returns for work on veteran legislation. on c-span2 at 8:30 a.m. eastern, the center for american progress on the daca program and what's at stake in the supreme court case to be heard tuesday. at noon, indiana senator todd young on foreign policy at the hudson institute and at 3 p.m., the senate continues work on the nomination for the under secretary for the homeland security department. on c-span3 at 3 p.m. eastern, idaho senator jim risch, chairman of the foreign relations committee speaks about china's growing economic and political influence in europe. coming up in one hour, the politico congressional reporter previews the first public impeachment inquiry hearings this week. coalitionm., era copresident on efforts to ratify the equal rights amendment.

at 9:00 a.m., accuracy in media president adam g ♪ host: we are live outside the supreme court today as the justices will hear arguments for and against so-called daca, the immigration program that allows undocumented people brought here as children to the united states by their parents to remain in the country. we want to get your thoughts on daca as well as the supreme court decision. democrats, 202-748-8000. republicans, 202-748-8001. independents, 202-748-8002. you can also -- a fourth line for daca recipients, 202-748-8003.

you can text us at that number as well with your first name, city, and state, 202-748-8003. go to twitter at @cspanwj or join the conversation at facebook.com/cspan. we will get to your thoughts on daca and the supreme court arguments in a minute. joining us on the phone is greg, i supreme court -- a supreme court reporter for bloomberg news. remind viewers what this case is about. guest: good morning, greta. the case started in 2012 when barack obama said he was going to give young immigrants, people who came here as children generally with their parents -- illegally, give them the ability to apply for a shield so they would not be deported and could apply for job permits. that program has been in place for a number of years, about

700,000 people now are daca recipients and president donald trump two years ago -- his administration said we are going to rescind this program, wind it down so people can no longer renew their status and that brought immediate lawsuits and we are now at the supreme court determining whether president trump's reasons -- his administration's reasons are adequate enough to let him do that. host: what are the president's reasons for rescinding daca and how have the lower courts ruled on this? guest: the second part is easier to describe. the lower courts ruled against ruled against the administration. the explanation has evolved a little bit. reason we are rescinding it is it was illegal the whole

time. there was a threat of suit by republican led states and the administration decided they were going to essentially side with the states and say this program should not have been here in the first place, but the reasons have evolved a little over time and they have added additional reasons. sec. kirstjen nielsen of dhs put out a memo saying in addition to concern that the program was illegal, we think it is a bad idea, we think it is better to have consistent enforcement of our immigration laws. we think it sends the wrong message and exempting so many people is a bad idea. now that we are at the supreme court, the administration is not quite so say -- quite saying it was illegal the whole time, but that is one of the reasons they are concerned about the

litigation risk if they keep the program in place. anyone it those reasons could be enough for the supreme court to say that is fine. in a sense, the trump administration has several arrows in its quiver. elaine duke and why do reporters -- supporters point to her in this argument? guest: she was the acting secretary of dhs at the time. there was a story that came out in the new york times that detailed some of the history of how this program got rescinded. whowas someone at dhs balked at the decision and was reluctant to go along with it. there is a strong humanitarian concern supporters can point to in this case. this would be a decision if daca is rescinded that would

dramatically up and hundreds of thousands of lives, it is not clear how quickly it would be rescinded, but those humanitarian arguments may weigh on the supreme court. host: who is arguing on each side? guest: on the side of the administration, the first person to argo -- argue will be noel francisco. he is who you would expect to argue in this case for the administration. on the others did is a former solicitor general ted olson, a conservative. he is known, for among other things, arguing the bush v gore case, but he is representing daca recipients in this case, going to be arguing what the trump administration is doing is illegal and in addition, the solicitor general of california, michael will be arguing on that side of the case as well.

california is one of the with dacalong .ecipients host: ted olson's cocounsel? recipient.s a daca i understand he will be at counsel table with ted olson today. butt be arguing the case, will, just by his presence, undoubtedly have a pretty dramatic impact. i believe it is the first time anything like this has happened that a daca recipient has been one of the council at the table in front of the supreme court. host: who will be listening inside that courtroom today? host: many -- guest: many daca

recipients, i am sure they will have a packed courtroom and there will probably be other top officials. only fits may be 400 people when it is really packed. line stretching out the court for several days, there is high demand to get into the case. it is an extra long argument, it will be 80 minutes. usually supreme court are humans are only an hour. host: how do you think the justices could rule on this? -- of the different options what are the different options? guest: there are a menu of options for the administration to win. the administration has arguments that start with the courts have no business in this area at all, this case is what we call not justiciable.

they could, this seems unlikely, wascourt could say daca illegal from the get-go. either one of those two options would probably give the administration really brought authority if it wanted to rescind daca quickly, that would be the biggest option for the supreme court. do court could also something a bit more narrow that said as long as you have given us some reason you think it is a bad idea, we will defer to the administration. it would leave the administration with how quickly we want to move to start rescinding daca. it doesn't have to happen immediately. more likely, it would be a wind down and there could be renewed negotiations. could say we think the administration possible reasons are inadequate and that would

kick the case back down to the lower courts and it is theoretical -- theoretically possible the administration could come up with a different explanation, one that did not rely on daca being a legal, something that shows we think it is a bad idea more fully than the administration has done before. whether the administration would have time to do that before the election, that is more of an open question. if president trump wins reelection, his administration would have a lot more time to daca.ate host: which justice watching today? what kind of questioning are you listening for? guest: the key one to watch is it so often is, chief justice john roberts and that is in part because we have seen in two cases that bear some

similarities with the trump administration, the case involving the travel ban and the citizenship question to the census. in both of those cases, the chief justice seemed to play the pivotal role and there is a good chance he will do that today. the second justice i will be watching is brett kavanaugh. both of them often ask questions of both sides. their questions don't reveal their final vote, especially the chief justice. sometimes his thinking seems to whene from the argument to the decision is issued. we know his votes have changed behind closed doors after the argument in the past. listeningng to be very closely to the two of them, but also with a grain of salt knowing this is just the argument and a decision very

likely as not coming down for 6 or 7 months. host: our viewers can listen to what the chief justice has to say and other justices when we air the oral arguments this friday at 8:00 p.m. eastern time on c-span 2. stohr, thank you -- greg stohr, thank you for your time. the center for american progress is holding a discussion on daca at 8:30 a.m. eastern time on c-span 2. california attorney general heavy air becerra along with -- becerra is going to speak. it is your turn to tell us what you think about daca. samantha in washington, d.c. you are up first. caller: good morning.

i am praying the court will uphold daca. especially based on the many acts that are a regular and immoral and meant to hurt people the trump administration has pushed forward, especially in light of the very fact that there are many discrepancies evenive to his family coming into this country. there are laws that say if you lie on the application to come here, you are to be removed and you are not supposed to ever be able to come back and history here, you are toshows his famils ancestor to come here claiming they were from sweden and also changing the

name. host: democratic caller, what do you think about daca? caller: good morning. first of all, if these people were from europe and not from central america or other nations , we would be having a much different conversation. as long as america has an appetite for cheap labor, you are going to have this situation. these people have paid taxes, and listed in our military, fought for our country and they earned the right. look at the first lady of the united states, she is basically an illegal alien as well as her family. the problem is republicans are the complexion of this country is changing and that is what bothers them, don't get mad at the immigrants, get mad at corporate america who need cheap

.ater -- labor these people are being persecuted on the basis of their race. it is rooted in racism. host: take a look at what migrationpolicy.org put together. these are the country of origin's for daca recipients, largely coming from mexico, guatemala, el salvador, hon doris, peru, and brazil make up the largest population. you noted cheap labor. fromupreme court heard more than 140 companies that sided with the daca program in the washington post this morning . let's listen to what president obama had to say when he announced his executive action on daca in 2012. [video clip] >> 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 -- lets us focus our resources while giving relief and hope to talented, driven, patriotic young people. it is the right thing to do. host: that was then president obama announcing his executive action on daca back in 2012.

certain people who came to the made requests for deferred action for two years subject to renewal. statust provide lawful as the president said back then. these are the guidelines of the criteria for receiving daca. the united states before --ir 16th birthday, physically present in the and at on june 15, 2012 the time of making your request, no lawful status. obtained a ged or honorably discharged veteran of the armed forces of the united states. have not been convicted of a felony, significant misdemeanor, three or more other misdemeanors, do not pose a threat to national security.

those are the guidelines for daca recipients. we are getting your thoughts on the program. let's go to mike in wyoming. what do you think? think -- caller: i host: we are listening, mike. inler: those people belong this country. they grew up here and they are highly intelligent, hard-working people. i don't get this wall or any of that stuff, this country does not stand for that. keeping people out is not going to make us better, that is what i have to say. host: patrick in arkansas, what do you have to say. children should be granted citizenship. when they are, they take the two

much just like every person that and we shouldzen welcome them with open arms. host: richard, a republican. caller: good morning. and to me, i feel if they were born in this country, that is fine. if they came in illegally, they have to go back. they should have to follow the law, that is the law of the land. i don't care if they have been here for 20 years. if they came here illegally, they have to go back and do what it takes by the law to get back into the country. host: it is a rainy morning in washington, d.c. and the line, as greg told us, is stretching around the supreme court, people started lining up over the weekend to get one of those coveted seats inside the supreme

court, they only have a limited amount of seating and typically they rotate the public in and out and so those folks in line hoping to hear a little bit of today's oral argument. that will air at 8:00 p.m. eastern time friday night on c-span 2 and you can listen to what the arguments were for and against -- what questions the justices had to ask. richard in indiana, a republican. i am sorry, let me move on so i can get another voice and. he party democrat, so i am very conservative and i want to remind your viewers the executive is not an emperor and that branch has become much too powerful and this is an example of the legislature relinquishing its power. i don't recall one judge in 8

years stopping anything that obama considered to be an executive order and yet everything this current executive does seems to be halted across the entire nation anone federal judge and executive order cannot be released by another executive for a subsequent one is preposterous. legislatures legislate and if i was arguing to the court in , i would call it a tax then justice roberts would pass it like he did obama care. host: vincent in pennsylvania, republican. caller: good morning. caller.with your last how folks that understand

it works understand the tax system and how it got through. i am finding myself this morning realizing this is not the daca fault, not our current president's fault, it might not even be obama's fault. if we are a nation of laws, this should have never been an excuse to have folks 10 years old now old enough to vote. people say children -- they are now young adults. this should never happen again and if we are a country of borders and laws and celebrating veterans day, we should be celebrating veterans day, not excuses to let folks in charge of our laws put them aside and conduct what they want to do as far as excuses to let folks in

who do not have citizenship. i don't know how they are going should neverbut it happen again. host: many of the people in daca no longer very young are far from angels. some are tough, hardened criminals. the supreme court remedy was overturned, a deal will be made with democrats for them to stay. that is what the president said on twitter. this is what jeff sessions in 2017 had to say when he announced the administration's decision to terminate daca. [video clip] >> i am here to announce the program known as daca effectuated under the obama administration is being rescinded. the program was and plummeted in 2012 and essentially provided a legal status for recipients for

a renewable two year term, worker authorization, and other benefits including participation in the social security program to 800,000 mostly adult illegal aliens. the policy was implement it unilaterally after congress rejected legislative proposals to extend similar benefits on numerous occasions to this same group of illegal aliens. in other words, the executive sought toiberately achieve what the legislative branch refused to authorize on multiple occasions. circumventionnded of laws was an exercise of authority by the executive branch. host: jeff sessions arguing against president obama's decision to implement this program.

