begin her confirmation hearings. she will testify before the senate judiciary committee across two days, wednesday and thursday. watch next week live on the c-span networks or on c-span now. head over to c-span.org for scheduling information or to watch live and on-demand anytime. c-span, democracy unfiltered. announcer: the house returns for for speeches with legislativern work later in the afternoon. i number of amtrak and disaster-related measures are on calendar. later in tk the representatives are expected to taother bills including hr 28, the pron of women and in sports act of 2025 and hr 30 preventing violence against women by illegal aliens

act. in the senate lawmakers will be considering the lakeney act. it would require the homeland security dept to detain undocume immigrants for theft related crimes the next procedural vote is set for 5:30 p.m. e on monday. watch the house live on c-span and the senate c-span 2. bothvailable live online at c-span.org or with the free c-span now app. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2025] and trends of women serving in elected office is kelly dittmar. she's the research director at rutgers university's center for american women and politics. welcome back to the program. kelly: thanks for having me. host: remind our audience what the center does and its mission. kelly: for over 50 years, the center for american women and politics has been investigating and tracking women's political

progress. we are often known for tracking representation, so the numbers of women in office across levels. but we also do analysis of women as candidates, the diversity among women, as well as behavior of women as voters. and in addition to just keeping track of numbers, we do research to understand why those numbers are where they are, why it matters to have women's political representation across levels and types. and then, we do programs. our programs are also invested in building women's political power, so we have ready to run and new leadership national trying programs across many states that try to do this work to target it and support women and others who want to support women to increase their representation and influence in politics. host: and as you mentioned, the center does track the number of women in politics at all levels.

wanted to share the numbers for congress, for the new congress that just came into office last friday. if we are looking at the senate, there are 25 women serving in the 119th congress. that is 25%. there is 125 in the house. that is almost 29% of the 435 seats. and not included in those numbers, but we want to make sure to know to them, are four nonvoting delegates. when we look at those numbers, they are the same as they were last year. there's no gain. why? what are some of the factors behind those numbers staying where they are? kelly: we have a slight decrease by one, but yeah, they are at stasis. why is that? there are a couple of reasons. one is we did not have a mass

increase or significant increase in the number of women writing this cycle -- running this cycle, so we've had a smaller poor then we had in the past few cycles. we had a record year in 2018 we had a huge jump in the number of women running, as well as the number of women winning. and that continued through 2020. we are stern to see a kind of plateau and even a little bit of a decline since then going into 24, so that affects what the results will look like. we also had a high number of women retiring or leaving to run for other office. what that meant is that we started at a deficit in this cycle. we had to fill in those losses and then try to make additional gains. we had about 13 women leaving. we had 18 new women in the house. you're going to only see slight increases if any and then we saw other incumbent losses and defeats along the way. the loss of some incumbents, the

smaller number of candidates were certainly things that contributed. and lastly, typically in years where we see republicans fare better or at least democrats fare not as good as expected or not as good as they have in previous cycles, that tends to not be great for women because women are a large -- much larger propos should of democratic candidates then republicans -- proportion of democrat candidates that are pelicans. host: when we look at research -- then republicans. host: when we look at research, talk about the impact research has shown about women in congress. kelly: when we talk about the importance and representation of women, i will talk about maybe in three ways. one is it is a democratic comparative. we say we are a representative democracy, so our governmental institutions should be representative of the constituents they serve. and of course, women are over

50% of the population so there's kind of a fairness, justice democratic comparative to white matters to have women in office. it is symbolically important. people look at government and they say, is that a place for me? is that a place that i can make change? if they don't see people who share some of their identities and lived experiences, they may believe it's not. and they may also have a little less trust in those institutions that they are going to look out for them. but lastly, as you're asking, primarily, people want to know, what difference does it make and policy? research i and my colleagues have done as well as other scholars have looked at the substantive differences and outcomes of having women in office. it's knowledge changing a specific policy or bring a specific policy outcome, it is changing conversations. we know when women are habitable, there are going to raise different -- are at the

table, they're going to raise different lived experiences and concerns that may be of their male counterparts would not have. we could require welfare, but what are we going to do about the childcare aspect of that? when we had more women than ever on the armed services committee, women were saying are we going to address sexual assault issues in the military in a serious way? that was women across the aisle. there were also send we should make sure body armor fits women in the right way. there are just real-life experiences and perspectives that women bring that will shape not only the outcomes, but the agendas and the conversations. host: our guest for the next 35 minutes or so is kelly dittmar, research director at rutgers university's center for american women and politics. if you have a question or comment for her, you can start calling in now paired the lines, democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. an independents, -- and independent, (202) 748-8002.

