>> today, the house rules committee decides parameters for the impeachment debate on the house floor. watch our live coverage of house rules at 11:00 a.m. eastern on c-span three. then on wednesday, the house is expected to vote on the two articles of impeachment against president trump. watch our live, unfiltered coverage of the impeachment debate on c-span3, online at www.c-span.org/impeachment or listen live on the free c-span radio app. minutes, up in 45 bipartisan policy center discusses the $1.37 trillion government spending deal that would be voted on in congress this week to avoid a government shutdown.

a.m., the fulcrum editor and she previews this week's house debate and vote ant articles against president trump. ♪ host: good morning on this tuesday. we are one day away from the house voting to impeach president trump and it is looking like a vote -- the vote will be a partisan one with democrats expected to approve the charges while republicans are standing by the president. we will divide the lines differently. if you are a democrat who imposes impeachment, your line is 202-748-8000. if you are a republican who supports impeaching president trump, 202-748-8001. if you are unsure, your line is 202-748-8002.

you can text us your ideas with your first name, city, and state at 202-748-8003 or go to twitter at @cspanwj and facebook.com/cspan. start dialing in. if you are a democrat who imposes this idea of impeachment, you have your own line. take a look at the national papers this morning, the headlines in the washington post, democrats in center fall in line on impeachment and you have the wall street journal, more on the fence democrats back impeachment, that is the wall street journal. the front page of the new york times with a similar headline, key moderate deadlines commit to impeachment. here is what the speaker of the house told reporters when they were asked if she had a message for moderate democrats on supporting impeachment.

host: no message --[video clip] >> no message to them. people have to come to their own conclusions, they have seen the facts as directed. they have seen the constitution as they know it. if they see the constitutional -- i don't say anything. host: in a recent interview with msnbc, chris murphy talked about the potential of republicans supporting impeachment in the senate. here is what he had to say. have you spoken to a single republican colleague who has considered voting for impeachment? >> yes. >> would you like to name him? >> no. >> how many? >> it is a small list. i don't buy this secret ballot thing. >> you think at the maximum

right now, given what we currently know, may be 5 republicans who might vote to remove the president? >> at max. host: that was chris murphy, a democrat talking about there two thirds,it takes -- there are senators running ads supporting the idea of supporting -- impeaching the president, republicans for the rule of law. nixon obstructed congress, republicans in his own party stood up to him. thef we refuse to recommend president should be impeached because of his defiance of congress, future respondents will be in a position where they can determine what they will provide in impeachment inquiries what they are not going to provide. >> there is no valid claim to

ignore our subpoenas. if we do not pass this article today, the impeachment power becomes meaningless. president trump refuses to comply with congressional subpoenas. republican group advocating for impeachment of the president. if you are a republican who agrees and you support impeachment, your line is 202-748-8001. if you are a democrat who opposes impeaching president trump, 202-748-8000. if you are unsure, 202-748-8002. againste ads being run those 31 democrats in the house who won in trump districts in against one of them is

joe cunningham, democrat of south carolina. for the president to withhold and to curry political personal favor that would help reelection at the expense of america, i find that is something all of us must stand against him arguing it would be just as troubling if a democrat had done the same. he will be voting to impeach the president. take a look at the pressure he is receiving in his district, this ad being run against him. [video clip] >> this is about preventing a potentially devastating outcome. >> there impeachment is a politically motivated charade. instead of working to secure our border, fix health care, and past a trade deal with our neighbors, he supported the party can -- partisan impeachment, tell congressman cunningham let the voters decide elections, vote no on

impeachment and get to work. host: joe cunningham, an add against him and his district. the wall street journal reports there are 31 districts that trump won in 2016 that flipped to a democrat representing them in 2018 and they say 17 of them are on the record saying tomorrow when the house votes, they plan to vote for impeaching the president. 2 have already said they will not vote to impeach him and that is collin peterson and congress men van drew saying he will become a republican. if you are a democrat and you also -- oppose impeaching the president, 202-748-8000. over in the senate, the senators as chris murphy was talking about that folks are watching see if they could vote to impeach the president, susan

collins of maine, lisa murkowski of alaska, lamar alexander, cory gardner, lamar alexander is retiring. and gardner, mike in c, pack robert -- pat roberts. they could vote to impeach the president. -- in woodstock connecticut woodstock, connecticut, you are unsure and tell us why. caller: because you haven't the witnesses? host: what witnesses do you want to hear from? caller: i think they should have done more investigation and they should have gotten subpoenas. i am unsure if i will stay a

democrat. obvious thisit is country and these two parties cannot get together on anything. change theis time to government and i would urge deople to check into #unrigge with robert david steele. host: in california, a democrat who opposes impeachment, you are next. caller: hello? host: good morning. why do you oppose impeachment? the, california, i oppose for the simple reason president trump has turned the economy around and he has done a lot of things to keep the illegal immigrants out and even though i am a democrat, i don't think we should have illegal immigrants coming in. to get the been able

american people in a positive mood. in brooklyn, you support impeachment. as a republican, why? .teve, good morning in brooklyn one last call for steve in brooklyn, republicans supporting impeachment. let me go on to tim. tim in pennsylvania, you are on the air. you are a democrat and you oppose impeaching the president. caller: yes, i do. host: tell us why. caller: i think a lot of the democrats are coming up with stories and making up stories like adam schiff and nancy pelosi. i don't think they are telling

us the truth and to be honest , i don't think either one, democrat or republican, is telling the american people the truth about everything. adam schiff and nancy pelosi more than anything. host: in the new york times and a couple of the other papers as well, they have a story about a -- in a towncrat hall meeting she held in her state that became quite a ruckus with those who support impeachment and those who do not, she held a town hall meeting after writing an opinion piece in the detroit free press outlining her argument for why she decided to vote to impeach the president. here she is at the town hall making her argument. [video clip]

>> some peers had been talking about impeachment since the day they were sworn in and it picked up when the million -- mueller report came out. . did not support impeachment it is not that i was proud of what i read in that report, it is that i felt like it did not meet the threshold for impeachable offenses. it was also retrospective, looking backwards at 2016 and i thought the best thing to do was to look forward to 2020 and if people did not like with the president was doing, they should vote that way. that changed with the events surrounding the ukraine situation. for the very basic reason that the president of the united states reached out to a foreign leader and asked him for help and a political investigation on arrival. he asked a foreigner for help for foreign political gain, not

that, for me, was different. and a citizener and an elected leader, that felt different. i came out at the time with 6 of my colleagues with military or intelligence background and supported an inquiry. we withheld -- we have held five town halls since then, so i made an effort to explain to people, be in front of people and received thousands of calls and emails and letters on both sides of the issue. i took a breath this past weekend to really reflect on everything that came out of the hearing, everything that came out of testimony and to go back to historical documents on which this concept of impeachment comes from. that was what i was trained to do as a cia officer. i made this decision late

yesterday and that is how we got from their to hear. -- there to here. -- alisa slotkin -- how she came to decide, she is now going to support impeachment. we are asking if you are a democrat who opposes impeachment to dial in at 202-748-8000. if you are a republican who supports impeachment, 202-748-8001. if you are unsure, 202-748-8002. judy is unsure in baltimore. good morning to you. caller: i think nancy pelosi should be fired for not adding more to his impeachment because she should have put the emoluments clause, bribery, and i will never vote for her again, she is a weak leader. believe that?