numbersy put some daca together's. this is the average age of the dreamer is 25 years old. 6 is the average age when they first enter the united states. they also report 97% of recipients are working or enrolled in school, 900 recipients are serving in the military and .2% of and rowley's had their status revoked because of criminal or gang activity. greg in pennsylvania, what is your opinion on this debate? my opinion on this debate my opinion on this debate is the last three collars are exactly correct. hewas a self-professed -- did not have the authority to pass the law. this was a short-term measure

that he and plummeted. he implemented. if donald j trump had done this, what would your callers from democratic and independents program?t this would that have made a difference? of course it would have. everything is so polarized right now. i am lawyer for 41 years and i am a vietnam that -- vet. i know he was correct when he said he did not have the authority to do it. he could not get it through congress. he did what he thought he should do for his own political benefit and the future of the democratic party. i am not sure it worked out that way, but that is why he did it. it was an overreach by him. who is the current executive?

not him. the current executive, as president obama said, can rescind this. he has done that. the effects create problems for say in what they did when they were 5 or 6, i agree that needs to be addressed, but we are such a racist, sexist country, most of your callers would agree they have to be given additional protection because it is not their fault. i am ok with that. happen't let this ever again. congress has to step up. of the 700,000 people covered by statistic,ust read a 900 served in the military. for those people who want to

continue to throw that out as a reason to protect daca recipients in the program, that is infinitesimal. that makes no sense whatsoever and hopefully the supreme court should do what it should do, which is say we have to find a solution. this is a difficult decision for the supreme court. they should say the president is right and leave it up to congress. it will be interesting to see what the decision says. rules thate court way, what are the odds, you think, that congress acts on a bipartisan basis to do something here on this program for these people? caller: not until after donald j. trump gets reelected and when he gets reelected, he will do something before his second inauguration, he is not the racist, sexist person everybody

thinks -- not everybody, i don't. i think he will win reelection. the majority of the electoral college votes will go his way. he will do the right thing, he , not likeideologue the career politicians. he is not an ideologue. whatever works, that is what he does. thoughts in pennsylvania. dan in virginia, what do you think? caller: i would like to agree with greg, that first set of the 900 of 300,000 -- what do they say? 1% of american serving the military? that means 700,000 of the daca folks should have served. these are the people who came to the u.s. and want to have rights and be americans, there should

be 350,000. all the men should have been listed, some of the women included. half of them should have joined, but you don't see that. that says a lot about i am here, i want to count. like greg said although i am not a lawyer, this is legislation. instead of doing things like holding kangaroo courts against the executive branch, maybe they should do their job and pass a resolution. .hat is my big point about this it should have been a law and they were teased into a weird situation. i am hispanic, by the way. host: you will recall the president wanted to cut a deal with democrats on this, but he wanted, in exchange, for them to

agree to the border wall. that is a good part of it, you want to fill the holes in the bucket. that,t say it was this or it was the solution to prevent further atrocities at the border. i grew up at the border area you have to stop the source. part of that is let me handle who is already here and the second part is let's stop this from getting any worse. anyone trying to stop a leak or prevent a leaking basement, you have to stop the source before you put new carpet in, that is how physics works. host: independent in san antonio. david, you are on the air. caller: how is it going? my thoughts on the whole thing is this is a country that was

founded on immigration and a lot of these people came over here for the same rights we have. fore fleeing their country whatever particular reason, hostile environment, starving nations. all the way around, i believe the wall is a good thing because it provides an access way for people to get through so we can take a census as we allow them to come back in. as far as the ones who are already here, i don't think it is a punishable crime for seeking asylum in a country regardless of if they knew you were there or not. are just people like you and i without american rights seeking happiness. you are looking at

pictures outside the supreme court, the justices will begin hearing oral arguments for and against daca at 10:00 a.m. eastern time. it is an 80 minute argument and this will air on c-span 2 friday night. cameras not allowed in the court, c-span has tried many, many times over the years to get our cameras into the court, that is not allowed at the supreme court, so you will hear the oral 2.uments on c-span the president tweeted in 2017 at the height of this debate, he tweeted out september 14 of that year, does anybody really want to throw out good, educated, accomplished young people who have jobs, some serving in the military? north carolina, republican. caller: how are you doing this morning?

what are your thoughts on daca? economy ishink this very fragile and i think too many of them are coming in. our economy is fragile as it is and nobody is keeping up with them is what concerns me and i have seen a lot of people losing their jobs and i have talked to all saying neighbors it is verying and concerning to me. i am in north carolina. i know i am a long way from the border. some things i like about what obama did, but a lot of things, not too good. that is a different issue

altogether. i am just concerned about what andoing on on the border all these immigrants. i think our economy is too fragile. newspaper this's morning with the map of the united states and the areas with the largest populations of active daca recipients. chicago, new york, houston, dallas, and los angeles have the largest populations of daca recipients. kevin in maryland, what do you think about this case at the supreme court? caller: good morning, thank you for c-span. i think the timing of the case is interesting with some of the news going on. we are getting a preview of what is at stake. in particular out of california where the illegal immigrants and

they have sort of taken over the political system and you have the candidates advancing socialist policies and a coup against the president. similarly, we look at bolivia, venezuela, what is going on there, it is the same thing, socialist dictators, coups. the stakes are huge in that we need to figure out a way to restore the country and get the illegal immigrants out of here. or else, we are going to turn into venezuela or bolivia. that said, i think the supreme court case, regardless of the outcome, is a small part of a much bigger problem. even if the supreme court decides trump cannot resend -- daca,daca -- rescind

there are other immigrants that need to be dealt with. the supreme court case is a small part of a much bigger issue. host: stephen in los angeles, democratic caller. greta. good morning, it is nice to see you on television. to my to make a comment friend in maryland, it must be hard living in a border town so close to the border in maryland. contribute tos our economy, we have a very beautiful, diverse leadership out here and i am proud to be a voter here and pay my taxes here. what i wanted to say is daca recipients and immigrants and

community numbers -- members who are undocumented pay taxes and do not have representation because they do not get to vote. ridiculousness.me we endimmigrn i am a millennial. i have been proposing a north american free movement agreement where people can move across the borders of the north american continent freely and easily. that way we can have a robust economy where movement is not restricted and that way we can build a much larger economy for the future and i thank my friends for their good opinion, i respect everyone. thank you, greta, for hosting this this morning and good morning. host: thank you for getting up early and watching and calling in. in other news this morning, we will turn our attention to the

impeachment hearings happening tomorrow, the first one on wednesday and tomorrow's impeachment hearings get underway at 10:00 a.m. eastern and you can watch on our website or download the free radio app. bill taylor, george kent are the witnesses for tomorrow's hearing. on friday, the former u.s. ambassador to ukraine, marie yovanovitch, live at 11:00 a.m. eastern. c-span 2,ill be on but you can watch on our website or download the radio app. the president weeding out he will be releasing the transcript of the first and he says therefore more important phone call of the ukrainian president before the weeks end --week's end.

fox news reporting former president jimmy carter has been hospitalized for a procedure to reduce pressure on his brain after recent falls and in campaign 20 news, the new york times reporting that patrick isol of massachusetts considering getting into the democratic primary race. back to our conversation with all of you about the daca case before the supreme court, folks have been lining up outside the court for days camping out overnight to get one of the seats outside the court. alabama, republican. what do you think of the daca

program? caller: good morning. to be honest with you, if you illegal.al, you are the laws were written so that we would mind the laws. if we are not minding the laws, we need to change and do something different. host: we will go to oscar. democratic caller. caller: thank you. greta, you are looking great this morning. these childrenif were white with blue eyes, would this be a problem? i think it is not a problem. those kids work, they are in the onewe have china that has

billion people and all we want to do is hurt these poor people who never did nothing because of the color of their skin. host: the president is in new york this morning, he stayed there overnight after kicking off the veterans day parade and he will be speaking at 12:00 p.m. eastern time at the economic club of new york. he could be talking about daca and bring it up in that conversation. largely, we suspect about the economy and that is 12:00 p.m. eastern time. this is what the administration's acting director of citizenship and immigration services, ken cuccinelli had to say in october about the daca case. [video clip] assuming that law is found to

be as illegal as president obama said it was over 20 times before , it will depart the legal world and those people the position, as they are today, they are here illegally under whatever circumstances they may have come , they will join the ranks of millions of people in that circumstance. i rather expect to see some discussion at the congressional presidential level over that. i think the president has publicly signaled he is willing to do that, as have members of congress on both sides of the aisle. i think you could see movement in that direction and i would not want to get out in front of that. >> what if there is no deal? >> then they are in the same pool if m.i.t. is correct, the 22 million people here

illegally, they don't have orders against them, but they are not here with legal presence and they are under the same legal potential as others in that state. there is a little over one million removal orders in place for people in the country. those are the ones that i.c.e. operations go to remove. it isn't that they are starting the case, it is finishing one when you see those operations, typically and i.c.e. has prioritization, still top of the priority lease -- priority list are criminal aliens and people not in that circumstance are basically in with the rest of ool of approaching 20 million people. host: that was ken cuccinelli talking about what happens to daca recipients. take a listen to jim park

talking about his experience at a house judiciary committee hearing this past spring. [video clip] >> i was always aware on some level i was different, but i was not able to grasp such a weighty concept of citizenship. when i was 15, i went to a hospital to sign up as a volunteer and the administrator i spoke with said she was sorry, but they did not allow illegal aliens. embarrassed and confused about how to respond, i mumbled an apology, walked outside and cried. the hurt of that experience stayed with me until one afternoon when president obama stood in the rose garden and announced a policy that would allow undocumented immigrants brought here to officially have a place in american society. i remember the mixture of relief and excitement as i listened to the speech and realized he was talking about kids like me. five years after that moment, knowing the ever present

uncertainty that comes with being undocumented slowly faded. at the start of my senior year at harvard, that uncertainty came rushing back. i was determined to continue pursuing my goals and applied for a rhodes scholarship. when i became the first daca hodes,ents a win the r i was overwhelmed with gratitude to my parents, my community, and the united states of america. there is a major obstacle between me and the rhodes scholarship. when daca was halted, the guidance that allowed recipients to get permission to leave the country was also terminated. this means if i leave the country to study at oxford, i will forfeit my daca and there will be no guarantee i can return home to the united states. that is the perpetual reality of being undocumented. no matter how hard i work or what i achieved, i never know if i have a place in america, my

home. host: a daca recipient at a hearing this past spring. the supreme court gets ready to hear oral arguments on the daca policy. rita in alabama, independent. what do you think? there is so many of them up in the white house, foreign people that work up there. for these people as slavery, three dollars per hour was what they were paid 10 years or 20 years ago. i think it is time for america to wake up. it says in the last days of the bible, good is evil and evil is good. thank you. host: tracy in north carolina, a republican. caller: my thoughts are that the daca recipients brought here as

children obviously had no choice, they are here. they have been here, many of them are productive members of the society. since, i believe, they were brought here to be more or less thetical pawns of democratic side, i truly believe they could let into this country, be stepped in in levels as two steps to their citizenship. they would have to pass tests, learn basic american history and so forth. i think if you wanted to give them citizenship and give them the rights and protections of this country, that is fine. however, i think to give them immediately --te they need to be educated in our history and live here for a few years under the government to understand what is going on.