along the lines of what you were just saying, i wanted to share a headline that was out last month from abc news. it says no women will lead house committees for the first time in two decades. your reaction? kelly: yeah, i mean, this is part and parcel of the partisan division or problem we have when we talk about women's medical representation. i mentioned earlier that the candidate phase, democratic women are much better represented among democratic candidates than are republicans but the same is true when we look at officeholders. from the state legislative level to congress, women are a much smaller proportion of all republicans or republican caucuses. in fact, when you look at state legislators, for example, in over half of our states, women are at parity or above with their democratic counterparts in the democratic party. but in those states, ar women at

paritye with men among republicans? when we look at congress and any other level of office, that has real implications for the work of that caucus, especially when republicans are in the majority. what we are seeing in the house is that now republicans again are in the majority. that means they hold all the chairmanships. and there are not enough women, there are not women in that level of seniority at this point to hold those chairmanships. there are just a smaller number that are likely to ascend to those positions. if democrats were in control, we would have many more. we see that in the ranking member's. to me, it leads me to kind of the continued request or hope that the republican party also look at ways to be more strategic and targeted in the support of women. but we can talk more about this.

that has really been counter to the philosophy of the party, which has said we don't worry about or target demographic diversity, we are focused on merit, and we should not look at identity as part of that. host: we will bring our audience into the discussion and start with homer in louisiana, line for democrats. good morning. caller: how are you this morning? i am a native two year old veteran. -- i am an 82-year-old veteran. excuse me. and i think women ought to get a good chance at this. these old white men have been doing for the last 400 years. so why don't we give women the chance? they've got the biggest voting bloc. i didn't understand, a lot of things going on. i would like to see in my

lifetime how the women run this thing. thank you for your time, for letting me rattle off. thank you. host: kelly your response? kelly: first off, thank you for your service. and i certainly agree that there are so many more opportunities for women to ascend to political leadership. unfortunately, we have had a lot of barriers and challenges in the way. some who don't have that same belief that women's lived experiences and perspective should be brought into office. one thing i just want to add to that just because the caller mention his status as a veteran. sometimes when we talk about the importance of women's representation, those who may be rejected the idea that we should care about gender divisions or differences will say, well, that's just checking off a box, it doesn't mean anything. when we say we want more veterans or folks with military experience, we say that's really

valuable, right? and i agree. i agree though that the same way we think about veterans having distinct lived experiences that would matter for policy discussions, women in our country and women of diverse back runs have distinct -- diverse backgrounds have distinct lived experiences but most every measure, education, health, economically and so we should value those experiences in similar ways. host: let's hear from tina in tennessee, line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. host: go ahead, tina. caller: ok. i was calling to say that my mother went to vanderbilt university and she was a secretary at my high school. i wanted to be an engineer. so i applied, my first choice was m.i.t., and i got a letter back like three days later that basically said, it didn't say you must be stupid, it just

said, in case you haven't heard, we don't accept women. so i applied to my second choice, i didn't want to stay in nashville where i lived, was georgia tech and i got the same letter back. i didn't think to read about what sexes they took. my third choice was vanderbilt. and when i got there, i was com plimented that my advisor, the advisors always pick the students that they want because they can compete with each other. being the student that assigned these let people pick first, he picked me as one of his. asked him why and he said, i always pick all the girls and there are four in your class of about 400 people, because their standards are so high that they do well. they do better than all the rest.

if my mother hadn't been a secretary -- if it hadn't been for my father saying you can be an engineer, just keep trying, i would not have applied that working, because i didn't know anybody whose mother worked. if my mother had worked, my grandmother had worked in a professional position, i would have been a lot more likely to go into it. we are just reaching -- i'm a grandmother now and have grandmother -- and have grandchildren going into professions. i have a granddaughter who is a lawyer. so, that example, what do i know that adults did when you are in high school makes a big difference. we are just entering into the position where people can see examples of women, basically. host: kelly?

