education costs more. they have greater student loans. and, that is a separate challenge. turns out that when you enter the labor force at a time when the economy is lower, it affects -- u.s. eventually -- you eventually start lower and it takes a long

time to catch up. although it is true that millenials are better educated, morethey have access to forms of savings and et cetera, they also have, on average, a less encouraging income path. and inve more debts, addition, although we do not think of this as an issue only for millenials, the challenges of social security and paying for social security will affect them much more than to baby boomers. together, and what that says is millenials have to do things differently. that is true for everyone. it is true for millenials, gen xers. the fact is the world has been changing, and we need to catch up. , bute are living longer

health-care costs more. that means that, if you live longer, you have to think about working longer, you have to think about saving more, in thetion, it looks like stock market returns in the future are very likely not as great as the ones from the past. and so, that means that the dollars you set aside today are actually -- you cannot count on them as earning as much as the dollars that their parents or their employers set aside. the last change that really matters is that we have moved from a society in which the dominant form of retirement was a pension, in which you and i did not worry about our retirement, the employer did. the employer had to make sure that there was enough money set aside and that you had a paycheck for life. now we are in a world in which

most of us, although there are still 70 million people who have have ton, most of us decide how much to set aside, most of us how to decide how to invest money and aside when we when we- and decide retire will we buy a paycheck for life, or are we going to run the risk of playing the market? us,: are guest to talk to retirement security in millenials. this is the age of 3 -- the age range of 22 to 20 -- 23 to 30 at 202-748-8000. the rest of you, 202-748-8001. mind -- what is the what is the mindset for millenials? do not wantpeople to deal with it.

that is the biggest problem of all. the biggest problem is i am uncomfortable, i am not sure i have ao, and so, if savings plan at work i may or may not sign up. i probably will not think carefully about how much i set aside. i probably will not think very carefully about how that money is invested. we needof this is that to do more things as individuals. there is lots we can do as a nation, but as individuals you need to do four things. one, it is to actually set things aside. if your employer offers a retirement plan, going it. if they do not match for a year, join it immediately anyway.

step one is set aside something automatically. do not count on remembering to write a check, have something deducted from every paycheck. .2, and this gets to the piece -- number two, and this gets to the piece i did, if you are in the millennial range, set aside at least 10%. if your employer contributes 5%, you contribute 5%. if your employer contributes 3%, you contribute 7% at least. if your employer contributes nothing, set aside at least 10%. it does not mean you cannot have emergencies, but set aside 10%. ,hird, unless you are an expert and most of us are not, do not gamble by spending your retirement money trying to pick stocks. it, of us are not good at and retirement programs that

enable you to pick stocks are also more expensive. in the end, most of us who try and play the market in retirement end up less well-off than people who leave it to the professionals. get tot one is when you retirement. this is the hardest one. use at least some of your money to buy a paycheck for life. do not just move it into an individual retirement account and hope that you will -- that your money will last. host: are you talking an annuity? guest: some kind of annuity, some kind of lifetime chain -- paycheck. bought a paycheck for life, and annuity that begins if i get to 85. 65, it not start at starts if i get to 85. the only reason for that is to be sure that i do not run out of

money when i cannot work. that is the hardest one for -- that is the hardest one to do. for millenials right now, steps one through three are the ones that matter. set something aside, make sure it is at least 10%, and do not try and play the market unless you are an expert. host: you set it at the beginning, and there is a story in "the new york times" that there are millenials with college debt. they are saying i have to pay all these things first, how can i do that and at the same time put something aside for the future? guest: two things are the case. one is nobody pretends that millenials have it easy. waitint is that if you until you are 35, or 45, or 55, then go, oh yeah i need to say something for retirement, you

will guaranteedly not have enough. the real trick and hard part is to set aside something, even while you are paying down your student loans, automatically. ideally, 10%. 10%, doannot afford less, but do something every paycheck and do it now. there is a whole separate other debate, which is beginning to percolate up about what we do about student loans. it is clear that student loans are a problem that this generation has that previous generations did not have. education got more expensive. students were allowed to borrow more money. unfortunately,e, the congress and its sometimes less than infinite wisdom said that although major corporations can restructure their debts

through bankruptcy process, student loans are special. we will not let you get out of student loans through the bankruptcy process. that has clearly got to be reconsidered. host: we have some calls lined up. let us go to ohio from cynthia. you are on. caller: hello. comment thening to when i first started working i hour.king $4.35 an was 61orked up until i disability,put on because i could no longer work. be ableyou supposed to to save enough money with the economy the way it is? host: we will let our guest

respond. , there is no one who pretends that everything is hunky-dory. the economy has been, although it it has been getting better for the last 10 years, it is getting better from a disastrous level. my point is that even if you are dollars or six dollars an hour, et cetera that there needs to be a way, as you are going along, the advice to millenials and folks who are 20, 20 5, 30, 35, et cetera, set something aside. did notll be folks who thattuff aside, and, in case, it is going to be harder. in that case, you will have to

less, living on social security. there are a few things that you can do. your disability ends and ui thinking about going on social purity, and -- social ifurity, it usually ends up you spend down whatever savings you have or can get andy for -- defer -- and defer social security you are better off. if you delay starting social security, you can wait as late as 70, and it turns out the government for reasons that are arcane will give you a guaranteed inflation adjusted 8% per -- return if you wait. you can use your savings and weight. for the millenials, the main

issue is set something aside automatically. surveyolks did a thinking about savings. amongst let niels and baby boomer -- millenials and baby boomers, and they asked how much they were planning to contribute, most of them said 6% or less, does that surprise you? guest: not at all, that is why i wrote the piece for "market we are noth is that experts. and of us are not experts, most of us do not know how much to set aside. 6%,our employer matches then people set aside 6%. if your employer only matches 3%, a lot of people say i will put in 3%. that is a mistake. what you should do is say, if my employer puts in 3%, i need to

get to 10%, so i should set aside 7%. i am not at all surprised that the average prices at 6%, which is one of the reasons that i wrote the article. we have not provided any guidance. host: those who start working for a company, should it automatically be an opt in, or should they get the option themselves? guest: the way i think about it, it should be automatic. you should be automatically enrolled in a retirement savings account unless you specifically choose to opt out, because what we discover is that, if, when i start a new job and they give me a stack of papers, and i have to figure out do i want to sign up for the retirement plan, how much do i want to set aside, how do i want money to be invested, do you know something, that one gets moved back.

most of us think the better approach is, even if the employer does not contribute a dime, the employer can automatically enroll you in something that has an automatic contribution level if you do not specify. an automatic investment if you do not specify. that is the best way to go. that,f you have doubt then you can decide how much do i set aside. the employer will probably not say we will set aside 10%, so you have got to go in. the first step is, automatically enroll folks, automatically get them contributing something, and, ideally, automatically increasing the amount of the contribution until you get to a 10% level, or more. host: if you fall into the ages of 23 to 28 -- 38, 202-748-8000

all others, 202-748-8001. john, you are on. caller: as far as social security goes, i think they ought to raise the earnings limit based on congressman's pay which is around 170 something thousand which would shore up social security and relieve a lot of people. i feel bad for the people that think that social security will not be there. it will be there. it is an insurance program. if you live you get it, if you die you do not need it. that is my thought and i had better leave it at that. thank you. goodbye. ourt: social security is most basic social insurance program. we pay into it, and then we expect it to be there, and respect it to provide income for

life. unfortunately, we have gotten to the folks -- where -- folks in the capital have our docking the issue on -- ducking the issue on social security. we have one party that has said and as want lower taxes a result we want to cut benefits for social security, but we do not want to admit to do that, so they do not say that and do that. we have another party who would like to increase social security or maintain it, and does not want to say and that will necessarily involve raising taxes. as a result you have a stalemate, you have had a stalemate in washington, d.c. for decades. my view of this is, and i do not

want to be political about this, we have an election coming up. one thing i hope that folks will do is say to whatever candidate whether it is for congress, president, or whatever, what are you going to do to make sure that social security is there? and, what is it going to take? if they tell you that we will get together and have hearts, flowers, and figure out a magical solution, they are stuck -- ducking. host: this is paula up next. caller: i am an individual who works for the world government and human resources, and a small agency. guest how he your felt about the federal retirement program, and you are