to cannot expect anybody come into this country under these circumstances and have any kind of idea what is going on. host: in the criteria laid out by the obama administration, it doesn't say they are getting citizenship, it just allows them to stay here. therefore, they would not be voting. caller: if they are going to be here and be voting, they need to be citizens. graduated up in steps and programs. those who joined and served our military proudly should have them.attention paid to those who have been put in jail or broken our laws should be discredited altogether. host: in some other campaign

news, the widow of the late elijah cummings announced yesterday she will seek his seat in congress. in new york, democratic caller. good morning. what is your view on daca? caller: good morning, america. we are speaking of illegals or immigrants or whoever, this includes everyone here except mexicans living on the west coast and the indians here. the blacks were kidnapped and brought to america to do slave labor freely. lots of the europeans were outcast, bad people. the most important way to keep immigrants from wanting to come them.s not to hire to start with the president, his wife and her family, immigrants, yet he talks against immigrants.

he says one thing and does the opposite. furthermore, the world belongs to god, not people. he created it and the people. here intalk about america -- america was not founded, people were here when the europeans came here. let's speak truth to power. host: daca recipients according to the migration policy institute, there are a total of 661,000 daca recipients. the estimate of those who meet the criteria to apply for this in 2019 is 1.3 million. the program participation rate is 54%. keith in st. petersburg, florida, independent.

everybody talking about the fact these poor people -- if our parents had shipped us to another country, they would be thrown in prison for child endangerment. these parents are sending their kids to america and expect the american people to take care of the people here. they should not provide -- become american citizens unless they abide by our constitution and become american citizens. they have been here for a lifetime and make no effort to become an american citizen. we have american people living on the streets and our veterans living on the streets and the government and democratic party is not doing anything to help them, but is insisting to help illegal aliens. bill in seattle, washington, tax us to cite --

say nancy and trump nancyt want to give -- and chuck did not want to give trump a win. the only thing obama did was kick the can down the road. that is tim in rhode island. craig on facebook says it is not a law passed by congress, it was a previous administration law and trump should not be bound to continue it. scooter on facebook, we should provide them a speedy path to citizenship. executive order was not legal. he put daca recipients in limbo, not fair to them or the country. paul says if america does not like immigration laws, they need to get congress to change them.

you can join us on facebook and twitter and text us with your first name, city and state frederique 202-748-8003 202-748-8003 at. democratic caller, what do you want these justices to do on daca? caller: i am a strong supporter of the border project, i urge our congressional leaders and to fight for the reunification of family seeking asylum. there have been kids displaced from their families and detained at the southern borders a hind these makeshift the tension centers. if we could see what they are going through, we would be unable to put ourselves in their shoes. overall, the result of these and then astray she are inconsistent

with the american values and they violate human rights. it threatens our relationship with our allies and our national security interests here and abroad. host: we will go on to jesse in illinois, what do you think? issues.i just have two when republicans controlled the and the house and the senate, why didn't they address the issue then? another issue was this guy was on tv saying he had 45,000 jobs that needed to be filled, but he could not fill the jobs because everybody that came could not pass the drug test. illegalssome of the can fill some of those jobs. host: joe in virginia, woodbridge -- in woodbridge,

virginia. caller: thanks for taking my call. host: what do you think the supreme court justices should do on daca? caller: i have separate feelings immigration.llegal i am pretty hard-core against illegal immigration. i have no problem with the apprehending entire families along the border -- host: i apologize, but you are breaking up, we will have to let you go. jack in iowa, democratic caller. caller: good morning. if a bunch of people were coming across the border with guns blazing, that would be called an invasion, and nobody wants that. we find ourselves in a curious position where the democrats want anybody to be able to come across the border, but not buy guns when they get here, but republicans are the opposite.

they want to let everybody buy guns when they get here and not let anybody cross the border. i would be more proud of the democratic party if they would solve the issue instead of turning this into a litigation matter. i am afraid if the supreme court rules on this, they will support trump. host: danny in maryland, what do you think. caller: good morning. should the supreme court take it back to congress and congress has to deal with this and i feel sorry for the kids because they are people without a country. i think the kids should be given legal status. i think the parents should be penalized like $50,000 per kid on daca. host: gary in virginia, good morning, your turn. caller: good morning. i would like to say that there

seems to be two kinds of people with this immigration thing, those that want to stack them up like cordwood on the border and then there is people like who just want open borders and the thing i don't hear is anything about birth control. that would be cheaper than a moat, putting in alligators, fences, watchtowers, uavs, drones, sensors, searchlights, towers -- i don't want to be like -- in california, independent. caller: hello. how are you doing, ma'am? i want to give my opinion. what about all the people who actually went through the legals of being a

resident? family put the application and it took 8 years for me to be granted legal residency and --er that it was 5 years there was a lot of paperwork and lawyers and money. long process where you are trying to stay in school and working where they have no criminal records and stuff like that and what about us? i don't approve that they are using the daca children and now young men and young women leveraged for politics and after you cannot just give

everything to anybody all the time. otherwise, what is the purpose of the law? host: how much did your family pay in fees and lawyer bills to get on this path to citizenship? long.: the process was sometimes he would have to pay $1500, $2500 in one appointment for the lawyers. you have to go to the council or get one stamp or get one signature and you don't hear anything for a couple more years. in that process, you are away from your family. it is a great sacrifice. in my opinion, you are not dealing with animals, you are dealing with people and they definitely should be helped. host: we will leave it there. this morning, we will turn our attention next next to immigration hearings.

desiderio with politico will be here to preview tomorrow and friday public hearings. and later,rol -- carol jenkins will talk about ratifying the equal rights amendment. we will be back. ♪ >> here's a look at books being published this week. former u.n. in bassett are nikki haley chronicles her time in her memoir "with all due respect." in "the plot to betray america," the author argues that the trump administration has compromised national security. paul richter chronicles four diplomats that chose to serve in the middle east.

in taking for granted, schiano caldwell argues that lawmakers have failed urban communities and offers his thoughts and how both political parties and citizens can work towards a reform. loose"l hell breaking michael claire looks at climate change. --.a. sandoval strauss' watch for many of the authors in the near suit -- near future on book tv. live thisan network week has the house intelligence committee holds the first public impeachment hearings. the committee led by adam schiff will hear from three state

department official starting wednesday at tentacle ham east -- at 10:00 eastern on c-span three. deputy assistant secretary of state will testify. friday at 11:00 a.m. eastern on willn2, marie yovanovitch appear before the committee. read witness testimony from the deposition, find transcripts at c-span.org/impeachment. >> washington journal continues. host: we are back. andrew desiderio is here to talk about the impeachment hearings that get underway tomorrow. 10:00 eastern time, who is testifying and why? guest: george kent and william tyler are testifying. assistant toeputy the secretary of state. an ambassador in

ukraine. both of them are talking about the shadow policy under rudy giuliani and the quid pro quo. that is sort of what democrats are going to try and draw out of them. host: where will they sit? guest: where every other witness sites. it will be a bigger room than we are used to and they will be basically right next to each other facing questions from lawmakers and lawyers. lawmakers of the the intelligence committee? adam -- guest: adam schiff and devin nunes. adam schiff will control how the hearing goes and he will have to operate within the bounds of the resolution that the house passed last month regarding the procedures. how manylly controls 45 minute rounds that he and devin nunes get, during which they are expected to yield much

of their time to staff attorneys who are more effective questioners than lawmakers. host: we have not seen devin nunes come to the cameras while the closed-door depositions have been going on. what role do you think you will play? guest: he has become skeptical of the press. he used to talk to us all the time on the record on background and off the record. awadays, he has gone on certain network and tried to disparage the press and he does not trust us. that is his view. other republicans have filled the void like jim jordan and others eager to defend the president on camera. devin nunes has not been as eager to do that. host: jim jordan is the top republican on the house oversight committee has secured a position on the intelligence committee. how did that work? guest: they had to remove one republican from the intelligence committee, congressman crawford, in order to make room for

congressman jordan. he will get a five minute round just like any other rank-and-file lawmaker, but it said a lot that mccarthy had so much trust in him that he would remove a member from the intelligence committee and at jim jordan. he is a higher breathing defender of the president, and effective questioner and that is what people will see. host: go into more detail about these rounds of questioning and how they work. guest: the chairman, adam schiff, it gets to declare as many unlimited 45 rounds -- gets to declare as many unlimited rounds for himself and devin nunes. they are expected to yield much of their time to the staff lawyers for the republicans and democrats on the committee who have been doing much of the questioning behind closed doors. if you redo the transcripts you can identify who are the more effective questioners and that is who each side will want to use. after that point, it will be 15

minute round for the rank-and-file lawmakers. adam schiff does have the ability to call up five-minute rounds, but he is expected to do one or two so that he and devin nunes can control all of the time in the hearing. in that way, it will be much different than viewers are used to. host: tell us who the council is for the democratic members, who is he and what is his background? guest: there are two we expect to see, daniel goldman and daniel noble. yearsldman worked for 10 for the u.s. attorney's office in the southern district of new york. daniel noble also worked in the southern district of new york. both of them specialize in fraud and foreign corruption crimes, which is why adam schiff brought them on to be director of investigations. they will have the most prominent role for the

democrats. host: on the republican side? guest: there will mostly be a man by the name of steve castor. he is congressman jordan's chief investigator to counsel -- investigative council. he has now shared staff, so when counsel -- congress been jordan was brought over, they brought steve over. congressman nunez is expected to yield much of his time. thereyou said mostly, is another lawyer that could do questioning? guest: during the deposition phase, other lawyers on different committees have asked questions including the foreign affairs committee. the foreign affairs committee will not be involved in the public hearings, is basically just going to be the intelligence committee and whatever shared staff is brought on. almost all ofally the time in terms of the staff lawyers on the republican side to mr. castor. host: republicans insisted that

other witnesses, the witnesses that they would like to hear from get called before the committee, one being the whistleblower, others being hunter biden. any indication that that will happen? guest: there are a couple of people i can see democrats volker, number one kurt mike ross were thinking about calling him anyway because he was one of their witnesses behind closed doors. others like hunter biden and the whistleblower, and the people that the whistleblower talked to, for example are much likely -- much less likely to be called if not impossible. adam schiff has close the door to that right now. he said something over the weekend like the committee will not be used as an arm of the president's desire to launch politically motivated investigations like he tried to do to ukraine. that is essentially what the republicans are trying to do by calling hunter biden and one of his business associates, and of

course the whistleblower and the sources that the whistleblower spoke with. host: what parliamentary maneuvers or committee maneuvers to republicans have at their disposal to try and disrupt the hearing, or will they do that? guest: they have few given that the house passed the resolution outlining the procedures. it will be strictly operated by adam schiff, but i would not discount the ability by republicans to launch these procedural claims and points of order, and things like that like they do it other hearings. maneuvers do you think adam schiff will make to try and control hearings? guest: just like any other committee chairman would do they have a gavel and they can basically shut anyone up whenever they want to. it could be difficult because there are a few firebreathing defenders of the president. jim jordan is now on the committee, devin nunes is a strident defender.