guest: i agree. that is such a good example of you can't be what you can't see. i was thinking about the symbolic importance of having women in positions of political power. it is important to tangibly measure that. i have colleagues who have done work to look at young people and who they see as political leaders. we do see biases even the women are increasing their representation. it is more likely if you see a young person to draw a political leader they draw a man because that is what they're used to seeing. that has real ripple and psychological effects because young women may say, what are my options? is politics one of those? i should add that there are of course racial disparities across this level of office. the same is true. if you don't see individuals

like you who share those identities and experiences, you might decide that this place is not for you and what that means is you lose your voice in the political process. so, it's important and that is one of the reasons we do the work we do to amplify the women who are there and what they are doing across the aisle, across parties, as well to encourage others, young women especially, to consider this path of political service. one other thing that the caller mentioned was different standards. unfortunately, we see that is still true. we can look to our most recent election and find plenty of examples where women are often held to higher standards. there anticipation of that means when they are campaigning for office you will see women more likely talk through all of their qualifications, have detailed policy plans, and people still say it's not enough. we know that for men, a lot of

the times those qualifications are just assumed. we still have an unlevel playing field. while it is improving, it is unlevel when it comes to expectations and standards to which candidates and officeholders are held. host: a few weeks after the election you had an op-ed in forbes. election 2024 brings no increase in women's congressional representation. in the peace you note that net counts are not the only indicator of success when it comes to progress of women in politics. walk us through some of the wins or some of those other factors or gains that women picked up in the november election. guest: absolutely. when we talk about representation, it's not just a number. there are particular ways in which we saw more and different

types of representation for different types of women. on the republican side where there were not a lot of gains, we saw the election of the first woman to the house from north dakota. that is a state that will now have a different perception of who is in office. sarah mcbride became the first trans-woman in congress. as we have seen, unfortunately, in the news there has been backlash to that by some of her peers in congress, but she is demonstrating the ways in which i think quite respectfully navigating the space, talking about and demonstrating the importance of her presence. we will see that as policy debates etc. continue. we also had some versus in terms of race and ethnicity. our center is based in new jersey and we had our first latina woman elected to congress. in oregon, the first black woman

was sent to congress. these are all gains when we think about the diversity of women's representation. i would add one more thing. beyond the congressional level, we also now have three states at parity, meaning that women are at or above 50% of the full state legislature. while that is only three of 50 states, it is the first time we have -- we have only before had one state at any given time that reached that level of parity. we are reaching gains both in parity and women serving in office. caller: i can appreciate what the guest is saying, and i do, but when she mentions the last

election cycle, it looks like the only thing standing in the way of women is women. that's what it looks like to me, because -- it seems to me that women voted really overwhelmingly against their own interests. this is who they elected. it was women who put this guy in. who were those women and why they went for this guy as opposed to the democratic candidate? host: kelly? guest: i mean, i would remind the caller that the largest percentage of support for donald trump was wightman. -- white men. men were more likely to support donald trump. women in every election since 1980 have voted overwhelmingly for the democratic candidate. probably speaking to a

subsection, white women, and more specifically noncollege educated white women. we saw this cycle white women overall went for republican. they've done so in every election for many cycles. but when you drill that down even further, college educated white women have moved increasingly, since the election of donald trump, to the left with their support. getting closer to 60% of that group has voted for kamala harris. i agree that there are conversations to be had about which groups are supporting whom, but we need to be very specific. that is true among men as well. these groups are not monolithic and who they support. i would add, there is an assumption that women should just vote for women. or that all women, in terms of policy, are pro-choice. that's not true. we allow for the same -- we

allow for the diversity of men's points of view when it comes to policy issues or who they vote for -- we don't assume men just vote for men, so we shouldn't do the same for women. not to say that we shouldn't have real conversations with women, especially in the case that you have candidates that have been blatantly misogynistic in their commentary and policy, i agree with that, but we should recognize that women are not monolithic in their priorities, in their privilege, and what they want to see in policy outcomes. host: jerry in new jersey, the line for democrats. good morning. caller: hello. i listen to you, and i have a question. i will ask it after my comment. i am a registered democrat. i voted for biden in the primary. of course, he got hold out by the democrats and they put in

harris and forced her down our throats. i went with trump. the question i have is twofold. one, we have republicans that are up -- not republicans, democrats held together. and we have others like sarah and stuff like that. no one was more critical of the women than the democrats. you're not quite supportive of women like you say. i've noticed if they are republican -- but if it is a democrat it is ok. how proud of you are -- in california, the girl who was governor after trump who screwed up the whole thing, these are all women in charge you are blowing it. who would you think could run as a woman in 2028 that could really be? at? at the rate they are going --