believe she could add more to it. host: susan in wyoming, you oppose impeaching the president, did you vote for him? caller: yes. host: why you oppose? caller: because there is no case. it is so ridiculous. i went through all 3 going back had aon until trump and i question. where did you get the list that i kinsley might support -- mike in might support impeachment? that is so fake news, that is amazing. discredited your whole -- i am amazed. -- mike inenslaved

slee hears that list. host: have you heard him say he is opposed? caller: of course. do you not know what wyoming is? host: explain. been oure has representative for years, he would never turn on his constituents like you do. that is a lie, and absolute live. host: okay. this is a story from cnn politics and i believe the list well, thismsnbc as they could bed they are looking at mike to support a different parameter for the impeachment trial, not

necessarily going to vote for impeachment. perhaps agree with the democrats about witnesses, etc. more on that to come. larry in georgia, you are unsure, go ahead. caller: good morning, greta. what thenderstand american people do not understand about law & order. the reason i am on share -- unsure is president trump's witnesses should testify. i am a security officer, a 69-year-old man. anytime you have anybody that subpoena in my a courtroom, they will go to jail. when the person called in about --sident obama and said

unemployment was so low, president obama -- republicans, democrats, and independents that stood behind him in 2009 when people were jumping out of the plate -- at he put a system in place to bring back the economy and i am a strong, democratic person also. millions and millions of us, especially republicans were the main ones to put president obama in a chair. it doesn't matter if it was a four-year-old baby, our economy would still be growing and the impeachment itself, i am uninsured -- unsure because i have got to hear president trump -- witnesses they have tried to subpoena and i will make my decision.

until that time, there is no law & order until the people with president trump, the one they have called to subpoena, it is time to deny you will go to jail. host: let me clarify for the caller about republicans that people are watching. according to cnn, 4 of them -- -- worriedoncerns a some could break and vote with democrats on trial related issues. if 4 of them were to buck calls, it could up in the process and create wild uncertainty mitch mcconnell has been carefully coordinating to avoid in ongoing talks with white house officials. the group includes moderate up for reelection like susan , seasoned maine veterans like senator lamar alexander of tennessee who are retiring and may not feel

politically bound to support the president and outright critics like senator mitt romney of utah who challenged his unorthodox presidency. the group is not big enough to threaten trump's presidency. there would have to be 20 republicans break to provide the 67 votes needed to remove him from office. if enough peel off, they could provide it democrats the 51 votes for key wins such as to compel witnesses and push through other motions democrats may seek. he is also working to avoid surprises like that. in addition to susan collins, .he list includes cory gardner both need to balance appealing to independent voters without angering trump supporters, who they cannot win without. there are concerns about pat roberts of kansas and mike of wyoming, both of whom are retiring committee chairman from

the establishment wing of their party with rank and influence. senator releasing the -- kavanaugh.nst brett that is where the list comes from. concerns some of these republicans may break with the gop on parameters for the outline, how the senate trial will work. opposen new york, you impeachment. go ahead. c-span let me say creates a plethora of news that hates trump. this is not fair and balanced. before we impeach trump, we should investigate biden. it is on record, on video, which

we have seen and that was a true quid pro quo for his son, that is something he did personally where he told the president of ukraine you have 6 hours to fire the prosecutor, you are not going to get that $1 billion. host: how did that benefit his son? investigating some irregularities why he got that money -- host: the former vice president along with other international organizations wanted the prosecutor fired because he wasn't investigating corruption, he wasn't doing enough to look into the energy company hunter biden sat on. it would have done the opposite. he would have put more eyes on the energy company and hunter biden. caller: probably. they should investigate that.

he threatened somebody using his office to withhold our tax dollars for his son who was being prosecuted. is hypocritical, it is a kangaroo court. larrylet's go to harry -- in new york. caller: how are you doing? host: doing well. me, i: if you may allow have to respond to the caller that just called, the -- something about joe biden's son. if you are going to speak on issues, you can -- you should on theith authority knowledge of the issues. to him,u for responding joe biden was not doing anything .llegal

i am a republican -- gave the president of ukraine -- that is the only legal chance he has. the money, he doesn't have any reason to hold the money, he could never hold that money back. the money was released because he has no right to hold the money, that is number one. two, he wanted the ukrainians to announce the investigation because that is the same playbook james comey had with hillary. in ans that works election. james comey made an announcement he is investigating hillary even a investigation was never done. he wanted to have the

investigation announced about joe biden regardless of if the investigation was going to be done or not. to we really want to talk about jared kushner and a ivanka trump? what qualifications does she sits in the president posture chair in front of world leaders and has a discussion? you don't pass it down to your kids, we don't do that in america. texas.ndrew in caller: this is andrew. host: you are a democrat and you oppose impeaching president trump. caller: yes. host: okay, go ahead. have only voted as far

as democrat, this is deeply disturbing. to be a democrat, i feel this makes us look terrible, what has been happening. texas.ndrew in gary is on shore in florida. caller: yes. i am a republican who opposes the impeachment hoax. host: ok. caller: the reason i am against it is because this goes way back -- late 80's, early 90's when trump wanted to build on the west side of new york. i think because trump had gotten the majority vote on that and

was unable to build on the west side of new york, that this is a personal thing between trump and nadler. host: i am going to ask you and others to play along with how we have divided the lines. if you are unsure about impeachment, you are supposed to call on this line. if you are a democrat who opposes impeachment, 202-748-8000. if you are a republican who supports it, 202-748-8001. if you are unsure, 202-748-8002. take a look at the recent polls that have come out on impeachment. the washington on their front page featuring a poll that found -- oppose 51% of impeachment and removal of the president and 45% say mr. trump be ousted. abc and the washington post this morning released a poll that

shows 7 in 10 americans say president trump should allow his top aides to testify and 49% of americans say president trump should be removed from office while 46% oppose the move. 55% say president trump was treated fairly in the house impeachment hearings and 62% expecting to get a fair trial in the senate. that also from the abc washington post. 49 percent think president trump improperly pressured ukraine to investigate the bidens. let's go to greg in texas. caller: yes. thank you for having me on c-span. voice their opinion regardless of what group they are in.

trump beingabout impeached because he is really not doing anything president hadn't tried to do for this country, he is just coming in and taking credit. i like what we are doing, but these people threatening people in this country for donald trump being impeached, that they are going to declare a civil war. and black folks, listen, pay attention, these people are for real. listen to what these people are saying on tiktok. if he gets impeached, they are going to have a civil war in this country. . tom sitting listening, go tiktok, these channels, people are threatening this, if donald

trump does not get in office, it is going to be a civil war. delaware, opposes impeachment, good morning. caller: i am a tea party democrat in lewis, delaware. i just wanted to give a quick bit of advice, whenever somebody says according to cnn, pretty much you can tune out whatever comes after that. as to the topic, i am very worried and the president is correct that the process is being diluted. what i am afraid of is this is going to be a standard operating procedure whenever there is an opposing party in the house of representatives and this will happen again and the shoe will be on the other foot. congress basically has two major