100% correct. i am in the older group. i have been working for 30 years, and i have seen the systems change, and have seen where young people come into the federal government are not offered the same level of retirement as we were coming in. even when the system changed from civil service to the new system, it -- newer is ever evolving and putting aside is definitely a necessity. i just wanted to get your thoughts on how you felt about that program that does allow you to invest in your own retirement, and have a lot left, and those kinds of things. guest: i should start by saying disclosure, since i have spent

20% of my year in the adderall government, i am in that -- in the adderall government, i am in i am-- federal government, in that system two. the federal system is still -- still very good. the federal system has a pension component, and a savings component. that is something which most people outside the federal government would love to get. federalue that the system has changed over the decades, and i was fresh out of school in the last century, there was a very generous pension and a much smaller individual account program. over the years, the balance has shifted. you still have both pieces in the federal system. that for a lot of people is just

not true. for a lot of people outside the government, the only retirement they get is if they set it aside themselves, and do it themselves. isview on the federal system thank your lucky stars. host: our guest, aside from his working at broking institution, of thethe -- 40 -- part federal -- guest: when a company goes payingt, and they stop their debts and workers, they also stop paying their pension. if that pension is underfunded, the pension benefit guarantee corporation steps in and pays the benefits. for example, if a bank ever goes belly up, you have the federal

deposit insurance corporation. trouble,ions get into you have the pension benefit guarantee corporation. it has been around for over 40 years and is staffed by some of the best, was dedicated civil servants i have ever seen. they are great. i say that even when they are not watching. so, it is something to protect pensions. what it does not do is it does not protect individual accounts if you do not put any money in them and it does not protect individual accounts from market failures or losses. the 40 million people in america, the private sector folks who have private sector pensions have some protection. the rest of us have to deal with our retirement on our own, and has to make sure that social security is there. host: does the corporation have

enough money in it to cover all the pensions that it is responsible for? guest: at the moment, no. one of the nice things about that system is that pension plans play premiums -- pay provide resources to pay benefits. for most of the pension plans that are insured, those premiums will work out. pensions, alass of very important class called multi employer pension plans where the premiums and benefit levels were set too low, and as a result, those plans get in trouble and it does not have the money to pay adequate benefits. there is some evidence that even though the congress of the united states has trouble agreeing on anything, they are

trying to find a way to make sure that those pensions are protected. these are, for example, pensions , truck drivers, construction workers, et cetera. pensions, andost the 90's they were adequately funded because in the 90's the stock market did well. in the last 15 years, they were not well-funded, because the actuaries who said here is much you need to put in, in the 90's i guess low, so -- they guest low. guessed low. in this century they have guessed hi. begress seems to actually trying to work on a bipartisan basis to actually solve this people so that 7 million

do not move their pension. host: this is tim from michigan. hello. caller: i think that social security should be bolstered and improved to -- because that's what it was for. you keep saying that we should put more money into something that is already set up and it would be easier to solve as far as putting money in a bank, that would be a good idea. get with it. the republicans took over $1 trillion away from social roots -- social security for a tax bill. what is wrong with you people? guest: let me unpack that a little bit. that, as a nation, and my colleague says that pretty eloquently in a book he just did. , in the beginning of

the 1980's, we started deciding that cutting taxes was more important than paying our bills. that is clearly a problem. one of the things that he says is we have got to pay attention and start saying and recognizing that somebody is going to pay our bills and the question is is it going to be the millenials or the people who follow them? one of the things we need to do is stop pretending that federal deficits are someone else's problem. why i amthe reason optimistic about social security is because even the people who -- who say theve way you should solve social security is by cutting benefits do not have the nerve in most cases to say it. that is why i think, if people

ask their elected officials how are you going to solve and make sure that my social security is there, and make sure that my medicare is there, and demand an answer, then, the folks in that beautiful building up on the to find a wayble to do that. i have my preferences about it, i do not want this to be a political broadcast. there are plenty of ways to do this if people say to their elected officials i want my social security to be there. i do not want to be worrying about it, and my personal view is, the way that we should make sure that it is there is to pay for it. this is a bit of an aside, but i worked for president bill clinton, in one of the things he did was say that -- one of the

things he did was to balance the federal budget and what did he do with the surplus, we will make sure that social security is there. so, it can be done. now, the next president decided that tax cuts were more important than saving social security. guess what? you're getting closer to the time that social security will need more money, and i think we should, as citizens, say to elected officials we put you here to solve problems, not to kick the can down the road. host: one more call from eric, washington, d.c.. caller: good morning. i wanted to ask your guessed a question based on an earlier loanst saying how student , unlike other debt, cannot be restructured. i remember reading something about student loans being sold

on wall street as security. and, it being used as credit ratings to attract investors. that is the reason why student loans cannot be forgiven, because of the credit ratings and to reinsure investors of their guaranteed payments of these debts. i was wondering if your guessed could comment on that. this is not my area of expertise. i have a colleague named adam who has spent lots of time studying this. that myan tell you is former brethren, because i worked in the finance industry, have worked hard to find ways to process loans. one of the things that they did

was they said to members of congress, you know if people cannot discharge their loans in bankruptcy, it will be easier for us package them. unfortunately, the congress heard that. bes is a mistake which can -- in my view it is a mistake. this is something that can be changed. whenay to change it is somebody comes and asks for your vote, you can say in addition to what are you doing to make sure social security is there, and say what about the millions of people who have student loans that cannot afford them? major corporations can discharge the loans, the president of the united states use the bankruptcy process to walk away from hundreds of aliens of dollars in loans.

but, student loans are different. should they be? host: joshua gotbaum. if you want to see more of his work go to brookings.edu. thank you for your time today. guest: glad to do it. host: for the next half-hour you can comment on several things happening. ishnically, the president expected to meet with theresa may. you can talk about trip oversee, and -- overseas, and the congress beginning the debate on daca. documents are due today, and also there is a confirmation hearing today for the space force commander if you --t to comment on sapce space policy. independent, 202-748-8002.