john radcliffe is a senior number. the president wants nominated -- once nominated him to be director of intelligence. those of the people you should watch. host: who will we -- who will you watch on the democratic side? guest: congressman jim himes, the number two on the committee. he has proven himself to be an effective questioner, and of morrissey,r christer he is a new member, but democrats i have talked to have leaned on him during the depositions in terms of his questioning of witnesses. those i think will be the focal points for democrats on the rank-and-file side. host: let us get to calls. paul in new york, a republican. good morning to you. morning, your thoughts on the public impeachment hearings. host: good morning. -- caller: good morning.

sir, you misled the c-span listeners in the beginning when wassaid that rudy giuliani running a shadow operation. daylight,e in broad many people know about it. second, the reason that mr. schiff does not want the whistleblower to testify is that mr. schiff does not want the american people to know who the leakers are inside the white house that contacted the whistleblower who has second and third hand information, because he knows that president trump will terminate their employment. thank you very much. point, itthe first was a shadow foreign policy. we did not know the full extent what was happening behind the --ies in both key have, k

andiev, brussels, washington. claiming a lotas of these things in broad daylight, but we do not know how much he was in contact with people in the state department and how much they were trying -- helping rudy giuliani. in that sense it was a shadow foreign policy because we did not know the full extent. host: will this committee or the public here from rudy giuliani? guest: very unlikely. he has already spurned commands for testimony. he was subpoenaed last month. he was one of the first witnesses that the committee had called. rudy giuliani did not provide documents either. he briefly retained an attorney to help them out with these congressional inquiries. and wrote a letter to adam schiff saying that we will not comply. do giuliani cut his lawyer loose because he did not -- rudy

giuliani cut his loyal -- his lawyer loose because he did not need a lawyer any longer. host: mobile, alabama. caller: i agree with the gentleman that says this individual had said his bias when he brought this up about some shadow government with giuliani. that is bias. he just -- she is just repeating democratic talking points. he is bias. this guy is biased. the second thing that i had been islowing -- the second thing is that i blame the media for a lot of this because the media does not do any research on things. they just go and repeat talking points. for example on this whistleblower law, there is nothing in the law to say that a whistleblower has to remain anonymous. i researched it yesterday

because i was watching you and whenever you bring that up, they always say you cannot do that. there is nothing in the law, i read the whole law yesterday, to say that a whistleblower must remain anonymous. host: let us take that point. guest: he is right about the protection laws, but what my credits have expressed concern about, and this is not me they just just not me saying this, they do not like the precedent of outing a whistleblower for political purposes. that is not what republicans are trying to do. adam schiff did say that he wanted to hear from the whistleblower. adam schiff came under fire for this because a member of his staff had been in contact with the whistleblower before the individual filed his complaint, and adam schiff was not truthful about his committee's contact with the whistleblower. he has acknowledged that he could be more forthcoming about that.

secondly on the shadow foreign policy. almost everything that we know about it we did not know before the process started. that is why i keep referring to it as a shadow foreign policy. that devin nunes asked adam schiff be deposed before they start the public hearings to talk about the role that he had. do you think that adam schiff will address this at the top of this public hearing tomorrow? guest: i would expect that when and if republicans launch procedural motions he will have a response prepared. adam schiff has talked about this in his various media appearances, and as i mentioned before he has acknowledged that he could have been more forthcoming about this, and republicans have used that to their advantage. host: tomorrow morning's hearing gets underway at 10:00 a.m. eastern time as we talk about our coverage live. ,lso on our website, c-span.org you can listen.

if you are nowhere near a screen, if you are walking around and doing other things you can download the free radio app and listen on that. that is 10:00 a.m. eastern time tomorrow morgan -- tomorrow morning. on friday the same lawmakers here from the former u.s. ambassador to the ukraine at 11:00 a.m. eastern time. our coverage begins on c-span2 and c-span.org as well as the free radio app. yovanovitch on friday? is there a reason for the order? guest: we do not know, because we do not know who will follow them. marie yovanovitch, democrats are trying to make her a sympathetic -- a sympathetic figure because she is someone who would be collateral damage to this parallel track that rudy giuliani was trying to run. there was the one he was pushing and there was the one the u.s. government was trying to push.

marie yovanovitch was painted by giuliani and donald trump as being disloyal. the president eventually ordered her recall in may. my credits will try and paint her as a victim -- democrats will try and painter as a victim and as collateral damage. host: what is the point, to impeachment? have: a lot of what they heard his testimony from state department officials about the roll up insta publicly support marie yovanovitch which is not directly related to the articles of impeachment. democrats asdo for it gives them a sympathetic figure that they need to help bring the public along. i think that is something they recognize as they go into the public hearings. host: linda, detroit. democratic caller. caller: thank you for taking my call. jordan on the

committee tomorrow? host: yes. 175 accused cases of molesting or being there or whatever. committeehe be on any to let our children see someone like him? this is a disgrace. the republicans should be ashamed. if he was a democrat, they would have put him off the next day. since they did not, i just do not believe he should be in front of the tv where our children have to watch him. he is disrespectful, he is a clown. host: i just want to clarify for those, because this is the cnn headline. lawmaker accused of ignoring sexual misconduct. "a new lawsuit accuses jim

jordan of failing to take action against sexual misconduct when he was an assistant coach at ohio university in the 90's." let us go to tim, a republican in florida. caller: i hope you indulge me because your guest is being very dishonest intellectually. if we go back to everything and we start at the beginning, you hear these people talk about quid pro quo and that, but what is the difference between what biden did and what's trumpeted? you talk about foreign interference in our election, i heard himes. the representative -- from connecticut, and i have seen him on three different occasions, fox news sunday, meet the press, where he stated how his head is going to explode over what he heard.

these people need to understand something, these politicians will tell you anything, i do not care if you are republican or democrat. every time a politician opens their mouth figure that they will live. with adam schiff, ok? he has been very dishonest from the get go. ok? he did not come forthright the fact that the whistleblower came to his staff, i do not care if it was his staff for him, and talk to him about how to file this. ok? most people employed in the united states of america, the human resource department for these corporations and companies have company handbooks. i am pretty sure, as big as our federal government is, that they have handbooks on how to handle different things in the government pertaining to things that they hear that they think

might be out of bounds in the proper procedures to follow to go to it. i am pretty sure that there is not one that says you need to go to the house of representatives to this committee and tell them what is going on. so, a quick response to the last point. whistleblowers actually do reach out to the congressional committees, house in -- house intelligence, son is -- senate intelligence, that very often happens. the intelligence committee gets two to three potential whistleblowers coming forward to them each month. common actually a very occurrence in terms of whistleblowers as being congress for guidance before they actually file a complaint. as a gentleman also mentioned, chairman shift and knowledged that he was not completely forthright in his big -- from the beginning about this

whistleblower. host: andrew desiderio with politico. we are going to roger, in virginia, a democratic caller. if you give me a couple minutes like you did the last dude. i am wondering why c-span, the one i am watching, not now, do not show the impeachment hearings like you did to benghazi. for six years the republican party made us wait before they would do anything about the economy, and then now they want us to bend over and kiss them on the heel? host: i am not following you? c-span is not covering them? not start until tomorrow? caller: they did show them. host: because the house was in session. we have a commitment to cover the house. we cover the senate.

on c-span -- that is why the hearing is on c-span3. when they were showing the benghazi hearings, we know the house was in session sometimes. itt: we might have simulcast when the house went out for a brief amount of time. that is entirely possible. we do not control the house schedule. understand. not i would last -- i would like to ask why donald trump would not show his tax returns. luis, rodrick sperry, virginia, a republican. -- fredericksburg, virginia. a republican. caller: i think what we are witnessing is something that the founders were really worried about, and the one thing that they were extremely worried about was the tear any of the

legislate -- tyranny of the legislature. they put fences around the president and they limited what the president could do, and his duties were clearly stated, and they did all of the right things, but they could not quite of a handle on the tyranny the legislature, and that is what we are looking at. it is the very thing that the founders were the most concerned about was this problem. interested in watching it carefully and that is all i really have to say. host: who will you be watching during this committee hearing when it gets underway? guest: the first person is adam schiff to see how he answers these questions and devin nunes. beyond that, the staff lawyers on the committee, daniel goldman, and daniel noble on the

democratic side, and steve castor on the republican side. usually when these are broadcast, american people know who these are. this will be a rare occurrence where the americans have no idea who these individuals are. noble,re mr. goldman, and castor have never quittance -- questioned witnesses in a public hearing, especially not one of this magnitude and one watched by millions of americans. host: will the public be allowed in the hearing room? guest: yes. the public will be allowed in. i would expect the line to start 5:00 a.m..3:00 or but the public will be allowed in. this is a slightly larger room than we are used to with the house intelligence committee. host: about the press presence? guest: it will be a little bit expanded. i have my seat confirmed. they are giving one seat per news organization, print, radio,

tv. most of the major outlets if not all of them will be represented because it is a bigger room. they can ensure that that is the case. host: as far as cameras, let me inform the viewers that the room is big not good enough for every single network to have their own cameras in the room. what happens is that one network becomes a pool for everyone else. tomorrow that will be c-span, typically at is. we will have seven of our cameras in the room, the networks will receive individual feeds and then they will decide how they direct those different feeds, what cuts they take, who they decide to show, etc.. they will decide how this appears on their network as well as c-span. we will have our own director to do that. that is how it works in the committee room as far as what you see on the television and

what network to watch. we hope it is c-span at 10:00 a.m. on c-span3. let us go to jerry, new jersey, a democratic caller. caller: i am a registered democrat and i am extremely upset. the news media from the -- one trump was elected told us that we were going to impeach this president and do it from the beginning. collusion, russia collusion. that did not come forth, but the mood -- but the news media said this was it and this would get him. i am afraid the hearings tomorrow, wait until you see what will happen with the democrats, it will not go well. embarrassed and start correcting yourself, when do you do all that. thank you. democratsthere any talking to you about the dangers of moving forward with these

impeachment hearings, the political fallout? guest: you will recall in the the up when -- to whistleblower complaint. they were focused on the mueller report, but they failed to sustain interest and the polls for impeachment lagged in the 30's. that is not politically time and politicallyot tenable no matter what the evidence. the polls have already moved into the democrats' favor, they are hovering in the 50's and the democrats will need to increase that number is much as they can to medicate the potential political fallout. this process is fraught with so many political landmines especially with an election next year, not only the congressional elections, but also the presidential elections. there are more risks than

rewards for democrats embarking in this process. host: will the witnesses reveal new information that has not already been leaked by the committee, or that we have read in the testimony and transcripts that have been released? guest: it is unlikely that we will learn pieces of information that is brand-new and we have not seen them in the transcripts. the witnesses tend to get into much more detail and more comfortable to do so behind closed doors. i would expect, especially with william taylor and george kent, they have heard what the other witnesses have said. if there are things that they would like to respond to, clarify, or get more information about the other witnesses who succeeded them have said, i would expect that possibility and we could learn new information from that. it is unlikely that we will learn anything brand-new because the process for democrats is going to be essentially to put

this entire saga on camera and help bring the american public along, which is essential if you want to avoid political fallout. host: remind viewers what bill taylor testified on? first witnessthe to tie the president to a quid pro quo with ukraine. republicans criticized his testimony because it said this is second or third hand -- because it is second or third hand information and it was transmitted to him from gordon sondland. wece bill taylor's testimony have heard individuals backup similar information with first-hand recollections like mr. sondland. i would expect mr. taylor to address that and push back against the criticism that the information was unreliable. host: what will be here from george kent? guest: george kent was the person who gave the most specifics about he perceived to be the president's desires.