1 tos, the strongest 1, declare war and the other is to impeach the president of the united states and if you dilute it, it becomes a joke. it is the only recourse we have, a legal recourse or civil recourse to remove the executive. if that is no longer available callerress, your last kind of touched on the only other alternative and this is only to be used to remove a tyrant and for anybody who doesn't know what a tyrant is, they may want to read the declaration of independence, it means all the things george the third did, that is the definition of a tyrant. in closing, i want to summarize that the third time the boy cried wolf, the woodsman did not come. merry christmas, everyone. host: front page of the new york

times, the headline, giuliani admits he told the president waye yovanovitch was in the of investigations into the bidens and other investigations and that is why she needed to be removed, that is an interview he did with the new york times, you probably saw it yesterday as well, the president during an event with governors defended rudy giuliani's recent trip to ukraine and here is what he had to say. [video clip] >> how much has giuliani shared with you about his trip to ukraine? >> not much, but he is probably the greatest crimefighter over the last 50 years, he is a great person who loves our country and he does this out of love, he sees what goes on and what is happening, he sees the hoax that happens when they talk about

impeachment hoax or the russian collusion delusion and he sees it and he is a great gentleman, the greatest mayor in the history of new york and probably the greatest crimefighter in 50 years, he knows what he is doing. host: rudy giuliani went on a fact-finding trip to ukraine, he came back and did some interviews yesterday where he admitted he told the president go.e yovanovitch needed to the impeachment process gets underway this morning at 11:00 a.m. the house rules committee will parameter athe 11:00 a.m. and this is expected to be a marathon session. it could go until midnight. c-span 3 will have live coverage as well as our website and if you download the radio app, you can listen along. also happening in washington

will beichael horowitz testifying, the justice department inspector general will be testifying before the senate homeland security at 11:00 a.m. eastern time, the washington times this morning features a peace -- a piece about christopher steele's response to the doj, the ig's report. christopher steele is responding to the inspector general report. steeleaying this, mr. did address his own work on a single issue, and the dossier, page met with the head of the giant energy firm and they discussed a bribe in exchange for ending economy sanctions. mr. page denied meeting him. mr. steele argued he confirmed

this in his 2017 testimony before the house permanent select committee on intelligence, here is what mr. said, an old friend from met tocow days and he watch a soccer match at a bar. he had become director of investor relations. mr. page testified they may have talked about sanctions since the issue was in the news. i can tell you for sure i have never had any discussions with him about changing any sanctions i couldr things that conceivably do in that regard. discussedey may have the private sale because it was in the news and he said he had no financial interest.

he was exonerated by the mueller report. it does not appear he has given on the news records since his identity was revealed. his views have come through on synthetic books and articles. his only on the record remark came into libel lawsuits in florida and london. this could come up at today's hearing with michael horowitz. the response from christopher steele. if you want to read more of that because i know many of you are interested, you can find it in the washington. patricia in georgia, you are unsure, go ahead. caller: i am a health care worker. i have been working in the .ealth care field for 50 years the more of a socialist and

party appeals to me because for some reason, they don't care about the american people. how we arecare about living at all and we need a change. i am a bernie sanders fan and we need a change in america, a big change. host: sean in georgia, republican who supports impeachment, go ahead. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call. i try to give president trump the benefit of the doubt this last election, but it becomes apparent he has no moral compass of how to lead a country. the fact that you have mayor giuliani running around different countries trying to

you exactlytells why i support impeachment, the republicans, i watch every hearing, they have not produced one document to give to congress. not only that, everything trump has been a lie -- he promised all that money, he reneged on that. he demanded a muslim ban for certain countries on people entering -- look at the charlottesville issue, all these things are not presidential. he is actually lying. if you have nothing to hide, then you have people to testify to hide, -- this

is america, democracy, you cannot have a guy running a country like this. this is a sham. host: we will get in john in kentucky who is unsure. what do you think. ? john, go ahead. unsure?you you are breaking up, apologies, cannot hear you. democrat opposed to impeachment. i opposees, -- i lost my train of concentration. host: we will go to john in west virginia, also a democrat who opposes impeachment.

caller: yes. thank you for taking my call. these democrats have been fighting him from day 1. host: you have to turn down the tv, please listen and talk through your phone. are you still there? caller: thank you for taking the -- it showed democrats put false information out with that steele dossier. 17 things they have done wrong in order to investigate him. i believe he ran saying i am fight corruption -- the

bidens have taken big money from ukraine, that is taxpayer dollars they are stealing from the taxpayer. host: when did they steal dollars from ukraine? it is widely known that politicians get rich once they get in office. host: okay. the elaborate tony and tweets -- says i would rather see thousands impeached rather than one republican turned into a dictator -- dictatorship. linda sends us a facebook message saying i think people are beginning to see impeachment is a ploy to damage trump and influence the 2020 election. joshua in maryland, you are

unsure, why? caller: thank you for taking my call. unsure about the basis for impeachment or even the potential success for impeachment, i would honestly like to see more information as includeemocrats did not violations of the emoluments clause in the charges and what the republican-sided support for the presidency and the white house counsel providing guidance to have witnesses not testify. those seem like larger violations and larger high crimes and misdemeanors than the current charges involved in impeachment. i would take any information anybody had to provide off the air. host: milt, good morning. caller: yes. sometime back, i called when you

on professor laurence tribe and he was saying the time would come when impeachment was a valid option. i disagreed on the basis that -- and i still do, on the basis ist if president trump impeached and convicted and removed, then vice president president, become serve out the remainder of that term and he would have a leg up on the following election .ecause he is an incumbent that would really give republicans an advantage to continue republican administration. i think there are probably many grounds for impeaching president

trump, who has done much damage to this country, much damage to the constitution and our institutions. i think a long, drawn out impeachment inquiry would be detrimental to the democrats and it turns out that is exactly what is happening, people are getting tired of it, they don't want to hear it anymore. i thought the best thing to do was leave the impeachment alone, him in thend remove election of 2020. hisi think this is to benefit and i think this gives him an advantage in the 2020 election. people are beginning to feel .ore sympathetic toward him

i just felt we should have not impeached. we should have waited and taken -- let the 2020 election taken care of it and removed him if we could. host: milt in florida, thanks for the call. up next, we will turn our attention to the spending agreement -- the government spending agreement. we are going to talk to william hoagland about it and later, the fulcrum editor in chief david s.wking's we will be right back. ♪

beenr 40 years, c-span has 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 is brought to you by your cable or satellite provider. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. rulesay, the house committee decides parameters for the impeachment debate on the house floor. watch our live coverage for house rules at 11:00 a.m. eastern on c-span 3 and on

wednesday, the house is expected to vote on the two articles of impeachment. watch our live, unfiltered coverage on c-span 3, c-span.org /impeachment, or listen on the c-span radio app. >> "washington journal" mugs are see all of the. "washington journal" continues. with senior vice president the bipartisan policy center thisto walk us through spending package that house democrats and republicans in the senate have negotiated. what you have is a package of a bunch of spending bills with a grand total of 1.4 trillion

dollars, how does this compare to previous deals? about $50 billion more than what we spent in the previous fiscal year, about a $50 billion increase, 12 appropriations bills. it is two bills, they did not want to put all 12 bills on the desk of the president, so they have broken it into numeral two bills. they are reporting 2 bills. it is all the funding for the federal government through the end of next year at $1.375 trillion. host: why is it $50 billion more? caller: guest: -- studies of guns, which for 25 years we have not had the

authority to look at the statistics related to guns. a number of provisions increasing national institutes of health by $2 billion. increaseases -- 3.1% in salaries for employees and also money for the president's wall. about $1.4 billion. host: it is two packages. 4 bills,ge contains including the defense homeland security commerce, giant -- commerce, science, the other holds 8 bills to fund agriculture, labor, health and human services, education, energy, interior, veterans ,ffairs as well as the epa congressional operations and water project. guest: it is all the government.

