tv Washington Journal 07172019 CSPAN July 17, 2019 6:59am-10:00am EDT
barr in contempt of congress. on c-span two the senate is back to continue consideration on a series of tax treaties that would amend existing agreements with spain, switzerland, japan, and luxembourg. at 7:00 p.m., trump holds a rally in greenville, north carolina. on c-span3, at 9:15 eastern, the senate homeland security and governmental affairs committee holds a hearing on migration at the southern border. day, a house energy subcommittee hearing on modernizing and securing the electric grid. >> coming up on "washington journal," kelly armstrong talks about yesterday's vote in the house, condemning trump for comments he made about democratic members of congress.
al green talks about his continued efforts to impeach trump. pierce looks at thee trump administration's attempts to restrict who can seek asylum in the u.s. ♪ you are seeing, that is the final tally from yesterday's houseboat condemning president trump over his tweets toward four female members of congress. between the house and republicans over the speaker using disparaging remarks over the president -- on the president and one member of congress abandoning his post because of partisan squabbling. looking at the events of the last few days, some members have called for a cooling of harsh rhetoric and more civility.
we will show you what took place yesterday. we want to hear from you in light of recent events, can civility in politics be restored? you can let us know by calling the phone lines. 202-748-8000 for democrats. 202-748-8001 for republicans. and 202-748-8002 for independents. if you want to tweet and use social media, our twitter address is @cspanwj and you can post on our facebook page at facebook.com/cspan. all of this available to you if you want to go to our website at c-span.org to see the events of yesterday. this was the wall street journal about the house voting to condemn those comments in a vote yesterday. michael bender writing it was a handful of republicans who broke with leadership on this. susan brooks of indiana, brian
fitzpatrick, will heard -- will hurt, and fred upton. mitch mcconnell offered a mild reprimand of the president and his comments on the matter saying from the president to the speaker to freshman members, all of us have a responsibility to elevate to the public discourse. that was a statement from the speaker. also from the wall street journal and writing up to some of the events, they say the vote we showed you came at the end of a chaotic afternoon on the house floor in which nancy pelosi's characterization of mr. trump's tweets as racist was rules -- ruled out of order, but kept on the record. you can see all of those and that full accounting of what took place at c-span.org. here is nancy pelosi. [video clip] >> these comments from the white house are disgraceful and
disgusting and these comments are racist. how shameful to hear him continue to defend those offensive words. our caucus will continue to forcibly respond to those attacks on our members, which reflect a fundamental disrespect for the beautiful diversity of america. there is no place anywhere for the president's words, which are not only divisive, but dangerous and legitimized and increased fear and hatred of new americans and people of color. it is so sad because you would think there would be a given that we would universally, in this body, just say of course -- of course. there is no excuse for any response to those words but a swift and strong unified
condemnation. every member of this union should join us in condemning the president's racist tweets. to do anything less would be a shocking rejection of our values and a shameful abdication of our oath of office to protect the american people. -- if she would like to re-phase -- rephrase comment. i make a point of order the words are to be taken down. >> the chair will remind all members please, please do not -- personality based comments. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. >> i make in order that comments
are not parliamentarian and to be taken down. host: the back-and-forth leading up to this, but we will show you what you heard from emanuel cleaver, the action he took when he was -- he saw what was going on. this idea of civility in politics, can it be restored to the political process? 202-748-8000 for democrats. 202-748-8001 for republicans. and 202-748-8002. if you want to tweet us, you can do so @cspanwj and if you want to post on our facebook page -- if you go to the page now, there is a poll. it is not scientific, a simple yes-no poll. you can make your comments, about 500 of you doing so before the start of the show. you saw what happened in the back-and-forth between speaker pelosi and doug collins. you saw emanuel cleaver
presiding over the matter. later in the process of doing so, he decides to make the unusual move of abandoning the chair. here is the lead up to that. [video clip] >> i tried to do this in a fair way. i kept warning both sides. whereul had a situation -- on another motion to take down the words of a friend of mine and we never want to pass up an opportunity to escalate. that is what this is. i dare anybody to look at the footage and see if there was any unfairness. unfairness is not enough, but we want to just fight. . abandon the chair also takingvent
place yesterday. you can see that at c-span and to the words of representative cleaver, that is our idea for the first hour. eric in maryland, you are up first on our independent line. go ahead. host: good morning -- caller: good morning, pedro and good morning, america. i am an immigrant. i came in this country and i work hard. the comment was really offensive, especially given his history because his grandparents germany. to answer your question about can we bring back civility in politics -- what really scares me is the democrat on the left