barbara walters, i could go on and on. nancy pelosi getting rich. who? who is going to run on the democratic side. your democrats are blowing it. they are -- host: kelly? guest: i want to clarify that they are not my democrats. we are a nonpartisan center. i'm talking about successes for republican women, democrats, etc. i want to clarify we lift up women across party lines. that is why we are so concerned about the divisions or disparities between parties. in terms of the question about individual women and the caller's assessment they are doing a poor job. too often when we talk about women's political representation, fingers are pointed to one woman who did one thing, or another woman who didn't do another thing, to say therefore women's

representation is an important or shouldn't be valued. we don't do the same thing to men. we have histories of men who have arguably not done a great job in government. i not argue that means we shouldn't have no men in government. we have to be careful about these widespread claims. also, among some of those women, we should look at the greats. they may be held to a different standard. we know very little right now about karen bass' leadership through what is a current catastrophe. we know about her historic leadership as one of the black women of the house nationwide who had a pretty stellar record. she was successful in the u.s. house. from what we know already, already successful in her role as mayor. we have to wait and see how this will pan out. she should be held to the same standard as any other leader in

terms of criticism, but then not be painted as a representative of all women or all black women based on whether someone thinks she did a good job. we have to be careful in our assessment and consider the ways we may be critical of women in ways that are not the same to the men who are both currently serving and have historically. the caller asked one other question about the democratic bench, i guess. who is there going forward? this is a real question. i'm sorry to punt this, but this is a real question that the democrats are going to have to grapple with, as are the republicans after trump's term is over. who is really in line who can capture voters? for the democrats, who can capture voters that even harris wasn't able to capture this time. there are no shortages of women. there are lots of qualified democratic women. we have a record number of

democratic women governors who are serving, who are often on the lists. like gretchen whitmer, or others who are currently holding off his who are often put on the short list. we have women in the senate and the house. those are some women you might consider and start looking at as we look at their role and attempts to travel the country over the next four years. host: let's hear from diane in manchester, missouri on the line for republicans. caller: how are you? i have a question. i am upset. i am older than this woman, kelly, on. she made some statements that are just wrong about women are more democratic -- are more likely to be democrats than republicans. i find that wrong because of my social group and people from all aspects of life, you know.

that's not correct. i also find the democrats are not put forward a candidate like that would be seriously considered. i mean, kamala harris, forget that. even hillary had more experience than kamala, but she had a lot of baggage. you have to look at an individual. just because she is a woman you can't just vote for her, which is what they were trying to do this past election. kamala is black and a woman. black men have to vote for her, and women have to vote for her. that's crazy. you have to vote for the qualification and the person itself, not what the democrats tell you to vote for. host: kelly? guest: yeah, i agree with you.

i think most democrats probably agree with you as well. one thing that was interesting in the harris campaign that i got asked a lot about is, why does she not talk more about being a woman, being a black woman in making history? she said i don't take any votes for granted. i'm not asking people to vote for me because i'm a woman or a black person. i actually don't think -- there were people who said, you're asking people to vote for her because she is a black woman. that wasn't the messag of e campaign and certainly not a message of organizations like ours who are saying, yes, you should value the representation of women, but that is not why you vote for somebody. you vote for somebody because you think that they represent the things you care about. what i am arguing and what i think the larger literature in terms of representation would argue is, at least in part, identity and lived experiences are part of the credentials that you bring to being a candidate.

so, women may have some overlap with the lived experiences of the caller. kamala harris' experiences are going to be very different perhaps from the caller's. maybe or maybe not, right? those are things that you can look at to raise part of that story. i would follow up on the idea that i was presenting this information. you can look at any data -- presenting disinformation. you can look at any data on partisan representation for 45 years and it is consistently true that women in the electorate, maybe not in a particular community, but in the u.s. electorate overall identify overwhelmingly as democrats. i shouldn't say over 50% of women are democrats and are more likely to vote for democratic candidates. that is true. that data is on our website if people would like to see it. host: kelly, i will share some of that data with our audience.