is $1.4 trillion, that is only about 30% of all government spending. suchther 70% is in programs as medicare, medicaid, social security. safety net programs, food stamps, child nutrition. it only represents 30% of government spending. host: this is what congress has the discretion to spend, they have discretionary powers on this type of federal government. guest: correct. whether they want to spend money on a wall or not. that is all discretionary on the part of the government, congress to spend money. the other 70% excluding interest is mandatory.

some people call them entitlement programs. they are automatic spending because if you are age 65, you qualify, you get the benefits. it does not require the appropriation process to do that. what does this mean for debt --host: what does this mean for debt and deficit? this is another concern i have about this bill. while the discretionary portion is $50 billion more than it was last year for these programs, this bill has a number of what we call ornaments that have been hung on the tree this holiday season related to eliminating the tax on medical devices, eliminating the tax on health insurance, illuminating what we call the cadillac tax and

expiring some of the tax provisions and all of that adds up to close to $500 billion additional on top of this spending package. therefore, what i am concerned about is we are already running deficits of close to a trillion dollars annually and it is projected to grow out. this is the time the economy is growing out. it is those mandatory programs driven by demographics that are going to continue to increase the deficit going forward to a level we have not seen historically. host: if you have questions about the debt and the deficit -- the president could sign this into law. republicans, 202-748-8001.

democrats, 202-748-8000. independents, your line, 202-748-8002. remember, you can also text us with your first name, city, and .tate with 202-748-8003 what -- what in this bill do you find surprising that they would agree to? guest: it is a compromise and at this stage of the exercise, the government will likely shut down if they do not pass these bills. has anything surprised me? not really. what surprises me a little bit money president will get for his wall, but more importantly, there was language the democrats wanted to have to say he could not do what he did,

toch is to transfer money add to the fund. he wanted $8 billion, he got one to allow himllion to transfer money out of other military account the wall. that was language restricted him and that was removed from this bill. that one surprised me a little bit that congress is giving up a little of their authority under the power of the purse to let the president make these transfers. host: there is a court case related to that provision making its way through the court system. -- immigrations and customs enforcement are flatlined. you are up first, good morning.

good morning. i amnow the main reason calling. what i need by that is having resolution for bidding to supply the united states of america with anymore uranium. our uranium -- host: we will go to christian next, woodbridge, connecticut. .aller: yes, hello a fascinating topic and thank

you for letting me have the opportunity to talk to the guest. i was wondering if the guest was aware the federal reserve has started quantitative easing 4. there has been a liquidity injection into the markets. the fed is about to become the biggest buyer of u.s. treasuries which means the federal reserve find iting money and i is quite remarkable considering we are supposed to be in the greatest economy ever that we are running trillion dollar deficits and that the fed is once again expanding its balance sheet, bailing out stocks, bonds, buying treasuries, allowing the government to keep things borrowed at a low interest rate through printed money, which could later lead to the depreciation -- the dollar has been depreciating forever, but a further devaluation of the dollar. i really hope you could address

a couple of those points i made and talk about whether you think that is right or wrong. i think monetization of the debt is something banana republics do. understand this is happening and largely has to do with an issue calling repose that come at this time of the year as banks needed the liquidity and this is a process the federal reserve is injecting that liquidity back in the market. it is somewhat of a temporary -- chairman powell has addressed this issue in his latest press report last week. i will say i agree with you totally. my biggest concern as one who still believes deficits matter is the accumulation of this level of debt going forward. at some point, it will have to be paid back. seele right now -- when you the polls, you find out less

than 2% of the american public think the debt matters. that is understandable, but this level of debt has the impact of putting the burden on our children, grandchildren in the future and you have to monetize it and possibly increase interest rates. i think there is danger and i agree we have concerns not being addressed right now in this current fiscal situation. host: also included in the spending bill, the government deal to agreement is a do away with three health care taxes that were intended to help pay for the affordable care act, tax.ding the cadillac provisions to shore up or a time to benefits for tens of as wells of coal miners

as a 7 year extension of export -import banks, flood insurance extended through september 30 and the rural schools program would be extended for 2 years. is a patient center outreach program for another 10 years also. there are a number of provisions that are not related that have been added at the last minute. host: tracy in maryland. caller: please don't cut me off. i am a teacher in my 50's, so i can remember reagan coming out on the tv and telling the needed toeople we face up to our deficit and i like that. i can remember clinton having a surplus. we area surplus and now so far in debt, i am so upset about the deficit, to not

understand why any of the reporters will not confront trump and tell him we are in a booming economy, why doesn't he confront the deficit? i can remember before he went into office, obama had a $3.4 trillion budget. was -- our revenue -- we were in the red, of course. the trajectory was going down. now we are skyrocketing the other way. i can't understand for the life of me why trump is not addressing this. knowmakes me so mad and i

this is fixable and now we cannot even look back. host: is this fixable? guest: it is fixable. i want to tell her i am glad mad. i wish more americans and citizens out there would raise this issue with their elected officials. ands here on the hill worked throughout those years you mentioned in the reagan years, the clinton years, the bush years. during the clinton years is when we did, as the caller indicated, we did reach a balanced budget. we were on the path toward a balanced budget until september 11 2001. overnight, we went from projected surpluses into deficits. i agree with the caller that this is unprecedented that -- i would also point out that president trump, when he was campaigning did say he was going to eliminate the debt and deficit. this is quite the opposite.

i have been at this a long time. it is very frustrating for somebody who thinks the federal government should -- like businesses balance expenditures. your federal government from time to time -- not in times of war and times of recession for the difficulty here is that we are in a period of economic growth. we are still increasing debt and deficits. from my perspective, that is something that can be addressed. it requires leadership at both ends of pennsylvania avenue and also requires us to face up to the reality that we want a lot. we want infrastructure, health claire -- health care, better education. if we want those services, we have to pay for them. for a republican staffer to say this, i will be chastised but i think i think we have to pay for

the services we are demanding from the federal government that means looking at taxes and balancing -- increasing taxes. unless you are willing to cut back on services, particularly pensions, social security and medicare. it is very difficult. host: nikki. spring hill, florida. caller: i agree with william. so many areas in the united states needs money. it is no wonder the deficit has gone up. i do not know if there is a cure for. i know that trump has ideas. he has plans. he can never put his plans into effect because the democrats triesim at every point he to make. he can't get anywhere. is a curenow if he all, if he has the silber -- silver bullet to fix the deficit.

i wish they would give him a chance. as you can see, i am a true republican that i do believe in president trump. guest: my reaction is i agree. i consider myself a republican also. i do agree that what the president did achieve was a reduction in taxes. i think that is good, but at the same time, when you have a reduction in taxes that did not pay for themselves and helped create the deficits, democrats come along and say if you can create a deficit by cutting taxes, why can't we add to it by increasing spending? would you have a divided congress like we have today. i'llu scratch my back scratch yours, you end up with the situation we have today. we need both ends of pennsylvania avenue to -- willing to -- if you want to try to do something going long-term. that has been untenable in a

divided congress. host: michael in austin, texas. caller: hello. good morning. i am a student at texas university. i do a lot of work in student government. consensus we see here at the university about issues of taxes, especially the younger people, we will be carrying over this. benefiting from a lot of the stuff that is happening, we do believe that jeffrey epstein killed himself. host: we're going to move on. yes, i am off the subject but i would like to see and --ite house grow up the country. host: in what ways? are arguingway they back and forth.