he said that it was conveyed to him, secondhand information, let the president wanted nothing less then the ukrainian president to go to a camera and a microphone and say three words, investigations, life -- biden, and clinton. that was the most detail about what the president specifically wanted, and george can sense that that was conveyed to him through with the individuals he talked to. host: we will go to new orleans, alan, independent. caller: i wanted to make two quick points. the first point is that all of the republicans complaining is thatift --schiff they realized it was not supposed to be his job, it was soposed to be william barr, schiff had to take the actions.

if william barr had done his job schiff would not be involved in this. the second point i want to make was at ukraine thing much deeper extortion because at the inauguration of the new president of ukraine, mike pence was supposed to go. instead they told ukraine that they did not do what they wanted to do, so mike pence was not going. instead they wanted to send rick perry, and then he went over gase and he did an oil and extortion scheme for his backers. giuliani went over with his two guys who have been guided to set up the whole shakedown. it was bigger than trump just withholding military aid. the was one part of extortion, because then he did a gas and oil extortion.

it is just wrong on all accounts. but trump has been a corrupt guy forever, so it is no surprise that the is -- that he is doing this with these people. host: what about the timeline that the viewer just gave? your reaction. guest: the viewer is correct that william barr declined to do a large investigation or launch some sort of plastic -- prosecution because the matter was referred to the justice department by the cia general counsel as they viewed it as a matter that needed to be vesta gated. the viewer was saying that because the justice department declined, adam schiff had no choice to launch his own investigation. host: lancaster, california. tom, a republican. caller: here is something. andrew, have you seen joe biden's tape.

host: he is talking about joe biden at the council of foreign relations where he talked about putting pressure on ukraine to corrupt -- two look into corruption in order to get the military aid. guest: this is something that all of the witnesses have testified to regard to the military aid, there is always a review period by the national security council to certify that -- whether -- to make sure that foreign aid dollars are not going to corrupt interests in a foreign country. that is a normal process that has been described by these witnesses behind closed doors. what joe biden was doing at that council of foreign relations event was essentially saying that he was sort of telling people what the defense department and the state department do regardless, which is make sure to -- that there are no corrupt interests for

u.s. dollars are sent there. host: the previous caller asked you the difference between what joe biden was doing and what the president was doing withholding military aid? guest: what democrats would say that the president was pushing investigations that suited his political interest. with joe biden he was trying to root out corruption of a prosecutor that the entire western world wanted gone from ukraine because he was -- it was the unanimous european union and of the united states that this person was no good and needed to be removed. that is what joe biden was conveying. host: quincy, michigan. brent, democratic caller. what you just explained was the very point i wanted to bring up. this moralf hearing equivalence from the republicans

with no pushback about what is the difference between what biden and trump did. two wrongs do not make a right. second, as your guest said, the imf,rence is that biden, in the united states wanted the prosecutor removed because he would not prosecute and investigate. the british had frozen funds, and they needed the collaboration of ukraine because they were going after him. son worked for. u.s. wanted him fired. -- the difference is huge.

even when biden had the opportunity to push back on 60 thates against this idea what biden did and what trump did were somehow the same, he did not do it. host: i am going to leave it there because we are running out of time. do republicans feel that their messaging is working outside of washington? guest: i think they do. legitimizeegy is to and minimize. one is to legitimize concerns about corruption in ukraine and to mention that u.s. eight dollars are not going to a government that is corrupt. might even work against the interests of the united states. the second part is to minimize the president's role in all of this. to the extent that rudy giuliani were doing things that might not have been above board, and republicans acknowledge, to argue that the president was not

directing that were connected to it. they will try to minimize the president's direct involvement in this as they acknowledge, as some republicans have over the weekend. we said -- we saw a bunch of top republicans saying that it was not appropriate of the president to ask this. host: we will be following it all. you can follow andrew's reporting at politico.com. the hearings getting underway tomorrow morning, wednesday on c-span3 at 10:00 a.m. eastern time. you and the lawmakers hearing from bill taylor george 10 -- george kent on c-span3, c-span.org or the app. on friday at 11:00 eastern on c-span2, the website, and the app you will hear from the former u.s. ambassador to ukraine. coalitiont, e.r.a. president and ceo points us to talk about rights to -- to

ratify the equal rights amendment. adam gillett will be here to talk about the organization's mission to focus on investigative journalism. ♪ look at books being published this week. nikki haley chronicles her time serving the trump administration in her memoir "with all due respect." in "the plot to betray america," welcome argues that the trump administration has compromised national security. profiles four american diplomats who chose to serve in the middle east following 9/11. granted," gianna

argues that lawmakers have failed political commute -- urban communities and offers his thoughts on reform. also being published in "all hell breaking loose," michael examines climate change from the pentagon's perspective. clint emerson talks about his time as a navy seal in "the right kind of crazy." talks about how latino immigrants restored american cities after disinvestment and white flight. look for these titles in bookstores this coming week and watch for many of the authors on book tv on c-span2. networks lifean this week as the house intelligence committee holds the first public impeachment hearings. the committee led by chairman adam schiff will hear from three

state department officials starting wednesday at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span3. william taylor and deputy assistant secretary of state george 10 -- george kent will testify. eastern, at 11:00 a.m. the former u.s. ambassador to ukraine will appear before the committee. ahead of the hearings, read witness testimony from the deposition. find the transcripts at c-span.org/impeachment. washington journal continues. host: at our table, carol jenkins, copresident and ceo of the e.r.a. coalition. what is the equal rights amendment? thet: it is what should be 28th amendment to our constitution which simply says that the quality is for everyone -- equality is for everyone. you cannot discriminate paste on sex. a few words, that is it.

just a controversial, country should provide equal protections to all, and when the constitution was written, women were deliberately left out and we believe that because of that they have been paying for discrimination in terms of rights, protections, and recourse that they needed in the courts should anything happen to them. host: you said it should be the 20th amendment, why isn't it? guest: we have been working on this for 100 years, a century. first proposed by alice paul who gave us the women's vote and we are celebrating and so happy about. after she did that she thought there needed to be one more thing added, and that was to put this clause that said we cannot discriminate based on sex. you have been working on that for 100 years. congress passed it in 1972, quite a while ago.

and people have been working, and we needed to get 38 states. expired, wee limit only got to 35. miraculously, in recent days, in 2017, nevada ratified the e.r.a. and in 2018, illinois ratified the e.r.a. and all of us sitting in the office were like, what is going on? does that count. we were told by our legal scholars that it does count. we had such an extraordinary week last week. the election on tuesday in virginia, pro-e.r.a. legislators swept in, so we expect virginia to become the 38th state in january. this is taking up -- this has been taken up as soon as they are in session. tomorrow we have a markup of a removal of the time limit. a big week after 100 years of working for it. host: why do 38 states need to

ratify this? guest: it was stipulated that three third -- three fourths of congress and three fourths of states have to pass and ratify any amendment so that you will have achieved that -- we will have achieved that when january comes around and virginia legislators vote to ratify the e.r.a.. host: what happened after congress passed it in the initial weeks, and why was a deadline put on ratification by the states? guest: we think of it as a time limit, and it was really not in the amendment itself. new --aul, i am told, was very upset when she heard this because it would create the impression that there really was a deadline when in the preamble it only stated that there should happen within seven years when

it went out to the states that they should bring it back within seven years. it was nothing that the states themselves voted on so it is not a part of the amendment. it went out and it was this huge excitement in many states signed it right away. hawaii was the first. and then it began to stall. i think that it just took too long. it is hard to keep the attention on something even as important as equality for that period of time. between 1972 and 1984 when all of the time limit periods has expired, we only had 35 states, but then two more added recently, so we think that we are on the way. host: what about the public relations campaign against the amendment after the 35 states ratified. guest: sure. there was. he cannot be denied that there was a great deal of people saying we did not need it, that

it would cause harm to women. what we have discovered is that many of the arguments used were not valid then and are not valid now. it was also a big business protest, big businesses stood to lose money if they had to give women equal pay, providing quality to women in this country. it was an economic issue as well. toot we see is that after #me and all the progress that women made, can we truly say that we are not willing to give room -- women equal rights? i do not think we can do that. we can become the leader in the world in terms of recognizing that everyone deserves this fairness and justice. host: "the new york times" reports that a source of confusion is that legislators in kentucky,s, idaho,

nebraska, and tennessee, voted to rescind their ratification. west: our legal scholars, have some of the leading scholars in the country tell us that they cannot do it. of course, that does not mean that there will not be for future discussion in courts on that. but that successive states cannot undo what has been done. that seems to be the courts' thinking so far. we are pretty certain. we are also going for a full 50 state ratification, as soon this election took place on tuesday, we started concentrating on florida, arizona, north carolina, we are going for 50 states and we will have our 38 states. host: virginia likely becomes the 38th state. they voted on this before, did not pass and it only failed in one of vote. guest: it did not get out on committee by one vote.

if we had -- if it had gone out onto the floor, we would've had the 38th state january this year. -- and more moral pro-e.r.a. legislators makes all the difference. it was such a huge campaign. he advocates on the ground, our coalition members on the ground had postcards, texting, and phone banking because they understood what was happening. justnot -- it did not affect virginia, it would've -- it would affect women across the country. host: do your lawyers think that after virginia passes it that there are court challenges that hold it up? guest: we have word that there will be court challenges. whether or not it holds up is the question. we have a feeling that this will be discussed for some years to come and we will crack the full 100 year mark before it is done

and finished, and accepted. we are certain that we have the votes in the house, so when that goes and when speaker pelosi gives us a full floor vote, it will go through the time limit removal. in the senate, there is a bipartisan bill there. senator ben cardin and lease term -- lisa murkowski, miraculously working together two by two procedure so they will not add a republican until a democrat comes on. we are hoping that that bill will move forward. host: this would remove the deadline? guest: the time limit. republican,texas, a you are up first. caller: good morning. what you are doing, my wife has tried to apply for jobs, she has

a masters degree in investor management. in east texas if you are a woman in this area, men believe a woman's job is in the office only. i am fed up and tired of it because women are smart just like men, if not smarter in most cases. i think here in texas, when it comes to the forefront of what businesses are doing, i would like to see businesses have to open their books up and show who they are hiring as women in what positions and expose them for what they really are. guest: thank you. absolutelyy is essential in figuring out. if we say we will give you quality, even the good guys -- even if we will give you quality, even if good guys, they have been shocked to learn that they are not and had to spend millions of dollars making up the difference. it is a systemic belief that women are not as valuable as

men, and we think it comes from the lack of recognition in constitution. from that minute when women were deliberately left out, it set up a thinking system that somehow you could get away with paying women less than men and women did not need the money as much as amended to support their families, and that has lost -- lasted for far too long. thank you for your support. a republican from texas, it was great. host: we want to hear from others. .emocrats, 202-748-8000 republicans, 202-748-8001. independents, 202-748-8002. let me read this to you. "equality of rights should not be denied or abridged by the u.s. or any state on account of sex." how will these words impact

wife in texas's that they will be able to get a job just because this is added to the constitution. guest: because it is so simple. discrimination is illegal in the united states of america. we have never been free of discrimination because of that. you know that so many other people are left out of the constitution, is -- the disabled, gay, religious beliefs, you go on and on. that is why the constitution has been amended 27 times. we think what is the big deal? why has it taken a century to recognize women? as you stated, it refers in the first instance to the united states government and states. it is state action that will be affected. there will also be a two year waiting period for america to adjust to this equality, and

then i think what will happen is that the cultural impact of this will be tremendous. private companies will not be able to continue this discriminatory action, so i think that, while in the first instance it has to do with united states government and states, it will reverberate. host: what will companies have to do? will they have to show that they are penitent -- paying men and women equally? guest: i think we will get to that, because i think it is the only way. i was just hearing statistics yesterday about the extraordinary gap for women of color in the news industry or are being paid $50,000 less than their male colleagues doing exactly the same work. it was only when "the washington post" released its transparencies and looked at what they were paying people that they saw that there was this tremendous difference.