we will take the calls when we come back. ♪ "q&a", daryl davis talks about his new book and talks about befriending luc lucks clan members. >> he was wearing military camouflage fatigues with the blood drop emblem, and the initials on his chest embroidered across his parade were knights of the klu klux klan. bycame in and was followed mr. kelly, the grand dragon. when i entered the room and turned the corner, he just froze. mr. kelly bumped into his back, because the guy stopped short. they stumbled and regained their

balance and looked around the room. i knew what they were thinking. they were thinking, either the district gave them the wrong new -- room number or this was a set up. i went like this to display my hands, nothing in them and i stood up and i approach them, and i said high mr. kelly,, on in. q&a onay night on c-span. journal"ngton continues. host: in the united kingdom the president of the united states expected to hold a joint press conference with the outgoing prime minister. that was set to start momentarily. we will take you to that when it begins. we will show you a little bit of an event going dealing with the house intelligence committee chairman talking about president powers -- presidential powers. [video clip] >> to fake a photograph or email

is not new. perhaps videos are a little different. why now? >> when we began our investigation a couple of years ago, we were looking at an unlikely venue in the intelligence committee to look at the impact of social media. we were focused really on social media manipulation by a hostile foreign power. of it revealed to us a lot the dynamics within social media, how falsehoods travel faster than truths. how bad actors either foreign and domestic nebulae public opinion, -- manipulate public opinion. and we see that is expanding. it would be easy to introduce a doctored video that could have a sizable impact. anonymously, at various spaces around the globe, and at the same time. whoever introduced it would have

a level of plausible deniability and greater deniability than what the mueller report was able to show. [end video clip] host: that is adam schiff speaking on the council of foreign relations. c-span 3 is where you go for that. he is talking about the russian investigation and several events are taking place. has opec's and annie donaldson, and don mcgahn are expected not to -- not to comply with a tuesday deadline. they also slated to testify before the committee later this month. this is one of the things going on today. you can comment about the subpoenas and the information being requested and efforts by the administration not to make that happen. you can talk about the president's trip overseas in light of the press conference about to take place. there is a hearing face --

featuring the new head of space force command. for republicans. 202-748-8000 four democrats. independents, 202-748-8002. matt is up from virginia, democrats line. caller: i would like to talk about mr. trump's visit to the united kingdom. i think it is sad that we have mr. trump meeting the exiting prime minister. both are candidates of what i would call the old reactionary right. they are candidates of people who are looking at current anxieties and are not able to take the change that we are going through, are not willing to look at climate change, or economic change, or automation, or all of these issues that are changing our world too fast and

are hoping to go back to a time where it was simpler and choices were easier. i just feel sad that these are the two people leading the west, or formally leading the west. -- formerly leading the west. it will be interesting to see how the u.k. will pick up the pieces. as a young person, it is interesting to see myself not represented in the politics of these two people as they are supposed to represent the u.k. in the united states. i do not think that young people are represented in either person. host: the president in the midst of a three-day visit. meeting at 10 downing street for discussions and a press conference is planned sometime in this half-hour. you can talk about that. 202-748-8001 for republicans. 202-748-8000 for democrats.

independents, 202-748-8002. the house, as we talked about, thattalking about the bill would offer protection for dreamers. there is some information about that in our first hour and you can make comments on our phone line and post on our twitter feed, and facebook page. if you go back to their, from earlier this morning, you can take a look at issues and on whether in a poll you support those protections. it is a simple support or oppose kind of deal. a funeral service is being planned for thad cochran. he was elected to the senate in 1,8 and resigned in april 2000 18. he chaired the appropriations and agricultural committee and

the first republican senator from mississippi since reconstruction. one of the people speaking about senator cochran was mitch mcconnell. [video clip] career was fared from guaranteed when he decided to give politics a try back in the early 1970's. i have always enjoyed the story about his first run for congress. remember, mississippi had only had one other republican congressman since reconstruction. when this young lawyer asked rose how she would like being married to a congressman, it was i do not know," which one? it became difficult to imagine capitol hill without him. it produced a huge number of accomplishments and a sterling reputation as a measured and effective leader. he chaired the appropriations

committee, the agricultural committee and republican conference. and a a powerful force friend and partner to many of our friends across the aisle as well. theust the past few days, authors of eulogies and tributes have enjoyed noting all the ways that he seemed to embody the whole region and era, as if he had come right out of it. one obituary talked about cap fish fries, homespun politics, and southern charm. another use paper -- another newspaper described him as courtly and seem to suggest that the approach was at odds with his impressive and powerful perch. terms, he over seven only appeared on "meet the press" twice. he said he did not crave a national spotlight and that

would be an understatement. he was just too busy racking up progress for mississippi and the country. [end video clip] host: let us hear from jim in new york, independent line. trying -- i want to say comment, and this is on immigration stuff. i am living it over here. if you look at history, we are all just too sedated. if it was any other time in history, we would be at the border fighting this. this is an environmental issue, not only immigration. all these people are making a mess out of my neighborhood. i had people throwing beer bottles and blasting music like they are always -- like they always do. they are totally contemptuous. host: when you hear about

efforts in congress to protect dreamers, what do you think? caller: it is just another excuse not to do anything. i thinktry is just -- the country is medicated on all of these antidepressants because look at history, you have guys on the station that talk about history. it is just lost. host: when you see the effort not to do anything, specifically what do you think needs to be done? caller: think about eisenhower in the 50's. he had that operation, and realized that when all of these mexicans were coming over, and i'm not only picking on mexicans. they were looking for work, and they let so many in here that it undermines the pay scale for americans because it is cheap later -- cheap labor. in new yorks jim

getting his thoughts on immigration related matters. on the house side, that debates taking a look at protections for dreamers. you can watch and monitor that not only on our main channel, but you can go to our website at c-span.org. ,f you go to the website ofcepolicy online, a bit information when it comes to space command saying that there will be a hearing taking up the nomination for the next director of national reconnaissance and the commander of the u.s. space command. in addition to keeping his hat of the air force space command. his confirmation hearing before the senate intelligence committee and it went well. but another committee gets to weigh in. members of the intelligence

committee paid it clear that they do not want the national reconnaissance departments to be a part of the space force. we expect that this will come up at the hearing. there were quite a few questions when they had the initial hearing in april. if you want to make comments when it comes to space policy you can do so. the president's trip overseas and the news conference about to take place. forr topics, 202-748-8001 republicans. democrats.0, for 202-748-8002 for independents. we'll hear now for -- from chuck schumer. [video clip] office, hears in served with a fierceness and loyalty mississippi matched only with his respect for his colleagues. when his issues were on the line, he fought for mississippi. ,e nurtured universities schools, farms, hospitals, and

fishing industry. he was a champion of the poor and gave a voice to rural communities by expanding systems for southern farmers. it is fitting that he was first by the political bug in his run for head cheerleader at old miss, because ole throughout his life he never stopped being a cheerleader for mississippi. one thing i will never forget was senator cochran's graciousness after my state was hit by hurricane sandy. he knew from experience after hurricane katrina how devastating the damage can be and how difficult the recovery process can be seen. at a time when many of his colleagues who always voted for aid for their regions but opposed sandy because of new york, senator cochran not only supported it, but made sure that his team was available to give us guidance. i will never forget that. of fair-mindedd

nvidia -- individual he was. in many ways he was a model senator. he understood this body's preference for compromise and congeniality almost intuitively. even as the senate has gone away from those values, senator cochran held them close. that is who he was, it made him a better senator and a better man. we will miss him. [end video clip] host: again those tributes are available, and more about the life on senator cochran as you go to the website on c-span.org. you can find out about his influence in the policies he's advocated for in his tenure in the senate. for republicans. 202-748-8000 for democrats. dependents -- independents, 202-748-8002. that pressting

conference, the joint press conference between president trump and theresa may. if we have time we will show you a little bit of that one that takes place. a couple of other stories. this is the front page of "the wall street journal," when it comes to reactions of the tech community about oversight issues. under a series of arrangements between the two agencies, the justice department has authority under any potential antitrust investigation. oversight ofhe facebook and amazon.com. google and facebook seemed closest to the investigative crosshairs. the house judiciary committee a public its own investigation on the competition and digital markets will -- which will include multiple hearings and a request for information. the probe will look at whether

current antitrust laws and enforcement efforts have kept pace with technological change. this story adding that it is too early to assess whether these moves a companies, they mark a level ofsect that pf saying -- staying out of the political start -- spotlight. we have mike, from maine. independent line. caller: good morning. the guy that was talking about investments for millenials, or yeah.baby boomers, if you rely on social security, you are finished. in the same token, he was thatng about -- i am told going to a couple of social security investment things, and they said i am guaranteed until a certain year that they would drop to 77%.