is that we be -- is that what we voted for them for? host: we are talking about the $1.4 trillion spending agreement that both sides have negotiated and the house vote for. this president could sign this bill into law by the end of the week. i want to go over some other provisions that are in it. time, -- in more than two decades, democrats announced research into gun violence. the dickey amendment language ordering this centers for disease control not to lobby in favor for research into gun control. the national institutes of health received $12.5 million each in researching the issue appeared legislation would also provide 41.7 billion dollars for medical research at the nih, in year 7% increase. republican leaders are touting the fact that the deal does not include new funding for

international efforts to aid family and replayed active health. they are proud the legislation would deliver a $22 billion increase in defense spending as well as a military pay increase -- the largest such in a decade. guest: this is a very big bill. at one point, $4 trillion. one item you did not mention that i like is they did increase the pell grant award. 6000nts now can have up to -- up to $6,000, a major increase on the pell grant which is important. -- there are winners and losers if you like throughout this, but when you're talking about $1.4 trillion to fund the government, there are lots of programs that are receiving some increases. there are some that are being flat too. staff,t goes out to the

particularly having been a former staff member, technically we had an agreement we back in july. it has taken us five months to get to this point where we can divvy up that one host: host: $.4 trillion. host: some of that is for election security. let's go to randy in burlington, north carolina. caller: i would like to make a glad youbout -- i am are there bringing sense to all of this but it seems to me in the big picture that our government is more concerned with kicking the budget can down the road. they seem to me or interested in putting off the inevitable. spending, butnd they do not want to look at how howontrol the spending, or to cut back or eliminate some of

the debt. budgets --usehold business budgets coming commented on that -- you can't do that. it is impossible for me to adjust my budget in the debt direction without having some long-term effect on my personal income. for the government to constantly be looking at it as not important, just spend a bunch of money and deal with it later, just does not seem responsible. i do not think it is fair to attack the president about it. i think it is a problem with government overall. the bureaucrats in washington take up the biggest part of any budget deal that is done because that spending is solid. you can't reduce it currently. guest: thank you very much. -- thatthe analogy to a

it is kind of like the termites under the front porch. you can step out on the porch, but one day you will step out and go through. exactly what you said, in the short term with low unemployment, low inflation, people say why worry about the debt and deficit? here is thathave it is long-term. it is reducing the standard of living for our children and grandchildren. they will have to pay for this debt and deficit one way or another. soht now, things look good, why worry? spend money, cut taxes, don't worry. you will have to worry about your future generations and what this impact will be on them. host: darrell in missouri. caller: yes. we are spending a lot of money on stuff like -- if we could get the border wall fixed and spend some on immigration.

once we get some of that down, we can start saving money and have less people to do that. i think the sanctuary cities -- tps, wewe are paying are bringing people over and paying for them and they won't go back to their country. so, we need to look at that. before we canoney save money. guest: again, i would point out of theis is one third whole spending we are talking about. it is a large bill, 1.4 trillion dollars per let's be clear that even reducing spending may be -- after we build a wall so to speak, or whether you reduce spending for bureaucrats here in washington, it is still a small portion of what is really driving our spending. entitlement programs, mandatory programs need to be addressed if you want to talk

about spending and not taxes. host: texas, independent. caller:caller: i would like to money are we going to end up spending, and who is going to pay for that? guest: good question. in fairness, i can't answer that. i do not know. it is coming out of the investigations here in congress are coming out of the budgets of those individual committees. the congress does have part of this funding -- obviously is funding the legislative branch. that is where the funding for these investigations and carrying on the activities of your federal legislative branch takes place. host: columbia, missouri. we know that $1.4 trillion tax cut for the rich

should never even have been put on the debt. the rich did not need that. they did not want that. we also know the debt that we have, we know who is going to hurt. people's retirement. they are going to get rid of people's retirement. if trump gets back in, they are going after social security. all people who have worked all their lives. people who have worked all their lives. guest: i would not anticipate that any elected official, whether they be republican or democrat, will focus on those who are in retirement. needthink that there is a socialquickly, 2035 the -- in 2035, the social security trust exhausts. that means automatically, it

would not require a democratic or republican president reduce benefits, they will already be reduced by 20 5% unless we modify the benefits or increase payroll taxes. yes, ifnot be those -- we do not fix it, people in retirement will see reductions. what we will be focusing on are those who are today, if you're planning on early retirement and under the age of 49, by 2035 you would see a 20% reduction in benefits. we have to focus on making changes. you can make changes to social security by still protecting low income, and those people who still need social security benefits. at the same time, modifying benefits for those at the high-end. i think you're going to have a debate about social security in the coming years as we go forward simply because the program is running out of money. host: las vegas, republican. caller:. thank you.

federal workers -- i do not know if there is a watchdog group about how efficient these agencies are but i would like to citizens for like responsible accounting practices. to investigatep -- to be able to go on the job and see if there is a lot of wasted money in -- and positions that are not needed and so forth. thank you. reduced theve civilian workforce over the last many years. complaints about inefficiency in government i think our always there and always going to be there. federalring the government into the modern age with technology, but that requires expenditures.

as it relates to the number of civilian workers out there in the federal government, i can't speak to state and local. at the federal government, that has been flat for many years. host: fort lauderdale, florida. mark, independent. caller: hello, good morning. to be honest, i do not know how you putcall this group up bipartisan when you are obviously very very conservative or republican. when someone called you on attacking social security, or saying that it takes a big part of the deficit, which should is not. social security has never cost the taxpayers one dime. the first to use it as eventually they are going to have to cut benefits, as opposed to looking at it -- maybe. . you could raise the cap. that is just an aside. the main reason is this. that an established fact debt and deficits goes up under

republican presidents and republican in ministrations, and it goes down under democratic. obama, andn, barack now it has turned around again onto our current so-called republican administration. host: ok. guest: first of all, i am somewhat happy you think that the bipartisan public policy center is right-leaning. it has been thought that is -- that it is more left-leaning. that's quebec to social security, what we said was if we do not change the law, it will happen automatically. there will be a reduction in 2035 by 25%. host: democratic caller. this whole smokescreen

of this impeachment that is going on is just to take peoples mind off of the fact that we are getting ready to go into recession. this economy is being propped up until president trump is reelected. i'm afraid that by this time next year, by the time everyone in 2005 to it just like and 2006. if you were too young, google it. everything was great. all of a sudden, the bottom fell out. all of these home prices people have been paying -- car prices, credit card debt, it is all coming to an end. we are being propped up right now with toothpicks and that is not going to continue. people do not make enough money to pay for all of this. people, start saving your money. you're going to need it. the dodd frank bill, they put in there that they would be able to go into people's checking accounts and keep your deposits to pay these bank back -- pay

these banks back. we were promised that taxpayers would not have to pay the banks back this time. look that bill up. dodd frank, 2008. host: if she is right and we are headed toward recession, given now, whating is right does congress do? guest: first, she is right. this is the longest recovery we have had historically. can it continue? i hope it does. we all hope it does. she is right, there is a possibility of a slowing down. in fact, i would argue their current projections are close to -- we are not going to be seeing the 3% growth rate this year. it is an issue. if we go into a recession? , historically that would drive up deficit and debt because of

programs we call automatic stabilizers. there will be an increase in the safety net asked -- safety net expenditures. is at the time we are doing -- the economy is apparently doing well, low unemployment my we are still running deficits of close to $1 trillion. in times of recession if a lonely get worse. and then we have to borrow the money, about 50% of our debt is funded by investors from overseas. thank you very much. as one of my friends likes to say, we are one of the best looking horses in the glue factory. that will have to ended we will have to deal with the issue in a different -- that is why you think it is important to make these decisions now and to reduce the amount of debt and deficit we have so that we can operate during times of downturn. host: bill hoagland, senior vice president with -- policy sends