there are numbers coming from your organization that look at women serving in congress to date. when we look at the senate, there have been 44 women in the senate, including 27 democrats, 17 republicans. 377 have been in the house, 200 52 democrats, 125 republicans, plus 8 nonvoting delegates. that breaks down evenly, 4 democrats and 4 republicans. 19 have served both in the house and senate. 12 democrats and six republicans and one independent. i want to note one of the numbers on the website when we look at those numbers, when we look at women serving in congress to date, 3.3% of all women in congress.

we will hear next from you that -- from yvette in florida. caller: listening to this conversation, i want to pass on my own experience with women these days. the ones that i've met in the military, for instance, here in florida, were so impressive. i was so impressed with these women. also, the young women in high school, i have recently met some young women who i visited with who were very impressive as well. i think the white men are voting for the beat your chest guy because they are afraid of these women. they are beating them out in law school and medical school, from what i'm reading. i'm just saying, guys, quit whining and compete. it's just -- you know?

they want us over there in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant, so they don't have to compete. host: we will get a response from kelly. guest: thank you. i appreciate looking to the next generation and the optimism that yvette is bringing to the conversation. when we look at activism and advocacy, a colleague of mine has written a great book on the politics of gen z. talking about high levels of mobilization among gen z, particularly among gen z women and even more specifically gen z women of color who are really taking a lead when we look at protest politics, advocacy and all sorts of areas. environment, gun-control, class-based arguments to look at greater equity in those areas,

educational access, things like that. young women in particular are really impressive in the work that they are doing. not to say that young men are not as well, but we are seeing even gender differences in that level of engagement and participation. it's true that the future is bright there in terms of seeing more women hopefully translate that advocacy into an interest and success into running for office so we can continue to see the gains in officeholders. the other thing that the caller raises is, literature would talk about it as male or masculine fragility. the book "backlash" speaks to this in some way to say when we see progress, gender progress, racial progress, etc., which we have seen, often we confront a backlash to that. it's often based in a perception that my well-being or privilege

is under threat. i think we are seeing that among some men, some communities of white people, and it is something that donald trump in his elections has tapped into by saying we will go back. we will go back to when these groups had greater privilege and greater security and more traditional gender roles. it is absolutely part of our politics of this moment. host: we are talking about the importance of women in elected office, but there are also a lot of women who work behind the scenes. it was the day after the november election that president-elect trump named susie wiles as his chief of staff. she will be the first woman in that post. talk about the importance of women working in politics that in less visible roles. guest: it is important. thank you for thinking about and pointing out the representation of women in unelected

positions. it is something i've been thinking about when we think about congressional staff or consultants. those who inform the politics of our moment whose names we often don't know. when we think about women's political representation we think about power. power can be defined in lots of ways. one way is to think about, how much influence do women have on outcomes in these political spheres? someone like susie wiles, who obviously had a prominent role in the trump campaign, will now have a prominent role in the white house, that is a lot of influence. that is power. arguably more than some women in the u.s. senate. we have to look at all of the areas where women can gain political influence, power, and try to, i would argue, encourage women to think about those roles for themselves. in addition to the high-level staff roles in the white house, you could be a legislative or

congressional staffer. in our system, lobbyists are very influential. a bad name is given to some lobbyists, but they are a source of information and influence for elected leaders. it is a place where women if they care deeply about policy issues may think about lobbying and advocacy as a way to influence outcomes. when we look at the representation of women in these unelected roles we have also seen the persistent underrepresentation. that has been true in the white house and high levels of leadership, cabinet leadership. even in the trump administration before. we want to think about ways, how do we put more pressure on those who are selecting those staffs and appointees to consider diversity in that selection? many will push back against that suggestion, but if you recognize

the value of perspectives and lived experiences, you might see the value of encouraging more diversity across these unelected roles. host: let's hear from juanita. caller: how are you? it is very cold here in cincinnati. before i say anything, i want to make a comment about the lady who is going to be trump's chief of staff. as far as i'm concerned, she will be another mark meadows, so i am not impressed at all. secondly, about mrs. harris, can you imagine what the backlash would have been had in any way, shape, or form she would say she would lie on her race and gender to be elected?

a lot of black men did not vote for her either. thirdly, all you have to do, and i am an old lady so i can say it, all you have to do is look at the numbers in congress. women tend to bring to congress the things that make houses or homes work. things like, if you're taking care of mom and dad who is going to take care of the kids? who is going to make sure that the gas and electric wills are paid? who is going to make sure that the house taxes are paid, especially in red states? i live across from kentucky. half of the staff went to trial but half of the state doesn't have a nursing home and in their hospitals have closed. the numbers tell why women over the years have become democrats. we will have to see what happens in the next four years. thank you. host: kelly?