you might say, we would not look at them and say you are a racist and intended to discriminate, but that is really so much a part of the defense of it, did you intend to discriminate or did this just happen? and you will remember the walmart case where it was a class action suit where all of the women were being paid less than the men, but the courts decided that there was no intent to do that so the women had no recourse. amendmentual rights goes into effect they will have recourse in the constitution. host: what kind of court cases do you see coming due to this being ratified and put into the constitution? guest: i think there will be the effort to move to transparency, because that will cost some come trip -- companies millions or billions of dollars. were will be revisions where

are confident that they will take effect that those who have voted for the equal rights amendment, that that will stand. there will still be those who will seek to resolve that in court. host: we want to get your thoughts before the next call on this headline. amy klobuchar says that women with mayor pete buttigieg's record would not be allowed to be in these presidential debates. here's what she is arguing, that she said complaint against gender bias between voters and the media were given pete buttigieg more support and attention because he is a man. a woman with a similar resume would not be taken seriously not to make the debate stage. host: it is hard to argue that, but i will say that mayor pete's campaign was the first to reach out to the e.r.a. coalition presenting his women's agenda and supporting the e.r.a.. there is that, i totally

understand her point, there is not much argument against that. host: let us look at the map where the e.r.a. has been ratified. states in green have ratified the amendment. the ones in orange ratified and rescinded. the blue states have made no action or it did not pass in the states. notice go to james in washington, d.c., a republican. hello. caller: this is tommy, actually. there are a lot of studies that indicate that younger women meet the same pay as younger men in the same cohort, and women with similar levels of education eight the same levels of pay as men when you control for these factors. i remain unconvinced. furthermore, the women's movement and feminism has been in favor of helping the middle class. i do not see anything to the benefit of poor people. i know what you -- i know that

you want to think that you are but this does not help people of color or disabled people. guest: i understand that you may everything weon, know about women's pay in this country has women at a disadvantage. i would say that we need to boycott the equal pay days that we celebrate in the next year where a woman makes what a man-made the entire year before. that is usually april for all women and then later for black women and then latino women have not made what white men made in 2018. she does not celebrate that until november 20. that is what we are looking at and we are looking at the poverty. most of the poor people are women and their children because they do not make what men make. in terms of starting out in their careers, we are finding out is a syndrome called the broken ladder is that so early

they get knocked down, so it is not that they do not get the promotion trying to crack the glass ceiling, they get knocked down for that very first promotion, the very first pay increase that women are more than likely to be denied it, and therefore stalled in their careers. host: let us go to michael, new york. independent. caller: four observations. poor people that i have read the did not give -- -- four people that i've read about in the news did not give women what they deserve. sanders, hillary clinton, president obama and aoc. that the way i -- that is what i wanted to say. guest: i do not know on what

basis all of that. i understand that you are reacting to believing that they do not support women, i think bernie sanders the last time around was one of the first to support the equal rights amendment. and, i will just end with that. it is a little tough as they are in these campaigns to peel out a piece and say that they are not for supporting women because indeed, they are. host: try to give me a responses to the pushback that it will whereomen who -- regulations have been put in place, and workplace laws that help pregnant women. guest: we need more of them because most pregnant women are not given consideration. if a man hurts his back he is given consideration. a pregnant woman has had to fight for those rights, and it would support that. host: government programs that

support women as mothers, they say thatwith that program. guest: i don't think it will affect any of those programs. those are scare tactics. the only thing it will do is bring equality so that you cannot discriminate based on sex. host: social security benefits. guest: not true? host: why? researchat's what our determines. these are all the scare tactics. one of the biggest ones that was offered in the earlier fight the era wasight for the single-sex bathrooms and that would bring about the end of civilization. what is destroying our country is the lack of nullity for women. -- equality for women. host: this past week there was a hearing on the era.

ranking gop member mike johnson and his argument that era ratification could affect existing abortion laws. >> today the subcommittee holds yet another hearing on the era which will have to be passed by congress and the states under the constitution's super majority requirements. it should not become part of the constitution for a number of reasons including this one. amendment --n hide the supreme court upheld the .bortion fund as constitution the right to the unborn will be eliminated. provide the committee with its -- the pregnancy

classification and the hyde -- meaning if the era were to become part of our law restrictions on abortion would automatically be struck down. host: carol jenkins, your response. helpedthe era coalition the judiciary committee mound that hearing and we were very pleased that we got it. it was the first and 36 years. we need to -- we feel this is a distraction. that's what we need to focus on. host: ellen and silver spring, maryland.

democratic caller. caller: my opinion is and i've worked for unions before about equal rights. i knew i was making with the person next to me was making. scalead a structured pay and that's what you're on and i believe it would also solve problems with the way people are saying. immigrants are taking our jobs. if you have jobs where the pay and only the best person gets the job not by anything else than that's what's going to happen. the union has structure to it and you can get fired you get three no and you're out of there. so that's what i have to say.

you for that. wouldn't it just be wonderful if there were an amendment to the constitution where you didn't have to worry about that. i think that's what we are working for so that that would be open to everyone in this country. democratic caller in silver spring, maryland. c-span thanks a lot for and i just wanted to say that i think some of the data on this issue can cut both ways. certainly in aggregate you can find data support for the idea that women don't get paid enough. there certain instances in which i think there is parity. certainly in aggregate youthered it. there aren't as many women engineers as there are oil interests or teachers. it's hard to do all the normalization. i think what it comes to women's issues it would be nice to emphasize the group that needs to help the most which might be

single women. ways to use women to try and survive some of society's problems. he would have fewer mass shootings and to use it as an international strategy to educate women abroad. i think it will bring a lot of noble poverty down. host: any thoughts? guest: a novel approach. i don't have anything to say to that. offering that. it's absolutely the first time i've heard that. host: kurt in florida. publican. caller: good morning. i'm a retired space shuttle engineer 30 years with a big corporate company. finding equal pay or even finding out what your coworkers are making is a difficult subject. most large corporations have salary ranges for level one people, level two, level 3

people but you will never find out what any of those people make because few people want to discuss what they make because they feel they are working either harder or less hard than you and it causes a discrepancy. unions, the little i know about them they do have a structured scale of pay based on skill. i think in most jobs when you call three categories i guess skilled, semiskilled and i don't want to use unskilled but manual. when you ares skilled, they are well published. salary ranges and semiskilled is also mostly union representation i think anyway. the manual labor jobs, those are all -- i've never done them before except when i was a teenager. it's more or less you negotiate going in. which is true for a lot of jobs. you have to be negotiating your salary when you start and when you get your reviews and things

like that. the more skills you have the more you are able to move from job to job which will allow you to get negotiating power to raise your wage from job to job. well into theery six figures. she does her job. she's very good at it and it's recognized in a professional environment. the other environments are much more difficult because the jobs are temporary. the whole thing about being female or male or all the other categories. when you get into how well you do your job that is what shines versus your exterior appearance. host: carol jenkins. guest: so often how well someone is doing is a subjective determination as opposed to an objective one and what we find is that women are more unfairly judged in that category. there would really be no other explanation for it for the vast

differences. not talking in some cases about $5,000 people are talking about $30,000, 100 thousand dollars difference for the same work. evacuatedople being -- evaluated on different bases. that's the difficult thing that we are dealing with here. in the walmart case with betty dukes who died without getting recompense for having been cheated all those years. every manager in every walmart across the country had the same opinion about women and their performance. it had nothing to do with company intent. that's where we have major problems. an inthis is a text from alexandria. she says i spoke with the woman in the richmond area who was

anti-era. it came out that religion informed her opinion. she does not believe that women should be entitled to the same jobs that should be held i meant so she did not want female firefighters. this person writes, i was a tugboat or so i obviously disagree. good for you. iesco it's so hard. you can't argue with their religions and what they believe. they are entitled to those rights. said the a woman who only era she needed was the gun that she wore to work every day. was her opinion. we think everybody should come to this conclusion on their own. should we have a country that outlaws should or should we continue to discriminate? the constitution has been amended 27 times. why does this one having to do with women not discriminating

-- host: when do you think virginia will be the 38 state to ratify this? guest: we are told it may be one of the first orders of business. the session opens on january 8. very early on. host: to follow this debate you can go to era coalition.org. carol jenkins, copresident and ceo. thank you. we will take a break. we will talk to accuracy in media president adam guillette who discusses investigative journalism. we will be right back. ♪

>> campaign 2020. watch our live coverage of the presidential candidates on the campaign trail and make up your own mind. c-span's campaign 2020. your unfiltered view of politics. >> watch the c-span networks live this week at the house intelligence committee holds the first public impeachment hearings. the committee led by chairman adam schiff will hear from three department officials starting wednesday at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span3. top u.s. diplomat in ukraine william taylor and deputy .ssistant secretary of state former u.s. ambassador team brain marie yovanovitch will appear before the committee -- to ukraine marie yovanovitch

will appear before the committee. >> for 40 years c-span has been providing america unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court and public policy events from washington, d.c. and around the country so you can make up your own mind. created by cable in 1979. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. >> washington journal continues. ist: adam guillette president of accuracy in media. byst: it was founded in 1969 rita irvine. we used a great combination of citizen activism to create a

healthy skepticism toward the media. host: which type of media? guest: all media. these days we are expanding in other areas as well. host: who funds your organization? people who fund a lot of politically oriented charities. a great combination of individual donors of all dollar level. do you findny times inaccuracies in conservative media? guest: we don't as much go after conservative media because there's a lot of people already doing that as they should. inaccuracies anywhere should be exposed. we go after the ankle that isn't caught by other folks. your process for investigating inaccuracies? guest: we look at the areas in which we think there is greatest opportunity to educate people. if it is someone speaking in an

echo chamber that is less exciting than going after inaccurate media to an audience that could be persuaded. rather than going after cnn or msnbc which people would probably expect to be centerleft , rather than going after fox largely byis watched conservatives, i think it's important to go after now this and buzz feet. people subscribe on facebook because of upbeat videos. then they started putting out incredibly slanted content to an audience that wasn't even suspecting it and many of their viewers are younger. they signed up for puppy videos. didn't even have strong political leanings. now they get fat content that's host: whataccurate have you allegedly exposed in recent weeks? guest: our organization is launching tomorrow night with our 50th anniversary gala. we are going to bring back the

history of investigative journalism that our organization has. we will go after online media targets as well as some of the traditional mainstream media target. host: do you believe reasonably there is fake news? guest: of course there is fake news. that's the greatest threat to real journalism. people try to make the case that donald trump or anybody else attacking journalism as a threat to our democracy. fake news is the greatest threat to our democracy because it's a threat to real journalism. when it's not called out people don't know to trust. i think it's immature to call everything fake news when you don't like what they're saying. host: david lenhart wrote this about media bias. yes it's real. most mainstream journalists do lean left. the local reporters and

washington reporters are usually professional have to keep these views from affecting their coverage. instead they are more likely to suffer from both side is him. even when both sides story isn't the most accurate one. the coverage of hillary clinton's emails certainly did suffer from this bias. guest: it certainly did. the if that is something that had happened with the republican we never would have heard the end of it. cnn made a big deal of donald trump pouring too much fish food in a koi pond. again and again the media treats stories dramatically different from one side than they do the other. i appreciate when they acknowledge there is some bias. defines hard for them to what centerleft bias when so many of them live in a neck of chamber. it's hard for them to identify it.