-- centers per think you for your time. when we come back, we will talk with david hawking's. he is the editor in chief about impeachment vote will play out on the floor of the house of representatives. ♪ announcer: our c-span campaign 2020 bus team is traveling across the country asking voters what issues should presidential candidates address? >> what are the issues -- one of the issues i really wish candidates would talk about more often is the issue of mental health. a controversial topic for several years. politicians may say we are going to this or that -- we are going to do this or that, but i feel like not a lot is being done about it and now i feel like not a lot of people are talking about it.

i would like to see that issue have more attention because it is a serious issue that is plaguing millions of families across the country. i would like to see more health programs help people afflicted with unfortunate mental health problems. isone of the issues that important for me is immigration. i would love to have the candidates from either party speak on the topic of immigration and immigration reform as well as immigration laws and for current climates that immigration has said. as we know, and america is a melting pot. surely has to be addressed because the current -- that is currently going on, we can't have this many -- there are issues that need to be addressed when it comes to immigration. >> president trump recently recognized jerusalem as the capital of israel. transfer the embassy there. i wonder if any of the would continue to

recognized jerusalem as the capital of israel. it by presidential decision -- return the capital recognition policy. >> i am interested in hearing about more about what our candidates are planning to do to bcus.in hbc you -- hvb ana graduate and now cu, i want ton hb know what the candidates plan to do to sustain them. announcer: voices on the road from c-span. "washington journal" continues. host: david hawking is with us

to give us historical perspectives on impeachment and also walk us through what it is going to look like on the house floor. let's begin with reminding our viewers who get a spot on the day us. theou want to start with speaker's chair, will be see the house speaker nancy pelosi in the chair? guest: i assume we will see her at some point, but she will probably not be the presiding officer. she is the speaker, it is always the speaker's chair, but she generally appoint someone this speaker temporary. controlblicans in turned the speaker chair to -- who was respected as a problem and terry expert who could keep order and respect in the room. he went out to be transportation secretary. we do not yet know who the presiding officers going to be

paired my guess is ms. pelosi will not preside for several hours. will be aided on her right -- the person you see here is the person acting as the parliamentarian. chairis always a little for the parliamentarian behind there, but that person often stands at the elbow of the speaker. on, peoplee you move may see the parliamentarian often speaking to whoever is in the chair. what are they telling them? guest: generally, the parliamentarian is supposed to have in his or her head almost all of the precedents and rules of the house for what is permissible language, permissible way of addressing things. often the presiding officer will turn to the parliamentarian and say, one of my supposed to do now? not for political advice but for unvarnished advice about the precedents of the house. at parliamentarian even has

their disposal scripts for certain movements of procedure and will hand those to the person acting as speaker. guest: how important will this parliamentarian be during debate over impeachment? -- if the republicans would like to try to disrupt the procedure? host: if they do decide -- guest: if they do decide to disrupt or do parliamentarian maneuvers, the parliamentarian knows how to deal with parliamentarian maneuvers. if it comes to that, this is not what happened 21 years ago -- almost 21 years ago to the day. if in the end the final vote on impeachment happens as late as thursday, where there is talk they might bait all day wednesday, that would be 21 years to the day since the clinton impeachment. a saturday iay -- will always remember -- there was no such parliamentary

shenanigans. both sides played it straight. they had an exhaustive debate. the other people on the deus -- almost everybody else you see in this picture works for the clerk's office. the person to the speaker's left, our right, is the person acting as the clerk. host: what did she do? guest: she supervises everybody else on the deus. the clerk's job sounds like what it is, all of the paperwork, all of the procedures about all of the formal transactions a business belong to the jurisdiction of the clerk's office. in frederick, the man with the beard reading a document there -- that is the reading clerk. he is the one who stands at the other podium underneath the speaker. that is a podium that most tv

viewers would recognize as the place where the president stands to give his state of the union address, or other foreign leaders. foreign leaders are the only other politicians who use that podium. it is often used by the clerks to make announcements. the man with the beard is the reading clerk, he will be the what --hear announce when the articles of impeachment are introduced, he will probably read them. there may be a decision to have the whole thing read so that we can hear it all. the woman looking to his far right underneath the parliament terry and is called the journal clerk. essentially keeping tabs of the proceedings. for worda word transcript that goes into the congressional record. also, it journal that is not so

much a verbatim transcript but a list of every parliamentarian thing that happened. know, you should take a look at the mace. if you are watching c-span at 9:00 when house begins, you will see the mace being marched in from those doors over on the speaker's far-right. that is the symbol that has been around since the start of the house. it is an ancient tradition that goes back to greco-roman times. it is a symbol of authority that is only brought into the chamber when the houses meeting. it is worthoors, noting, we won't see this in action this week because not a lot of legislation is being introduced in the last days of a congressional session. you can't see it, but there is the hopper. there is a basket -- it is very old-school. you can't email your legislation into the speaker's office, you

have to get a printout made and the way you would introduce a bill is to put your signature on the top and put the legislation into the hopper. coming around to the front, the woman in the man who are in the ,ower tier, the lowest tier they are helping to keep track of the verbatim transcripts that are being made and all of the procedures being made. the verbatim transcript are being made by the woman who looks like an old-school stenographer. those women and men work incredibly hard. i think they work in 20 minute shifts. there is a series of them that come in and out. they take the verbatim transcripts and hand them to the other people. the baskets -- the file baskets that go in there. in the front row comes -- in the front row, you see the green and red cards. you probably won't see those,

but that is one alternative for members to vote. they can either vote electronically. you can see in the foreground, you can see what looks like an atm with buttons. green for -- vote.s where the members they stick what looks like a credit card with their picture on it. there, it that in recognizes who they are and they vote yes, no or present. if they want to switch their vote they have to use one of those cards. podia on either side, the one to our leftist the democratic party him. the republican on the other -- podium. that is where members will stand to give their speeches. not aa debate -- there is lot of debating going on in the high school civics sense.