does that make any sense? host: i am assuming that it does not to you. 61, but i'm going to collect at 65 and i'm supposed to wait until 68. he did not talk about any of that and i was curious if that is true or not through the investment seminars that i went through. they say that social security is there until -- i forget when the cut off year or when it will drop to 77%. is that true? host: the best thing i can pop -- point you do is c-span.org. it is a popular topic. security,e in social will find everything about the current status and potentially what will happen in the future as far as its fiscal viability. james in seattle, washington. independent line.

hello. caller: i would just like to say that president trump, you can tell this guy is the white privilege president. nothing that he does make sense. he is an appeaseer. he went to north korea and in front of putin, and none of us knows what he is actually saying to these people. cowered down to benjamin netanyahu. with the united states and with women, he is tough. and he gets with these men he is weak. host: lewis in north carolina. democrats line. caller: i do not see anything wrong with the docket children, or -- daca children, or social security. this is one of the things that

america pay for when they put these taxes on you when you get to a certain age. they arewho work, privileged for that. that is their right to receive that. this is the land of prosperity. people do not want people to be prosperous. i say this to all the ones who say that everybody getting a piece of the rock is not fair, i look at, they should look at the taxes that they passed to the 1%. gets off 50e billion taxes each year. plus, they will raise their merchandise because of these tariffs in the taxes that trump won on. i think trump put us under a sanction. he is sanctioning us. host: that is lewis in north

carolina. the front-page story in "the new york times" looking at the current actions of john boehner. this is elizabeth william saying that the speaker once stood second in line for the presidency, staunchly against legalized marijuana, and now you can see him standing before a photo making online infomercial pitch for the cannabis industry "this is one of the most exciting opportunities that you will be a part of he says in the video. frankly, we can help you make a potential fortune. it coincides with the prospect of a payday of -- as high as 20 minutes dollars of the industry that he wants imposed. he sits on the board of acreage holdings, a marijuana investment firm whose sale to a cannabis industry hinges on his ability to legitimize marijuana." thee of that available on "

new york times" this morning. if you take a look at the " wall street journal" they chart the history of the state of the economy. it is a page one story that continues on on page 10. more than 20 million jobs have been created since the expansion that started mid 2009. the net worth of american households in the assets minus debts, has increased by $47 trillion. the expansion has been a long one and lacked vigor. it has been the most in the make on record in the joblessness rate took decades to reseed. wage growth has been slow when adjusted for low inflation. grown robustly. growing student debt has been a burden. any gains went to the highest

income households. again, that is "the wall street journal" if you want to read more of the profile. coming up, we will hear from warren farrell and his book taking"the boy crisis," a look at the issues and conditions facing them. we will have that condition when we continue. ♪ sunday night, on afterwards, in his latest book, "the conservative sensibility," george will offers his thoughts. he is interviewed by jonah goldberg. >> i happen to believe our country is superior. to that extent, i am a nationalist. superior to the extent that it is made by a philosophy that it it is not suitable for all people and all times but everyone ought to aspire to it.

to export it at bayonet point. i want to make it available and help people with -- where we can. we have had a lot of experience with democratic society. i am a mild nationalist. it sunday at 9:00 eastern on book tv on c-span 2. cue& -- q&a talks about his book "clandestine where he talks about befriending ku klux klan members. >> this grand nighthawk walks into the room and he is wearing military fatigues and the blood drop emblem and the initials kkk embroidered across -- on his chase -- on his chest. aborted across his beret were

knights of the ku klux klan. he was followed right behind him by mr. kelly, the grand dragon. room -- whend the they entered the room, turned the corner, and saw me, they froze. esther kelly bumped into his back. they stumbled and regained their balance. and i knew what they were thinking. did they getnking, the wrong numeral -- remember, or was this a set up? i went like this to display my hands, nothing in them, and i approached him. in.id hello mr. kelly,, on >> washington journal continues. host: warren farrell is our guest. he is co-author of a book called the boy crisis.

also serves as the chair of the commission to create a white house counsel on boys to men. when you say crisis, how do you define that? guest: it's a very high bar for me. boys are doing badly in every single academic subject including reading and writing are the biggest predictors of success in all 56 of the largest developed nations in the world. boys are doing especially badly here in the united states. there is not a good reparation for boys who are less academically inclined. vocational education has been cut back. boys are often dropping out of high school. they have no sense of purpose. they start getting into drugs. when they drop out of high school more than 20% are unemployed in their early 20's which is five times the national average. boys are doing very badly mental health wise. the suicide rate for boys and girls at the age of nine is equal. between the ages of 10 and 14 it

becomes twice as much for boys. between 15 and 19 four times as much for boys. asween 19 and 20 45 times much for boys. host: you don't see those types of trends among girls as well? guest: boys life expectancy has for the first time gone down. girls has remained the same. girls life expectancy isn't doing as well as we want either. what's theooking common denominator of all the developed nations are the developed nations allow permission for two things. for divorce and for being able to have children raised without dads. and the boy crisis i found basically resides where fathers do not reside. get a senseid you that this was a problem? guest: one of my previous bookstores -- book tours i was

getting japanese teachers coming up to me saying, i'm having more problems with boys in my class than girls. canada, united states p i was getting the same types of questions. teachers were seeing it in a larger picture. most of our honor students in the honor society are boys -- our girls, not boys. the heads ofely companies and things like this, so what's the big problem? boys are also the great majority of the homeless, the people dying from drug overdoses. percentagea certain rising to the top, but those people that were rising to the tops were to a large degree, the people that were the happiest, the good fathers, they were children that were raised with a lot of father involvement. boys and girls suffer in about 70 different ways from the lack

of father involvement. in girls tend to suffer slightly different ways and not as severely. to boys are more likely commit the suicide, the drug overdoses, the withdrawal, the addiction. those are more way things. -- boy things. nightmaresrental with boys and girls that don't have father involvement. have divided the lines when it comes to this topic. parents (202) 748-8000. all others (202) 748-8001. and you do your research and especially as the term is used in the common day, what do you think of the term toxic masculinity and how does that factor into your research? guest: it's very complex. masculinity has a lot of toxicities. the reason it has a lot of toxicities is not because of male privilege as is often assumed, but rather because mills have historically made

.acrifices historically to be a male you had to be trained to be disposable in that generations war. to be disposable you had to disconnect from your feelings. you had to say that other people -- serving the country was more important than surviving. or you had to be a sole breadwinner in the old days. to be a sole breadwinner you had to quit your job as a musician or teacher and do what you needed to do to raise your family rather than do what you wanted to do. so instead of being male privilege it was really a type of male sacrifice. the toxicityame that you had to do to sacrifice yourself. now for the first time in history we have two problems. we have a purpose void. the old senses of purpose aren't there for boys like they used to be. and that's bad news and good news. the bad news is the purpose void. the good news is it gives boys an opportunity for a new set of

purpose. to be human beings rather than human doings. this is an and norma's opportunity -- enormous opportunity. get directeddon't to be a good role model and there testosterone is often channeled destructively not being channeled constructively. those are the boys that are mass shooters. almost all air mass shooters are dead deprived boys. almost all the prisoners and the isis recruits are usually dead deprived boys. and among the small percentage of isis recruits that are girls, they are dead deprived girls. for -- girls.d host: what do you base that research on?