host: we want to hear your thoughts on this as well. democrats (202) 748-8000. republicans (202) 748-8001. independents (202) 748-8002. conservative male bias is real, too. fox news and talk radio are huge influential parts of the media. readers with misleading or outright false information like her for some conspiracy theories. much of the media tries hard to and stories accurately correct itself when it airs. host: i think we are an environment where since the media augments -- audience is already so fragmented. since print and cliques are down these folks are forced on all ends to go after the audience they are seeking to appease and

create content that's going to be interesting to that audience whether or not they know it's journalistically true. i think it's a bigger issue to the left on the right because most of the media is dominated i the left rather than the right. they've been chasing endlessly for years the trump bump where there's a fervent audience of folks who want to read anti-trump stories about trump is going to be impeached and this is going to happen. they write these stories even though they know they are not accurate because that's what's going to sell. host: how do you fix that? guest: you expose it relentlessly again and again and again. not in facts and studies which are powerful but also with investigative journalism to show these people privately with private conversations of why they are creating stories that they are creating. once they have used investigative journalism to get people's attention that's when studies showing the facts and statistics related to media bias can be brought in.

host: you served as head of development for project veritas. will you have concealed cameras for accuracy in media? guest: we are going to be using investigative journalism to expose media bias in bringing the truth to the american people. host: terry in woodbridge. republican. host: terry in woodbridge. republican. guest: good morning. my concern is the way our country is going and i do believe in the free press. officesident has been an this is when i have really been paying attention because this is when i retired. wouldn't it be more accurate because you set a lot of people go on the internet and get their news and everything. but you would have to agree with me that more senior citizen vote in any other population. on social us are

security checks and stuff and we can't afford the internet and some of us like me don't even believe in it. i won't even touch it because it's too harmful to our country i believe. if we't it be effective showed the public exactly how they are and create a law about false media? i know we have to have free press but if they can prove that what they are saying is false and they won't retract the right to shouldn't there be a lot protect the citizens from getting misinformation when they are standing on the floor of capitol hill. guest: i don't want to see a law specifically saying your news is false and now we are going to have legal ramifications from it. that's a terrible slippery slope. we already have laws in place for libel and slander and defamation of character.

to be not only going exposing content from online news sources. i'm simply making the case that that's a particularly dangerous area where no one is currently active. lou, independent. i've been trying to call c-span so much that i don't even know where to start you i'm 87 years old and my first vote was for dwight eisenhower and i have almost a photographic memory so i know what's been going on for the last 60 years. and my question -- will first of all i want to ask greta and c-span what happened when brian lamb used to have christopher -- somebody sitting

on each side. i guess it's because the newspapers are gone now. host: when we would have people of different opinions sitting across from each other? we try to do that. people are not always game for that anymore. we like that format as well. caller: it's just a different world. being 87 world constantly changes and changes. i don't know what to say. i'm a donald trump supported. poor man canis stand it. he's trying so hard to be presidential and run the country. guest: you brought up a great point when you brought up dwight eisenhower. in his farewell address, everyone remembers his warning about the military-industrial complex. a lot of people overlook the warning he gave about the rise of a dangerous powerful technological elite who could

hijack our republic and control our elections without us even realizing it. that's what we are facing with google and facebook and the tremendous influence they have over our lives. facebook knows your political leanings so they can tell people to go vote only if they have the political leanings they want to advance. eisenhower was ahead of his time to recognize it and warned us about it. host: do you think it's ok for the president of the united states to tweet false news? guest: i don't think it's ok for anybody to tweet false news. host: david, republican. caller: i was a truck driver for 30 years and there's a lot of bias against truck drivers same with the airliners. back in 1988 they had a really bad accident where a drunk truck driver went across the median

and hit a bus head-on and they kept saying that. i got home that night and saw the newspaper says drunk truck driver hits bus head-on. looked at the picture and it was a guy in a pickup truck. but a lot of people got mad at truck drivers over that. people driving 18 wheelers. guest: the media has an incredibly powerful influence and it's for that reason they have a response delete to get stories right. we would never expect news getly -- a news outlet to 100% of stories right. what we are seeing as there are news outlets who are knowingly publishing false information merely because it will sell to their audience. that's wrong. lisa on twitter once to ask about the abc epstein coverage story.

guest: we never know what's going on behind closed doors in a newsroom. weconfirms the suspicions have that powerful people have a greater influence over the media behind closed doors than the rest of us do. how can journalism be speaking truth to power when they are being influenced by those powerful people. that's terrifying and that's a problem. host: david in grand rapids. independent. we have a news organization like fox news that refuses to report whole news. they refused to tell the truth in the sense that they always on what is true. fox news is really good at that. issue lately with the other

news organizations is why does everything seem to be breaking news. 24 hours a day. breaking news it's what's happening right now. withss i would like to end we know when it's fake news when what's happening in the world doesn't match what's happening with the news that we are getting. that's the measuring stick is real life. we know what's really happening. i also have to say don't get your news from the internet. enqueue. guest: in a 24-hour news cycle think desperately have to -- they created for themselves when they decided to publish news 24/7. host: in pennsylvania. democratic caller. areer: my family and i

astonished by the number and the range of the lies told by this president. we cannot understand why the media doesn't call him out, why we don't have fact checking daily especially after his rallies. we would like to see npr or c-span, pbs, someone have a regular fact checking program to point out the lies that are being told by the president. to fact you ever go check.org or political at? caller: i would like to see it broadcast out. there should be a program mandatory the day after each of his rallies with fact checking. guest: mandatory for whom? color coat by the free press pete mandatory is the wrong word ok. -- caller: by the free press. mandatory is the wrong word ok. that: wouldn't you agree nbc, cnn, the new york times call out trump on a daily basis?

caller: the new york times, the washington post, yes i hope so. msnbc is seen as biased. i may agree with what they put out treat that's a good point. they do put on both sides. guest: all right. host: john in orlando, florida. republican. guest: all right. caller: i listen to these people talking about the president's lies. it's despicable to think that they are so biased against this president and the lies that are being told as far as i've been following this since he was elected. the liberal media is the most despicable lying propaganda organizations i've ever seen. it's disrespectful to this country. president, talking about spin. nobody spends more than the liberal media.

it's dangerous and when the president calls them out and he defends himself from all the attacks you've got the liberal him as that's not presidential. let me tell you something. i'm a regular joe. if some but he called me and my family out the way the liberal left and the cnn and the rest of the news networks are doing, i would defend myself any which way i could. he's doing the best he can to defend himself from all these false accusations. it's sickening to me. glad toreat point and hear from a florida caller. i would say of course anybody in a position where they are being called out and treated that way that trump has been treated by the media on a daily basis, of course they are going to get morally outraged. and regardless of what a candidate you should always be against seeing in accurate treatment, biased media towards any candidate because if it can happen to somebody that you are opposed to it could just as easily happen to a candidate

that you like from other media outlets. we shouldn't allow ourselves to be caught in this tribal warfare where they are going after our guy. we should all be for accurate honest mainstream journalism. will you useiteria to determine that something is fake or accurate? most of the time it's pretty darn simple. one of the most famous examples of now this being inaccurate is when they reported that trump was alive after they pointed out -- trump pointed out that clinton signed nafta. many of us live through. clinton signed nafta. anybody with access to a history book called out now this to this but they still refused to correct the record. that goes to the point that media is going to make mistakes. that's fine. when you have a blatant falsehood and you are called out

even by left-wing media, you've got to collect -- correct the record. host: were they talking about a hillary clinton? guest: bill clinton. it's terrifying. host: in ohio. go ahead. caller: i am very concerned that we have a certain ethnic interest in this country who wants to shape the media only in their direction and i have a very problem with that as a christian person that we have a dominance in this country of certain people in new york city shading the media constantly in their directions. we as white christians do not get our voice heard in this media. it's always about what the new york jewish establishment wants. host: we are going to skip that. .ancy democratic caller. caller: thank you for shaping my call.

when i'm calling about, that guy from michigan was right on fact. let's start with kellyanne conway. used the term alternative facts which just about knocked him off his chair. alternative facts. and that what is mainstream media? let me finish, ma'am. news on the cable i have then your so-called left-wing stations. guest: i would define mainstream media as those outlets that get the most views. the new york times, the washington post. i think those are the most definitions of mainstream media simply because they have the largest audience. theoint as well is that

online news outlets like now this and buzz feet are incredibly dangerous because they are primarily viewed by young people and it's much easier to change the minds of an impressionable and 18-year-old than to change the mind of a 48-year-old so that makes them a much greater threat in my eyes. there's no denying that we should call out fake news when it happens but i'm most concerned when it's going after easily impressionable young people. caller?at about daily think daily caller is more opinion pieces so i don't think it's as likely to persuade in ae who are open-minded variety of topics and influence them in the manner that now this is. people going to daily caller are genuinely -- generally going to be center-right looking for opinion pieces. people following buzz feed on

facebook are doing so why there's a list of 14 reasons why d.c. is the greatest city in america, you want leave number seven. number seven.ve host: what about alternative facts? guest: any facts that are not in favor of me are obviously fake news. the reason you see trump go crazy about the media. the reason we hear about people saying alternative facts and things like that is because we are in a historically dangerous environment for press coverage. we are seeing incredibly biased media on all levels and there's no shock that there's some sort of response to it. the root problem is the bias in our media. columbia station, ohio. republican. caller: i want to make points on the fake news and just as bad if news ise as the fake

the admission that fake news like msnbc. i watch those channels and i am a conservative. slaughterede nine , i'm not counting the murders of illegals that got out of jails. most times it's illegals they kill. ms gangs like the cage pictures, those are from obama. . they are so far left and lost it. theyl a derangement and expose themselves at every topic. kentucky kept their mouth shut. everyone surrounded them and yelled at them and then weeks later they were getting sued and