this will be a series of speeches that will go on for many hours. host: one of the rules pertaining to impeachment in the house? who will be in the member seating area? that: c-span viewers know -- they look like dining room is thebuilt in -- there center aisle. all of the democrats sit to the speaker's right. there are two big tables in the middle. generally, there are two big tables on each side. one table is reserved for the leadership of the caucuses. the other reserved for the people managing the bill. either managing -- in this case, the democrats managing the arguments in favor of impeachment, republicans managing the arguments oppose. probably from the judiciary committee and the intelligence committees. pews will be, usually, as

viewers recognize, often, most of the chairs are empty. in a situation like this, i would say most of the chairs will be full. in part because of the moments that the historic import of the moment. a sensebecause there is of curiosity by the members. there are ace -- there are still a few holdouts. washing some members announce what they're going to do. host: what is the vote? how many do you need to vote? guest: you need a simple majority which is usually 218. this week, it is only 216 because there are four vacant seats. the current membership of the house is only 431.

i guess we nothing that there , what we doe votes know stay house rules committee is meeting at 11:00 this morning. the rules committee is what is normally convened. it is a leadership run committee that is convened to set the ground rules for the debates. it was not actually used in the clinton impeachment. there was a different parliamentary procedure than that then. 21 years ago, the houses -- the house was a more collegiate and space that it is now. they brought it up as a point of privilege. all 435 members had to agree to those terms. they debated it in a wide open way with an agreement of sorts. there were four votes, two

articles of impeachment adopted. this time, the rules committee will come out with a proposed procedure which will say helmet he minutes or hours is going to be debated on article one. obstruction of congress. will do a debate and a vote, or debate on one, the other and then two votes. host: this seems like a good time to remind our viewers that that hold thisd debate, pushing a final vote into thursday that the cameras inside the chamber are controlled by the house of representatives. c-span does not have our own cameras. what you see is being directed by the house of representatives. because you that feed

that is the commitment c-span made when cable providers created c-span. we do not control the cameras. vote andsked, for this debate, to have cameras in there. that was rejected by the speaker's office. the speaker gets to decide. host: she gets -- guest: she gets to decide. you probably have to make that a couple of times a year. i get asked about it all the time when i was on c-span. get toameras, you guys use them but you do not get to control them. if there are shenanigans or , the room we are looking at is surrounded by a gallery that has a few hundred seats in it where members of the public will be admitted. probably only for relatively short periods of time.

there'll be somebody, i hope, who believes in the system that there will be a long line to get into watch. any kind of expressions from the gallery are strictly forbidden. capitol police and the sergeant at arms are strict. if people protest from the galleries, we probably won't see it if you are watching on c-span because the cameras do not pan away because they do not want to give these people -- amplify their messages. if things seem to stall out, it could be because something is happening off camber we cannot see. host: owings mills, maryland. caller: hello? host: question or comment? caller: i have a procedural question. -- at what point is it decided that a person has resisted a subpoena? who gets to make that decision? host: that is more of a legal

question. guest: i am not a lawyer, but i talk to a lot of lawyers. i think you are probably referring to a congressional subpoena. generally, a subpoena has a deadline in it. you're supposed to turn over documents by this date, or show up to testify on this date. if you missed the deadline, you have violated the subpoena. one of the challenges for congress is the enforcement of these subpoenas. congress does not have its own jail. there is a capitol police station, and they do have places to detain people, but they have not. i think it is since the 1930's, they have not gone and arrested anybody. is enforcement of subpoenas sort of 8 -- it is a dicey thing for congress to do. host: silver spring, maryland. independent.

caller: i wanted to ask a question. passes.y impeachment the president is impeached. for how long can the congress keep that before they send it to the senate? guest: that is a great question. there is no deadline. true, we will go down this parliament terry wrote a little bit, -- we will go down this parliamentary road a little bit. once the vote is taken on the articles of impeachment, assuming one of them is approved -- i think we are confident now given how many democrats were on the fence that have now announced they're going to vote for impeachment -- a high degree of confidence that both of these articles will be approved. there is a third vote that needs to take place. that vote is on a resolution that does two things, it formally transmits the approved

articles over to the senate along with the list of what are called "impeachment managers." these are people that the speaker will appoint to essentially be the prosecutors of the case in the senate trial. inthe clinton impeachment that happened moments after the impeachment articles were improved -- approved. they adopted this resolution that named 13 members of the judiciary committee to be the managers. they formally marched across the n delivered the papers to the senate that afternoon. this time, there is some talk that the house will wait to do that until they find out precisely what kind of trial and when the senate is going to conduct. host:, sean, key west, florida.

caller: this is a very serious matter. i believe it is time the vice president -- former vice president biden met his son hunter and the whistleblower offered to appear in front of the senate and answer questions of the republicans with the caveat that the president released his representatives to also appear under oath. is time for this nonsense over. we need to find out what the facts are in order to protect our republic. guest: you make an industry -- you make an interesting offer that both sides get to call their favorite witnesses. some version of that may yet happen. i think what is more likely is ever see anyot live witnesses in the senate. this has yet to be decided.

happens -- we only have two precedents for this. remember, this would only be the third impeachment trial in american history. the trial of andrew johnson in the 1860's, and the trial of bill clinton in 1999 -- which is probably the one that provides more guidance for what might happen. what happened then seems unlikely to happen now which was that all 100 senator scott in a room -- they actually went into one of the few secure rooms in the capital. the chamber that was used by the senate and the first half of the 19th century before the chamber you see now was even built. they went into that room and by the end of that afternoon, all 100 of them had a great on a trial procedure in which there were no live witnesses. at that point, the outcome seemed as forward as the outcome

we see now -- the president will be acquitted. all senators decided they would do something to take the matter seriously but did not belabor it to death and came up with a relatively crisp procedure that involved videotaped depositions but no live witnesses. will we see that now? we do not know. what we do know is that talk of all 100 senators coming up with an agreement seems quaint. instead, what we think we have is the republican majority leader, senator mcconnell, saying he is going to work with the white house to decide what kind of trial they could insist upon having by majority vote. host: tom in maryland. democratic color. caller: -- collar caller: i think we need to cut to the chase. this is not an impeachment, this is an infringement on -- either way, i am fourth-generation democrat. i'm going to be changed my affiliation by the end of the

week. this is not an impeachment, this is about -- this is a coup. this is been going on since beginning this man become president. we really need to think about this. this is the first time that -- in my first years in foreign politics -- that we have had a president or person in that office that is actually looking out for the benefit of this country. he said it during his u.n. speech, who cares about ukraine? we have satellite images. thatve the cia, we have -- sit there and find out information. that is what their job is. this is a two. -- coup. we need to stop and think about what is going on.

coup is a strong work, but you are speaking for millions of voters who view this as a coup. highly polarized country. new pulling out this morning reinforces yet again how polarized the country is. approval rating among republicans is that 91%. his approval among democrats believe is that 6%. we are at a highly polarized moment in the country. one of the things i will be thatng to see is whether sense of anger and vitriol comes down on the house floor from the members themselves, or whether they do what i think we would agree they might do is rise above that and argue their version of argument as to

whether the president should be impeached or not. see it is fascinating to how many will actually participate in the debate. before we came on, i did a quick calculation, 283 house members took part in the clinton impeachment debate. that is 65% of all the house members. you rarely see all that members participate. it is a reflection kabobi succumb of that mending -- wanting -- it is a reflection of that many wanting to go on the record. they know this is the most important vote of their careers unless we vote to go to war. it does not get any more important than this for them on both sides. it will be interesting to see what the tone of the debate is. host: tennessee. teresa, republican. caller: good morning. first, i want to make an observation. i have been observing justice disapprove of

impeachment as republicans. i've never heard the likes of people saying they are going to switch their party over impeachment. i want to ask a question. are impeaching donald trump gainsing his office to information on a political opponent. what is the difference between what donald trump did and what democrats are doing? democrats are using the office of the house to impeach our theirent, and overturn political opponent. there is no crime that has been committed. this impeachment is completely political. tax dollarsng our to overthrow a political opponent that they cannot beat in 2020.