guest: thank you for that point. you stated it more clearly than i did in terms of the value of women's congressional representation. i want to back that up with interviews that we did in congress. my colleagues and i did a book called "a seat at the table" or we talk to over 80 women across party lines. one thing that continually came back to when we asked why does it matter when you are here, they talked about exactly with the caller was talking about. which is, we understand the distinct challenges of caregiving and running a household economically in terms of care or responsibilities, being in a sandwich generation caring for elderly parents and kids. they would talk about having those experiences and responsibilities in their personal lives really did influence what they brought the

congress. whether it be thinking about paid leave, which, by the way, republicans and democratic women have led on, just they have a different model for how you get there. but they were still leading on those questions. or eldercare issues, social security changes that would better address caregiving, we see women leading on so many of those things, as the caller said.i think that there are ample examples of why and how it matters, and that you can apply those across party lines. one other thing that the caller mentioned in terms of how difficult it would have been for kamala harris to ever say, vote for me, or think about my race and gender in this. she is absolutely right. where that to be something she did say, the criticism would be, she is playing the gender card or she is playing the race card. as the earlier caller noted, there was an argument that she

was even though she never said those words. there is a constraint you have as a candidate representing very diverse identities from what we've seen in office where, as you have white male candidates, donald trump repeatedly said that if hillary clinton -- she doesn't have the presidential look. he was very much playing into identity, but often we don't call it out as such when we assume the neutrality of whiteness and maleness. host: one last call, laura in pennsylvania on the line for democrats. caller: good morning. i would like to say, first of all, women are what runs this country if you think about it. they are caretakers and givers. kamala harris, i felt so bad for her when she had to stand up there next to the speaker and have to say the numbers.

that had to be so humiliating for her. i felt so bad. also, trump, ok, he hired women for certain jobs, but we need somebody in national security who can run this country. she has no clue, absolutely. he just hires women he likes that have no experience. we are under siege right now inside our country, you know. we need a woman that knows what she's doing. if you're going to elect a woman, it doesn't matter what she looks like. it is the experience. that is what really gets me. i don't understand how the people don't see what he's doing. it's just -- he is a circus. host: we will get a response.

we are running short on time. guest: i want to echo the fact that this is absolutely true. none of this work or argument is to say any woman, support all women regardless of their beliefs or experience. the argument that i would make, many of us make, and i think the caller is making is that women should be held to the same standard. the same scrutiny over qualifications, perspective as their male counterparts, not higher. if we do that, we should see more women in positions of power and influence in ways that can make positive outcomes. also, not all women are going to share the same position. that is why we want a diversity of women in office, because we have a diversity of viewpoints, experiences, and desires of women in the electorate. host: kelly dittmar, you can find her work online.

>> up next, a house debate. the bill passed. maine, president-elect donald trump is sentenced to an unconditional discharge in a hush money case in which he was convicted on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records. later, a discussion of the china-russian relationship. next week, the house and senate are both in session. the house continues work on 12 bills focusing on border security and immigration policy. the senate continues work on legislation to require the homeland security department to detain migrants. also, stay tuned for

comprehensive coverage of confirmation hearing's for cabinet nominees. the nominee for defense secretary will testify before the senate armed services committee. wednesday, the governor of south dakota will appear before the homeland security committee. marco rubio, the nominee for secretary of state, heads to the foreign relations committee. and pam bondi will begin her confirmation for u.s. attorney general. she will testify before the senate judiciary committee. watch next week live on our networks. also, head over to c-span.org for scheduling information. c-span, democracy unfiltered. >> c-span, democracy unfiltered

to we are funded by these television companies and more, including comcast. >> you think this is just a community center? it is way more than that. >> comcast is partnering with community centers to enable wi-fi so students from low income families can get tools they need be ready for anything. >> comcast supports c-span as a public service, along with these other television providers. >> up next, e s. house approves the first bill of the new congress. it is me after a nursing studenkied by an undocumented iignt who had been arrested for theft. passed. it requires the homend security department to detain undocunt immigrants on theft related crimes. the u.s. senate is expected to debate and vote on the measure next week. now, the house debate on the measure.