guest: the research on the isis recruits was from three female sociologists who studied isis recruits. the research on the mass shootings was research i did myself. the research on the male prisoners from speaking to a lot of judges around the country and also when i ran for governor of california i spoke with a lot of prison populations. the ministers were all saying more than 90% dad deprivation. oft: that is the failure some type of imprint of masculinity as seen for a father example put onto a boy. is both imprint and also a lot of the dad style parenting and mom style parenting are very different. dads are far more likely for example to roughhouse. that roughhousing creates a bond. usually dads are pretty good johnny pokestan jane in the eye with his elbow. dad will say, sorry.

end of roughhousing if you do that anymore. dad will usually give the child a second chance to do it well. when they don't do it well, dad will say no roughhousing tonight. the children are learning to think of their sisters or brothers needs because if they don't, they lose the roughhousing. that begins the prophet -- process of empathy. it also begins the process of knowing when am i pushing too much and when is not enough. betweenches the balance being assertive versus being aggressive. mom looks at the dead doing the roughhousing and says, i feel it i just have one more child to monitor here. know whatds don't they're doing that is of value. they don't know that it's leading to empathy. they don't know that it's leading to assertiveness and good social skills that lead

those children to be able to have more friends, less depression, be more involved. they also don't know that they are creating through the boundary enforcement discipline. and when boys and girls have dreams but they don't have discipline, those dreams become constant disappointments. and those disappointments lead the boys and girls to sort of feel like i can't really dream again because every time i have dreamt in the past i have been disappointed and they have become very withdrawn and very ashamed of themselves. the boye book is crisis. it's cowritten by our guest warren farrell. parents (202) 748-8000, for all others (202) 748-8001. we start in santa cruz, california. this is on the parents line. you are on with our guest. go ahead. caller: i'm a single mom. my teenage son is really

struggling and a lot of the areas that your book talks about. and almost all the single moms that i know where the father is not involved are having the same thing. i have a couple questions. what is so important about fathers and their role and what can a single mom do? guest: that's two very important questions. -- have whatlot they call dad style parenting. there are about seven significant differences. most important is the boundary enforcement difference. dads both set boundaries put in much the same way. both moms and dads say, you can have your ice cream when you finish your peas. children test boundaries the same way. peas, can i have my ice cream now? the difference is when they tend to enforce boundaries. mom says, i've had a tough day.

maybe we have divorced pete i feel guilty about the divorce. 20 more peas and then you can have your ice cream. the father is able to negotiate a deal. than the child realizes i can have 10 peas and then i'm going to negotiate having the ice cream and mom goes, am i going to really get into a big fight over a few peas? i don't think so. that's insensitive. so the child goes away learning that whatever mom says i can negotiate a better deal. sometimes roles are reversed. dad is more likely to say, the deal is you have to finish your peas. and the child will go, you're so mean. mom is not like that. and dad would be more likely to go you can continue whining and there will be no more ice cream tomorrow night or tonight. dad, the child tends to realize i have no option but to finish the peas.

with the child is learning with the dad is postpone gratification. the boundary enforcement that the dad says you can't manipulate a better deal needs to postpone gratification. researcheads to the adhd-- only 15% have whereas children raised predominantly by moms, only 30% have adhd and one of the reasons is children raised predominantly by moms learn that they don't have to focus their attention on doing what they need to do. they focus their attention on how to get that better deal. the important thing here is what can single moms do. single moms, all of these things single moms are very capable of doing. reinterpreting love as giving children that boundary enforcement and not allowing them to negotiate a better deal so balancing off the natural sensitivity that moms tend to

have with that greater amount of boundary enforcement is one thing. second, get the dad involved if that's all possible. if the dad is not driving drunk when the mom is in the car, take a look at the part of the boy crisis that has those seven differences. if those differences are helpful for your child's life, let the father know that you appreciate those differences and that they are needed. men do whatever they do when they told they are needed and wanted. that's why men would die in war just by being told they were a hero. because when we were told we were wanted and needed, we came. you can't thing is if for some reason get the biological father involved, get the child involved in a state-based community where there is a good male leader, a good mom, a good priest, minister, rabbi. don't only bring the male leader in. make sure the male leader, that

your choice of a male leader is contingent on that male leader getting the boys together with other boys. help and then talk about what their fears are, what their feelings are. are nott feel they alone and isolated are very much in hand. second, get the children involved in cub scouts and boy scouts. very goodhown to be ways of developing the best of masculinity without the worst of masculinity. get the boys involved in a lot of sports and activities. not only team sports but also pickup team sports were boys have to create their own rules and learn how to negotiate friendships. host: why ascribe those qualities to gender? why can't they be universal blue -- universally present in a mother or father? guest: they mostly can be. they just don't intend to be. -- tend to be.

when i talk about this and go around the world, all moms and dads are nodding their head yes. there are schools like urban dove in new york city where children of troubled backgrounds are trained by both female and male teachers to do these types of behaviors very early in life. thatn train moms to do boundary enforcement. we can train moms to do the roughhousing. we can train moms to develop postpone gratification and , yoursely, dads can say fell down on the skis and you are feeling the pressure to join the ski team, you don't necessarily have to join the team. something that a mom is more likely to do. so all of these rules, the good news is the rules are able to be adopted by both sexes. but both sexes have to be mindful and conscious of the different qualities that mothers and fathers tend to bring to parenting. host: let's hear from michael in randall's town, maryland.

caller: good morning. my wifetion i have is the same home for the first 10 years of my daughter's life. and now for the last four years we are separated. my daughter lives with her mom in richmond. i live in baltimore. -- ninthghter reaches grade next year. as she goes through this stage of her life, top three things that i need to look out for that i need to try and do being away living from baltimore her living in virginia. give me some guidance here. guest: is there anyway that you and the mom can figure out a way to get within about 20 miles drive distance from each other? host: he has already hung up. guest: if there is a separation or divorce, the father and

mother really have an equal amount of time with the children. children that don't have equal time with the fathers and the mothers tend to not have the benefits of hangout time. especially boys when they don't have the benefits of hangout time, they don't express their feelings as fully. it's hangout time when you pick up a kid from soccer and you say how did the soccer game go. and most boys will say ok. you get around the refrigerator, he is doing homework. you are just sitting out there hanging out with him and eventually he says dad, if the coach had you as a goalie last week but not this week and you did really well as a goalie last week, why did you -- why would he ever not have me back to be a goalie the next time? and then if you are there listening to him and letting him open up, it's that hangout time that allows him and the daughter

also to have feelings of being able to share their emotions. so when equal amount of time with mom and dad is very important. the second thing is important is that child does not feel there is anything -- that they don't hear any bad mouthing from mom to dad or dad to mom. that doesn't just mean words. it means if a child is saying i had a great time at moms and the dad is going, let's change the subject or just giving bad body language. the child learns to shut up about the good experiences it has with mom. so no bad mouthing his number two. number three is that the mother and father live within about 20 miles -- 20 minutes drive time from each other and the reason for that is if the children are too far from the other parent, they resent missing the activities in the friendships. the parties and so on with their core group of friends and they don't want to go to the other parent's house. you don't want to create that