it's still going on. guest: i love the point you brought up about the kids in cages on the border. kids in cages on the border, they were put there by trump we were told and then it turned out the photo was taken during the obama administration. people were outraged by they thought trump did. froms credit, george takei star trek shade those photos. --rybody pointed out to him i think more or less need to do in media.ccuracy

sharing fake news we can politely ask them to correct the record. host: charlie in florida. democratic caller. caller: good morning. 13,000 lives. 13,000 in three years. trump has made lying the coin of the realm in washington. guest: i appreciate your concerns on ethics. even when trump is head of office the next politician might die, too. politicians live. it's oftentimes a prerequisite for the job but the job journalists are supposed to do is call them out when they are

lying and report the news factually when instead they become activists on their own or when they publish lies simply because they know it will be appealing to their audience. that's wrong. host: adam guillette, president of accuracy in media. we come back, returned to our question about today's dhaka case. case.a we will be right back. >> watch the c-span networks live this week as the house thelligence committee holds first published impeachment hearings. top u.s. diplomat in ukraine william taylor and debbie

assistant secretary of state joe kent will testify. on friday at 11:00 a.m. eastern on c-span2, marie yovanovitch will appear before the committee. head of the hearings, read witness testimony from the deposition. find the transcripts at c-span.org/impeachment. here's a look at some books that are being published this week. former u.s. ambassador nikki haley chronicles her time serving in the trump administration in her memoir, with all due respect. in the plot to betray america, counterterrorism analyst malcolm nance argues the trump administration has compromised national security. profiles for american diplomats who chose to serve in the middle east following 9/11 in the ambassadors. and in taken for granted, gianna caldwell argues that lawmakers have failed urban communities

and offers his thoughts on how both political parties and citizens can work toward reform. week,eing published this the nation's michael claire examines climate change from the pentagon's perspective. clint emerson provides an account of his time as a navy account of his time as a navy seal in the right kind of crazy. and barrio america reports on -- latino immigrants restored neighborhoods after disinvestment and white flight. >> washington journal continues. host: inside the supreme court the nine justices in about 20 minutes will hear oral arguments for and against the deferred action childhood removal -- arrival program. will be oned daca

the docket. it's an 80 minute argument and we expect the justices will deliver their decision much later on in this supreme court term. todaye oral argument from will become available on friday and we will air it on 8:00 p.m. eastern time on c-span2. what is not? it was put in place on june 15, 2012. it affects certain people who came to the united states as children who meet several guidelines. they may request deferred action for two years. it does not provide lawful status. this is from the u.s. citizenship and immigration services. here's president obama talking about his decision to sign the executive order back in 2012.

immediately, the department of homeland security is taking steps to lift the shadow of deportation from these young people. months, next few 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. clear.e this is not amnesty. this is not immunity. this is not a pass to citizenship. it's not a permanent fix. this is a temporary stopgap measure that lets us focus our resources widely when giving a degree of relief and hope to talented, driven, patriotic young people. driven, patriotic young people. it is the right thing to do. host: attorney general jeff sessions announced the trump

administration would terminate taco. here's what he had to say. >> i'm here today to announce 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 legal status for recipients for a renewable two-year term, worker authorization and other benefits including participation in the social security program to 800,000 mostly adult illegal aliens. was implemented unilaterally to great controversy and legal concern after congress rejected legislative proposals to extend similar benefits on numerous occasions to this same group. in other words the executive branch deliberately sought 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. host: democratic caller. you are up first. caller: i'm all for it. i didn't even know that was under attack. it's a shame that the conservatives are always opposed to the so-called illegal alien thing. the biggest illegal in lands in this country where the puritans and the pilgrims. who processed them? the slaves that were brought here from africa. they were illegal and nobody processed them. let's look at it realistically. are probably more beneficial to society than some of the white anglo redneck conservatives that are opposed to it. that's my opinion.

thank you. host: mark in pennsylvania. republican. what's your opinion. i'm totally opposed to it. the way that law was written i'm glad you played what obama said. he said it's not to protect anybody that's done anything wrong or criminal. if you read the bill that he put all theyou will see exclusions for illegal behavior. you're allowed to qualify as long as you don't have a felony. you are allowed to qualify with multiple misdemeanors. if you can't speak english. if you've done this or that. once you've qualified and they haven't qualified you get exclusions. so why does the president lied to us saying it's only for these good people they parade around that they are college-educated and been in the military. why did they have to put all

those exclusions. i don't understand that. i could agree with the bill if it was just for these people who have done the right thing. there's no reason they shouldn't stay. but why should we allow criminals to stay here and give them a break? i don't understand that and i wish c-span would put that up on your screen. i don't think most people have read that bill and i think if they did they would change their tune about it. you areu sound like open to that. the president tweeted out, many of the people are far from angels. president obama said he had no legal right to sign ardor but he would anyway. adil will be made for them to stay. thate president believes if the supreme court says docket is illegal, he believes democrats come to the table with him and they can get a deal. are you open to the president

compromising? caller: there's tens of thousands of criminals. it and eliminate all these exclusions for people who have criminal behavior than i would be for it. if they've done the right thing, have a college education, been in the military. i think we all agree those people should be given a break. i know a lot of people that are first-generation immigrants that i would support being here. way they wrote that bill is so disingenuous. you really need to put those exclusions up to see how bad it was and how the president lied to us. i think people will change their tune and want it to be rewritten. caller: that's a republican in

pennsylvania. the migration policy institute says the total participants in the program is around 660,000. the estimate of those that meet the criteria to apply is more than that. say 1.3 million and they the program participation rate is around 54%. barbara. democratic caller. good morning. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. about theis is seventh time i put my call in pete this is the first time anybody ever picked it up beat i'm so happy. host: welcome. guest: -- caller: thank you. i want to say i'm so happy and c-span becauseve we have our senate and house of representatives for ourselves and we can see all the new people that are running for

office and be able to make our and we can see they are not all men anymore. the supreme court used to be called the nine old men. now they are wonderful nine people men and women. rule how do you hope they dr. -- on - on daca? caller: we wants the very young people that are going to come here and be citizens and not criminals but we don't know how to prevent the criminals from coming. so we will have to investigate that. host: according to u.s. citizenship and immigration services, the criteria for daca

's age 31 or younger pete came to the united states before their 16th birthday. continuously reside in the united states. physically present in the united states on june 15, 2012 and at the time of making their request. no lawful status on june 15 of 2012. currently in school. honorably discharged veterans of the armed forces. have not been convicted of a felony. significant misdemeanor. three or more other misdemeanors and do not pose a threat to national security. phyllis in kansas city. good morning. caller: hello greta. ca, iinion on dr. -- da don't think american taxpaying

people should have to pay for the illegal kids that came to our country. we paid for their medical, we pay for their education. we pay for everything and then what did they do for our american kids? nothing. host: ok. kathleen in oregon. republican. caller: hello. i want you to know that a matter what i think, the dock at case -- daca case is just amazing. it should be that these children who have been here more than 12 years or more than 20 years should have a pathway to citizenship. i believe that with all my heart. that's all i have to say. thank you. host: you will be able to listen to the moral arguments -- oral

arguments of this case today on c-span2. duty in ohio. independent color. caller: thank you for taking my call. i'm against anything that obama passed. schiff shouldand all be out of the office. thank goodness and i support what the president only and i think that legal people should receive benefits in this country. those people wait and come in and are responsible and follow the rules and the law and become an american. they are glad to be an american. i don't think any of these illegals deserve any benefits unless they come in the legal way. are going to hear from the minority leader chuck schumer and the speaker of the house when they hold a press

conference later this afternoon. the president might talk about this case as well. coverage of that on our website. jack in newark, delaware. independent. good morning pete caller: good morning. listening to these calls, there are so many products i could make. c-span. i've been a c-span listener almost all my life. air andu've been on the i love the fact that you give voice to everybody in the country which brings me to one of my points. low information voters are killing us. like policy, everything daca, people call in with their opinions and go and vote and

they don't know anything at all about the details of anything. you had a color about 50 minutes ago who said i didn't even know daca was under attack. how can you not know that at this stage of the game? been an esl teacher, a volunteer esl teacher for 20 years so i know a lot about legal and illegal immigration. interested in this when i grew up in southern california and met many illegal aliens when i worked in the restaurant business. and they'll pay taxes. ae lady that you just had on couple of colors ago that said we don't want to pay for these kids when they get sick and blah blah blah. and their parents bring them here at their parents have jobs and they pay taxes. every statistic that's come out of our government shows there is a net plus to immigration and

that's just all there is to it and i could go on for an hour but i will stop right now. susan in louisville. caller: this is a very -- piece of information close to my heart. my daughter has made two illegal aliens. i've got grandchildren by illegal aliens. and both of these people were brought into the country as infants. they didn't have a choice coming into this country knowing they were going to have to fight for their citizenship the way that they have to. werehen daca came up, they thrilled. because that gave them the right abilityle to have the withter their country

these and grace that they deserved. were a couple callers that made comments that they didn't theset daca because people were illegal aliens. they didn't deserve anything. said, this last caller their parents came into this country paying taxes. these people that i have as husbands and ex-husbands of my daughter, they own their own businesses. they pay taxes. and it's not right for these people to judge daca people thinking they know everything they have to know. children -- daca children have been working hard. yes there are some bad apples. but in anything in this country

that we have, there are some bad apples. you cannot sift out the bad apples. eventually the bad apples will be sent back to the country they came from. needeople in this country to understand that if they want then trump or another president needs to put through what obama started and try to create and make it better. you want congress to act. caller: yes. host: independent. caller: i would like to make two quick points. i have been trying to call in for a while about this point. president i would open complete borders up from canada all the way to the tip of south america. there's plenty of labor that would help us against china. that's just what i've been thinking about.

plus also you may help me with this. the nobel prize winner for it atics, i didn't know the time i thought about this but she kind of supports my idea about how every thing about immigration and everything is misrepresented. what i've been trying to call in lately is that we need to stop cursing on the air, saying stuff like terrorists and liberals and conservatives. i think all that needs to be bleeped out because it doesn't mean anything in the world. host: i will leave it there so we can get in some other voices. nelson in st. louis. republican. i'm on the democrat line. dacadent obama signed into law 2012. the republicans have demonized democrats so bad. actually orrin hatch, a

republican from utah introduced the first bill back in 2001. and lindsey graham and dick durbin also had legislation introduced in 2017. so i think a lot of people just hate the idea of daca because they think it is something president obama created. because a lot of republicans believe and republicans tell them that democrats are people and they are not american. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute,

which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> watch the c-span networks live this week as the house intelligence committee holds the first public impeachment hearings. the committee led by adam schiff will hear from three state department official starting wednesday at 10:00 eastern on c-span three. top u.s. diplomat in ukraine, william taylor, and george kent will testify. on friday at 11:00 a.m. eastern on c-span2, marie yovanovitch will appear before the committee. ahead of the hearings, read witness testimony from the deposition, find transcripts at c-span.org/impeachment.

>> in 30 minutes, senator jost speak.- josh howley will later this afternoon, the u.s. house returns for work on veterans issues. and the democratic leaders in the house and senate will hold a aca, which is being argued in the supreme court today. attorneys hear from in the case as they exit the court. the program allowed immigrants brought to the u.s. illegally as children to apply for protection from deportation. the case should be getting into weight right about this time. we will have our cameras just