can you tell me how you can even fathom that there is a difference between what they are accusing the president of doing and what they are doing? you keep saying it is historical, it is an historic event, only the third impeachment -- the differences -- the difference is nixon resigned, and the other two there was a crime. there is no crime in this impeachment. it is historic and the value of it is completely political. i will take her, talk fair. comment offke your air. guest: you made a bunch of interesting points. i am not sure that it is up to me to try and compare the two things you are wanting to compare which is what the president did and how the house democrats are responding. is -- iay impeachment think from the start -- from the time the constitution was

written, from everything i have , -- able to read the comparisons to a criminal trial in criminal procedure only take you so far. the framers did think about this as a political matter. this is a matter that they turned over to the political branches of government. the house and the senate. purposefully vague about what they set an impeachable offense was. misdemeanors",d there is a significant amount of writing about what that was. there was significant evidence that they were not talking about necessarily criminal offenses, but were hoping to take into that definition things that would be viewed as an abuse of power, or misbehavior -- not what they called maladministration, meaning being a bad president, making

decisions that congress disagreed with -- they ruled that out. what they did say that abusing your office was an impeachable offense even if it was not part of a criminal statute. host: james and collins, mississippi. caller: how are you doing? guest: good morning. caller: mr. davis, i wanted to ask you a question. the democrats and the republicans are having this dispute over the president. , i feel like this do democrats are trying to the legal thing right. i feel like the republicans are trying to protect themselves, but they are not -- they are not republicans anymore. they are not really republicans, they are more like trumpers

forever. i am not looking at the trumpers forever, i am looking at the republican party. the republican party was so different, now they let the thepers come in and because prime minister in israel is under investigation for fraud. they never said anything about this prime minister about going over there and looking at him, yet still they went over there and they made israel -- they gave him things that he -- he is still under investigation they do don't hear that. now they want to turn and say that the whistleblowers are wrong, or they are mad. you know what, the next time you go to school -- a child in school somewhere hear somebody whispering about somebody going up with a gun to kill somebody, or the next time you h -- here a whistleblower saying they're going to go on a bus and start killing people, that

whistleblower, to me, is a -- those whistleblowers -- every day we wake up and we get on -- we go to work, we hear people calling in all the time being whistleblowers. now all of a sudden, the trumpers forever want to persecute the whistleblowers. i do not care what party you are, we are in trouble because over the world, whistleblowers are going to hesitate. aree are a freight -- they afraid. even in your community, they can see some of the breaking at your house and some pieces well, i am not going to call in. host: weird to point. -- we heard your point. guest: it is interesting to note -- i think i have read some things about what the whistleblower's name is. i have dismissed it. i do not really care. he or she deserves the sanctity that they have

essentially received. it is interesting to me that in the ensuing weeks, the country does not know who the whistleblower is. that is one thing i observed. i think you make an important point as we thick about this impeachment and -- there are comparisons to what happened 21 years ago that are apt, and others that are not. what is important to note that is different is that by every objective measure, the house of representatives and congress in general has become more ideologically polarized than it was 21 years ago. 21 years ago, there were a couple dozen republicans who were -- whose voting records were more to the left then a couple dozen democrats. there was an overlap of about two dozen members. republicans whose voting record was in the middle, leaning toward the democrats and vice versa. that is not the case anymore.

several different ways of measuring voting records, there is essentially a -- there is no democrat who is more conservative than the most liberal republican. that is going to be reflected this week. i would be very surprised if any republican at this point came out and voted for the impeachment of donald trump. i think at this point, we are going to see no more than half a dozen democrats who are going to vote against -- if that many -- a vote against impeaching donald trump. different from 21 years ago when there were actually five members of each side, five republicans voted against, five democrats voted for. host: nigel in wyoming. points,touching on some some of the earlier callers made , such as how democrats are --

a coup, as they said. i read an article on the washington post by a columnist michael had jar. interesting this in-depth analysis about michelle [no audio] host: pontiac, michigan. caller: how are you doing? and leto call today aboutody think a minute what is happening in america. they need to stop thinking about what isd think about really going to happen in america. the whole thing is going to change. we are not going to be america anymore. everybody is against everybody.

-- they mightht need to stop and think. stop thinking about party and realize what is really happening. it is a serious moment for the country. for people on both sides. there are democrats who cannot fathom the notion that the president might be impeached and then acquitted in the senate. there are republicans who can't countenance the fact that in arer view the democrats impeaching the president. there is no easy out. particularly not at a time when we are as polarized as we are. as i say, i think the best we can hope for from this is that our elected representatives manifest the seriousness of purpose about this.

even as the polarization continues. host: let us remind our viewers how -- what happens after the house vote this week, and the timeline for sending over house managers. what will that look like? guest: they vote on the articles of impeachment, and then they vote on a third resolution which is to formally transmit the articles across the capital to the senate. and then they named the impeachment managers. ms. pelosi, this is her call. she can name whoever she likes. the assumption is that she will name mostly democrats from the committees that have considered this stuff so far. it is a safe bet that people see nadler tof, jerrold be two of them. unlike the clinton impeachment when it was 13 white men, she will probably make sure that there is some sense of gender and ethnic diversity. there is a lobbying campaign underway from conservative

democrats to make a very outside the box appointment to name justin amash, the libertarian republican who left the republican conscience -- himerence this fall to name as one of the impeachment managers. we will see what she does and whether she is willing to take that quite interesting risk. as one of the colors asked if human it's ago, does it happen automatically? not necessarily. i am not sure why they would wait, but i guess they would want to wait to learn what shape the trial might take before deciding who those prosecutors -- those managers would be. there is no chance, by the way, that there was going to be a trial before the end of the year. remember, it is the week before christmas. the likeliest thing is it will be the first order of business

when the senate returns in january. mitch mcconnell is talking about maybe a two week trial. i think the likeliest scenario is that they try to finish the trial before the end of january might in time for the president to come to congress to give his state of the union message. that did not happen in 1989 it was one of the stranger days -- 1999. there is an impeachment trial in the senate all day, and then bill clinton came to congress that night to give an address where he shook hands with all the people who were his jurors and gave a state of the union address where he never mentioned impeachment. he was great at compartmentalizing. president trump has not suggested he has all that great at compartmentalizing. maybe they want to get the trial over with so he can go about the business of putting out his agenda free from having to thick about the trial. host: talk about when the

managers log over, what does that look like? guest: it is great parliamentary theater. they have impeached judges in the past. this would be the third president to be impeached. i do not think when they impeached -- when the house and peaches other people -- they have never actually impeached a cabinet member. what happens is they take the papers and the impeachment managers lineup and they walk from the house side -- the southern side. there is a direct court or through the rotunda to the senate. if you open the doors to the house chamber, the speakers looking at the senate. they walk from one end to the other and hand the papers over. host: thank you very much for the conversation this morning. the house of representatives is about to gaveling at any minute. we will bring you now to the house floor.