type of tension. the fourth thing is that children of divorce who do the parents the ones whose have a significant amount of constant counseling. by constant i mean at least once a month the parents are going to counseling. not just for emergencies but to find out the best intent of what the other parent cares about. host: michael in phoenix, arizona. good morning. caller: good morning. i just wanted to first say thank you so much for this book. i'm about a quarter way in and it's amazing. host -- guest: thank you. caller: i'm a high conflict divorce coach in arizona. i have seen a lot of -- your book is just very enlightening. one of my questions is when you see these problems in family court, what do you see as the

best option? when you see a mother who is saying i want the parents involved, i want the data involved, he just doesn't come around. but in reality they are making it so difficult that the other parent is not able to be involved. guest: yes it's really -- go ahead. caller: the second one was just the trend with autism today. do you talk about that in your book? guest: i talk a little bit about autism. john gray wrote five wonderful chapters on adhd which is of course on the autism spectrum and how to prevent it with natural ways like exercising and different types of foods and processes rather than just doing the drug route. share your first question again. host: he's already -- guest: very good. in high conflict divorces, moms ie often feeling like, gee,

want to have the more -- the father more involved, but i let him be involved last weekend but the football game was on and he let the child go to the playground and he's quite young and he got up in the playground and so from my perspective the father cares more about a there.l game than being import is thatto they oftentimes have a different way of looking at that. they would rather have the child go to the playground. they obviously don't want the child to get beaten up. but if the child gets into a scuffle at a playground and comes home and the dad can say, what did you notice on that playground that led you to feel that there might be a scuffle? , one kid pushed me aside at one point or called me a name and they were all swearing. they were a little bit older. they were all drinking.

so what do you know to avoid the next time? the father feels it's more important for a child to have an experience that is maybe a little bit negative that the child can talk with the dad about and learn to prevent themselves from having that experience the next time. the mother will often look at that situation and say, that was a neglectful dad. dads and moms have to have good conversations with each other about the different outcomes of the child having the security that moms often give from doing that nurturing and the dads having the desire for the child to have an experience that it can learn from. the same type of thing will be true with, mom and dad will have a child have to climb a tree. the mom will save maybe in a few years you can climb the tree. dads will say, go ahead and climb the tree but be careful. when dads and moms are communicating about it they

start learning to work out compromises that tend to be of benefit to the child. you can climb the tree, but not this high. and dad, you have to be out there underneath the tree in case the child does fall so there's some value to that end dads have to know that climbing that tree does increase the child's iq. does increase the child's ability to make decisions as to what risks to take and what risks not to take. dads have to do reading about the contributions of dad style parenting so they can lovingly explain those contributions to moms so moms don't just think dadsthe types of risks prepare children for our just sloppiness or laziness on dad's part. you write about something called gender liberation saying the degree to which our sons become as free as our daughters are is the degree to which we

have taken a huge step. this requires a gender bothation movement freeing genders from the roles of the past. guest: i think one of the great contributions that we are looking forward to as we have these in norma's statements about male privilege, mail toxicity and so on. what is the best of what we had in the past? if the willingness to tough it out. the willingness to take risks. the willingness to explore. these are good things that men learn. but take into their extremes they all become toxic. the past they became toxic because boys learn to be thought of as heroes if they were trained to be willing to die at the age of 18 and boys learn to give up what they love to do to make enough money to support families and children. and to do that you can't do

things like be a musician. you have to sell insurance nationwide to do those types of things and often dads were doing what they didn't love to do. so instead of looking at males female, malesis are toxic, this is the end of men. don't speak because when you do it's man's planing. worlde in a patriarchal type of thing and you are part of that patriarchy. that leads our sons to not know what to do. ifi initiate with a girl and i do am i going to be a sexual harasser? am i going to be very cautious and then be called a wimp? there has to be not a #metoo monologue. dialog.s to be a #metoo we have to train boys and girls in first grade and second grade to communicate and hear each other's pain and hurt and stories before the boy responds

saying i have a tougher story. here's what i heard you say. is there anything else i'm missing. and we have to train parents to communicate in that way. the boy crisis is to a large degree a lack of father involvement. but the lack of father involvement is also a result the divorce -- of divorce. the divorce as a result of bad commune occasion. we can train kids to have good communication in schools and then come home to have parents who aren't commune kidding well at home otherwise we will destabilize the family in a different way. the children will have no respect for the parents. were toy have to if we focus on any single thing is number one we need to have communication skills training all around the world. in denmark where they are doing this it has been very successful. you really need to have a white house counsel on boys and men. a white house counsel on boys and men would say here is an opportunity. are seeing that boys issues

are a problem and boys have the opportunity to have less rigid roles. the board of the national organization for women for three years and i have and always will support a large range of roles of opportunities for girls but we need to have the same for boys as well. host: how did they react to some of these findings? iesco well and poorly. will in the sense that a lot of feminists do understand the value of gender liberation. there is a group getting together, the largest feminist conference in the world is happening on june 3 and fourth and they are talking about a u.n. study that found that girls and women will not make progress until boys and men also make progress. i was good friends with betty for dan and gloria steinem for many years. betty wrote in the second stage exactly this.

gloria would say what the world needs is more women at work and more men at home. you tikrit a world that is liberated enough to be able to have women in the workplace without any problems at high men to be full-time dads and to be what i call father warriors. barriersme the social of being ostracized if you are a full-time dad and recognizing that some men are more oriented toward nurturing and our wonderful dads and to know that children brought up by men predominantly while the mother is working and coming home those children grow up extremely well. from duane inar chattanooga, tennessee. caller: could mourn. -- good morning. conferencet the working with students in chattanooga.

today we have about 20 dads. in this group we talk about things that are in this book bringing together judges, magistrates, da's, attorneys. deal with visitation and custody. teaching these guys how to get custody. i was wondering if you could touch on that a little bit. 50-50 parenting and the importance of 50-50 parenting visitation. -- versus visitation. some footwork with this book and some of the other things that we are trying in our community.

talking to ladies about this book is just as impactful as talking to men. one young lady says this information is like medicine. to me. getting houses. you see guys getting parental rights. you see guys just stepping up to the plate based on this information that they are getting through in a and your book. host: thank you peered we will let our guest respond. guest: the four things that are really essential if there's a divorce or children growing up time and parenting equal amount of time with father and mother is so important. be, kentuckyould is the only state that really has this now and other states are moving toward that, the children that do best are the ones that have a significant

amount of father involvement afterwards. as i said at the outset of the program, girls do suffer a lot and 70 different areas as well as the boys suffering in 70 different areas when they don't have that father involvement. girls suffer less intensely. boys often feel abandoned and rejected. there is so much that father involvement tends to bring. dads will tend to make the boundaries very strict. moms will set dead times at an earlier time. dads will set dead time at a later time. the studies show children actually get to bed earlier with the dads because the dads will if the children don't get everything done that they need to get done like their teeth brushed and their homework done, dads will say you lose your reading time. you lose the fun time. and the dead will tend to be able to do things like have a lot of fun with the child before the child goes to bed and moms

will tend to go, you can't into havinge child roughhousing before the child goes to bed get the child all excited. the data does not show that that's true. the child that focuses on knowing it is going to have some fun before it goes to bed is able to get the things done that it needs to do. the main thing that needs to happen is that dads need to do their homework and understand why they are valuable. the second thing that needs to happen is there needs to be a new change in the culture. just as we said 50 years ago or so that we want and need women in the work place. we need not just physical beings called women. we need women in the work lace because their values, their orientations, some of their skill sets will tend to be different and when we have minimum and together in the work lace there will be an optimal outcome for that. the same is true with dads at home.

one of the most important fights we can do in this country is fighting for there to be father involvement in every family and where there absolutely cannot be for there to be very good step fathering, very good way scouts, cub scouts, faith-based communities. daughtersdad to two and i felt that i would be just fine as a stepdad. the research did not prove -- i think i have in a good stepdad but the children really have a biological attachment to their father that needs to be -- anything that i did when i started doing research for the boy crisis that was positive was to inspire the biological father to be more involved with the child and he was more involved with the child as he was told

that he was needed and he was wanted. we have to remember that throughout history when we told men they were needed in that generations war, men were willing to die to do what they were needed to do. that's the message we need to be giving to fathers now. crisis co-written our guest warren farrell and john gray. that's the topic of our discussion for the next half hour. parents (202) 748-8000. all others (202) 748-8001. david is in detroit, michigan. good morning. pedro and mr.you farrell. upon a number of different issues that i had always thought about i think that as a rule boys are pack beings and we cleave to

in teams and packs. believe in order for us as an antidote, and my thing is that more boys that are included in some typhoon sport in jr. high or high school make a difference between them going off and finding a gang and other antisocial behaviors. what do you think about that? importantr is very because there is a purpose void i talked about at the outset of this show of boys not having their sense of purpose. if you have a purpose void and a dad void combined, boys have no place to channel their testosterone. so their testosterone tends to get channeled destructively. if you go from a female only ,ome to a female only school

boys have no male role models that are constructive which is a lot of where you are headed there. one of the things we need to do is make sure there were significant at least equal numbers of male teachers and that the type of male teachers that there are are not just imitation female male teachers but males who are more traditional males. males who are softer males. so that the boys have a whole spectrum of males that they can identify with just us girls growing up have a whole spectrum of females. that's one thing that can help boys not from female only homes to female only schools and then wonder why they get attracted to a drug dealer or a gang leader and a destructive type of way. you're absolutely right. the father involvement in sports is what you mentioned. sports is very important not only boys but also for girls. there's three types of sports that are what i called the

liberal arts of sports that are very important for your child to master. likes individual sports gymnastics. number two is team sports like soccer and volleyball and so on. number three is pickup team sports as we have been worried about children being safe have gotten dropped out of their culture and that is a very important part of the process of training our sons and daughters to be entrepreneurs. we need to encourage our daughters also to be in pickup team sports because girls often times don't take the risks as easily as boys. they don't start things from zero. pickup team sports teaches you to go up to somebody that you don't know and say do you want to join me in basketball and if so to replace full-court or half-court? are you the type of person that doesn't want any fouling to happen at all? are you the type of person that

says throw me the ball just because you want to take the shot and you want to hog it all to yourself? there are so many things you learn when somebody is not supervising you with a set of rules and you have to discover the rules by yourself. this is perfect preparation for being an entrepreneur. team sports is very good preparation for being a corporate player or a player and organization. individual sports is wonderful for self starting. moms and dads should be talking together about how they are going to require their children to be involved in these. when i was step parenting my very younger children i wanted to get them involved in soccer and the children did not want to get involved in soccer. the woman who is now my wife said, they shouldn't have to get involved in soccer if they don't want to. and my response was very different. i said, we as parents need to require them to get involved in

soccer. they don't have to do it forever. but at least to try it for a year or whatever activity they want to that was a team sport. checks andype of balance parenting that requires good communication and both mother and father to not respond to a different suggestion by the other parent as criticism and then become defensive. if i were to encourage parents to do one thing it would be to take couples communication courses to be able to hear personal criticism without becoming defensive. that is the single biggest achilles' heel of all human beings. what leads to more do voices which leads to the boy crisis. host: let's hear from gwen in detroit, michigan. caller: thanks for having me.

[inaudible] at first i was thinking, a lot of single women who have raised -- i felt that i was successful. my mother died. my father raised five kids. i married. and then divorce. had two small children. i decided to go back to school. my father did nurture me and give me confidence and everything. my children have their own families now. she married and her

husband got divorced. she has three children. but he was not as supportive. and i encourage her, there's lots of children raised without their fathers. but just yesterday she was in tears when she was telling me that her son didn't want to go to graduation. he really wanted to go to his regular high school. anyway, what i'm saying is he has been in a lot of trouble. my grandson pete her youngest child. the other two have -- one is in college. the other one is away. lives on his own. the youngest one, he has been in trouble. it's been a struggle with him. his father just doesn't want to

interact. he puts the wall up. time, he's building his life moving from house to house. host: appreciate the comment. we will let our guest respond. is a: what you're saying very common pattern as i think you have already heard me say. the most important single thing that fathers need to hear is, so many fathers tell me, i feel like when i do things my way i'm criticized for doing it by my way. it's too tough on the child. boundary enforcement is often interpreted as being too tough on the child or the roughhousing is too rough on the child. having different risks or the father will want to take the child camping.

and is perfectly fine about the child going longer distances than the mother would feel comfortable with. sometimes the child will get lost and that proves to the mother that that really is a neglectful father. so dads really need to share with moms and know the value of those things. share that with moms. but moms if you want a biological dad involved, you need to value him. you need to know how much men respond to being needed and especially by the woman that they love. there's nothing that drives men more than hearing how they are needed and if a man feels that each time he does something with the child he is criticized for it or told he is endangering the child, what he will do is go off and earn money. because earning money, he knows that you will want the money. everybody will want the money. a new woman in his life if he is

divorced will want the money. so he has learned that he's more valued as a human doing than he is as a human being translated into a parent. that's a whole cultural message that we have to send that it's very different than the cultural message we have been sending. each individual mom needs to message ofning that knowing that if we told men that they will be loved and we will if they areh them walking on their hands, men would be having hand walking contests tomorrow. women need to know how powerful their messages are to men just like women oftentimes put a lot of makeup on and they try to lose weight because they feel that men want than are women who look a certain way. you know as a woman how much you respond to messages that you

feel will give you love, approval and affection and attention and men are the same way. in mill valley, california. caller: good morning pedro. i have a question for warren farrell about the coalition to create a white house counsel on boys and men. can you tell us a little bit more about what that is and what you are doing with it today? guest: it's funny you should ask that because i was originally contacted by the obama administration to be an advisor to the white house counsel on women and girls. that never ended up manifesting. i said yes. i also felt that it was important to have a white house counsel on boys and men so the response at the time was to create a proposal and send it off to president obama.

it stopped just short of president obama, but we are still fighting today 10 years later to have a white house counsel on men and boys. because there's almost no government commissions saying to the country, boys and men are having problems. and they are having problems that are particularly egregious here in the united states. here in the united states we have cut back on things that help boys succeed like vocational education, recess, permission to be a bit more rough with each other. and the most important thing, we need to put that -- the fact that boys are having some a problems on the national agenda. this can be done with an executive order by the president. once you put it on the national a privatether you are association of psychologists or publicnization that is a

service organization you are likely to have your next conference about it. your next conference on psychology about what is the psychology of boys and men as opposed women and girls and how can they be melted. how can we move to a gender liberation movement where both sexes stories are heard up until now, you may have heard i was on the board of directors of the national organization for women in new york city. we shared how the feminist experience of female powerlessness and male power. but no one to this date has shared the male experience of male powerlessness and the mail experience of female power. so we haven't taken binoculars to the other half of the gender dialogue. and so that's what i'm asking that we put on the agenda of the nation in the next 10 to 15 so that we can have a true

gender liberation movement encouraging both sexes to be free from the rigid role of the past and to more flexible caring rules of the future that allow each boy and girl to discover his or her unique self so that they can have that unique self be nurtured by both mothers and fathers. host: what would you say about this issue to same-sex couples with children? guest: we don't have great data on how same-sex couples with children will turn out. the reason for that is we either very feministom oriented and same-sex couple oriented populations or very conservative organizations that east that each ask questions that create answers that are sort of predestined. and we haven't had a large enough number of same-sex that have raised children long enough to know exactly how they will turn out. there's a huge amount of encouragement that comes from

same-sex couples having an opportunity to -- they've oftentimes had a lot of cultural overcome resist and and they are very good at being able to help their children overcome a lot of those cultural biases. hope in's a lot of children being raised by same-sex couples. but they do have to make sure that their attitude toward males a positive rather than negative one. host: here is aisha in capital heights, maryland. caller: good morning. your last question touched on my question my wife and i are raising an 11-month-old son. i was raised predominately by a single father. i went to my moms on a weekend. they had a great coparenting relationship. i definitely saw the differences in their parenting styles that your guest has mentioned.

as we are raising this son and we both have sisters, we don't have brothers. we are just trying to figure out how to move forward. faith-based some options might not necessarily be available to us as far as developing male role models for him. we are just wondering how as two moms we can best raise our son. very good.prayed take a look at the sections in the book where i talk about the differences in dad style parenting versus mom style parenting and immerse yourself in balancing out what might be the natural view versus making sure your son is encouraged to do that pickup team sports. make sure your son gets involved in boy scouts and cub scouts. cub scouts have a lot data on character development. being very positive among cub

scouts versus control groups of equivalent boy backgrounds that did not have an immersion in cub scouts. if the faith-based community is not appropriate for you. don't push it aside automatically. get your son involved in faith-based communities growing up, make sure that the most important part of faith faith -- faith-based community is your son being involved with other boys his own age as he grows older so as boys tend to cut their feelings off as they do as puberty approaches that they see that other boys that are going through the same experiences that they are going through. that's one of the great preventers of drug use and drug abuse and withdrawal into videogame addiction and corn -- as the boy gets into puberty.

make sure your child cannot rule. when you say that he needs to eat the peas before they get the ice cream that in fact the child does not manipulate better deals with you. meanhe terrible twos don't that you are tending to give into your child in order to keep your child quiet. make sure your child is getting responses on your part that rewards his good behavior as opposed to reward him when he creates those tantrums. host: what do you see with the rise of local technology and how it's impacting parenting? guest: parents come up to me and say, you taught about family dinner being so important and you said get rid of electronics at the table. i can't. my children want those electronics at the table. when i hear that i know that we have a problem. the problem is that the children are controlling the parents. there are so many leverages that parents don't realize they have.

number one is saying very clearly, there can be no electronics at the dinner table. the dinner table is time for you to learn the skills of communicating with the family members. we are what's going to be with you for the rest of your life. there's a big problem with that? ok. you can just give me the electronic now and they will be put somewhere until you learn that lesson. you are really complain about that a great deal? we can also cut off the access to anything that we are paying for related to that game. you're going into your computer? he went to the computer to have the door closed? we will put the computer out of the room and put it in the main room. we will watch what you are doing on the computer. host: it sounds like you have had this conversation before. guest: really fascinating thing

is when children don't feel the boundaries, they are like walking in the dark without knowing where the end of the cliff is and they feel very insecure. the children that do so much better are the ones that feel that their parents care enough to have foundries that give them that discipline and then they start doing better with that discipline. they start doing better in school. they find that teachers feel proud of them. their peers respect them more. for boys this is amazingly important. girls are not very interested in dating losers. they date men who are good performers and when boys do not have the discipline to perform well, they find that they are girl deprived and they start pornng to porn, and

addicts the brain to having dopamine and then when you get a real girl in your life she feels that she is an object of the porn. host: one of the criticisms of your book says, what is clearly is the central vision for what boyhood and manhood really is. he offers no meaningful way for people should shoot for. this is the book's greatest fault. guest: i would totally disagree with that because that reviewer is coming from a place where boys need to be boys and girls need to be boys and never the two shall meet. in fact i feel there are boys that we need to reward for being like boys and we need to teach those skills of like being able to tough things out and being able to take risks and so on are necessary.

there's a large variety of boys that are born with many different characteristics and our job as parents is not to create boys to wear straitjackets of masculinity. or to teach boys to be like girls. it is to discover who they are and how it makes them prosper and what makes their personality develop. one of the wonderful things that anybody who has had a parent of multiple children does is each child when you are just a few months old, you begin to see a child's different personality. and your job is to do as a parent to help that child's personality be supported but at the same time watch for where that personality becomes instructive. toause every virtue taken its extreme becomes a vice. and to a soft loving boy is wonderful. if he is always soft and loving and doesn't know how to stand up for himself, problem. the reverse is also true. having a certain amount of fear is healthy. having too much fear stymies

oneself. i feel the message i was trying to say in the boy crisis group of both parents having to nurture the unique self of each child but that without the father around, a boy doesn't have somebody to nurture him toward the healthiest adult possible. i felt he missed that point. host: this is from roger in new york. running a little short on time. go ahead. caller: good morning. thank you for your book and the other work that you were doing. my question has to do with our local problems in our school district, primarily with toys but also with girls and that is bullying. it has turned out that bullying is a big issue here and the recourse that these young men take when they encounter somebody that they don't like or they don't care for is to be and finally the fallback is to say that this is

their patriotic duty to make these other students who are not of our culture feel unwelcome. absolutely. bullying is a huge issue. there's two basic preventers for bullying. one is having those communication training courses in first and second grade where everyone in the class can begin to see the person everyone else in that class as a full human being. basically in order to bully you have to objectify what you are bullying creed you can't see that person as a full feeling human being. and bullying of course comes from your own internal security that you need to sort of prove yourself better than somebody else and you pick on somebody to prove that. second, we know there's much less bullying, one of the greatest preventers of liang as having a significant amount of father involvement where the boy is able to develop his own sense

of self-esteem and being able to develop his own sense of confidence. bullies and the people who are bullied are very similar in personality types. they are both people of low self-esteem. people who often do not well in school. feel likeoth often victims of different sorts. but the bully will never admit it where is the bully often does. -- bullied often does. the solution to bullying is not just to punish the bully. the solution to bullying is to help the boys and girls in first and second and third and fourth grade to be able to hear each respect each, other's perspective, discover each other as human beings. this isn't just theory. in denmark where they are doing much more of this which is the country that is the most advanced and having early childhood communication training, bullying has dropped very precipitously. the numberould say one thing schools can do. number two things schools can do

soget many more teachers that boys that don't have fathers can have good strong role models of you don't bully, you are not allowed to bully. about why you feel you need to be a bully. those strong male role models are much more likely to be associated with a decrease in bullying. host: warren farrell cowrote the book, the boy crisis. thanks for your time today. if you pay attention to the house side, one of the things that will take place as that debate taking a look at dreamers and offering them amongst other things citizenship. look for that on the house side.