are as dangerous -- they are just more polite. the socialism agenda is also scaring me. i don't even know how i am going to vote in 2020. of civility in politics, in a simple way, do you think it could be restored? caller: it would be difficult. i still believe joe biden might be a voice of reason because he is a guy that is really liked on both sides. host: let's go to jerry in detroit. hello. , pedro.good morning greetings from motown, the hometown of my represented of and a member of the squad, rashida tlaib. restoredivility can be and i think it can be when we
finally get a president who behaves better than this one and remark.like to make a especially people on the republican line get offended at being called a racist. if they don't like being called that, how can they think that way? notou hate anyone who is white, you hate anyone who is not white. i think president trump emboldened these people. of civility,idea it strictly resides with who is in the highest office of the land? caller: i think so because donald trump has a track record of making a lot of racially insensitive comments. if you recall the trashing of andblack football players charlottesville, that sort of
thing. like i said, he has been emboldening some of these racist, white republicans, some of whom will no doubt be talking smack about me afterwards. host: steve on the republican line. caller: i will try not to be too long-winded today. both parties are playing to this. they are trying to attract a moderate voter like myself and we are not paying attention to any of this. we are sitting on the sideline and ignoring it. host: why take a stance of ignoring it? why do you say that? caller: look what happened to joe biden. about comes up and asks auestion on busing -- kamal
comes up and asks a question about busing. they were busing the students, why not bus the teachers? as attorney, she was not that great. there is a couple of things if you look at her record out here nuclearly with the where we tried to move storage -- let's gonvolved to sandra in alabama. caller: hello. totallythose people are out of order. the president said i want you to go back to your country, come you dod let me know how this. i think they were very respa's
-- disrespectful to the highest office in the land. i think they need to be taken out themselves and teach. civility be restored given what you have seen the last few days? caller: if some of those house members will give and try not to wear their feelings on their sleeves, i am sure the republicans and the president will give them respect if they give him respect. omar is omar -- ilhan the head of this and i know she has lied to congress herself. she was married to her brother -- host: we will leave it there. this idea of civility in politics, if it can be restored. because of the instances of the last couple days, you can call for democrats.0
republicans, 202-748-8001. and independents, 202-748-8002. joins us on the phone, he is there editor in chief. good morning morning and could theput it into perspective way you covered the house over the years? caller: i would say it has almost become tiresome and .liche level. taken it to a new in the capital yesterday, we the tookess -- the congress the anger and vitriol up a new notch. i have never seen a presiding thecer relinquish the chair
way mr. cleaver did. i have never heard a speaker of the house accuse a president of the united states of being seen aand i have never republican try to have the speaker ruled out of order and shut down the rest of the day. that was the first time that happened since i got to start winring congress in 1985 .ip o'neill was the speaker that i would mark as really one of the opening bells of this decline in civility and discourse at the capital when the speaker became so frustrated with newt gingrich he hurled insults at him and his words were taken down. host: can you go through what the rules say when it comes to parliamentary procedure about
what you can say and what some found wrong with nancy pelosi's statements? guest: the rules are quite explicitly clear and the rules about what is within bounds and out of bounds in terms of decorum and rhetoric on the house floor are written down in a book that is called jefferson's manual. book ofn outgrowth parliamentary procedure written back in the earliest days of the republic. the rules we are talking about now were not enumerated by jefferson. there has been talk on social media, why are we abandoning a rulebook written a couple centuries ago written by somebody who was a slaveholder? these rules are called jefferson's manual, but they are an enumeration of the precedents set in congress over 200 years and on page 190, it says
references to racial or other discrimination on the part of the president are not in order. remarks may not refer to the president as a racist and it goes on to say or to him having made a bigoted or racist statement. precedentsdents -- and notes are as recent as five years ago. it was clear mrs. pelosi's comments were out of line in that context and that is why eventually mr. hoyer -- the democrats then did a clever thing, which whoever is in the majority would have done such a thing, to acknowledge she was out of order by the rules, but essentially say let's use our majority muscle to let her set a different precedent. host: you heard the chair use the term engaging in personalities, what does that mean? caller: -- guest: that was one
of the rules, one of the sort of bedrock rules on decorum on the house floor is that you are not supposed to be talking about the personal traits -- personal characteristics of the people you are talking about, you are supposed to be confining your speech to policy and what may have been said or not said, but not to get into personal characteristics. beganas what mr. collins with when he asked mrs. pelosi's words be stricken. the two punishments are supposed to be the speech is excised from the proceedings and the person who said the offensive thing is supposed to be habited from saying anything on the house floor for the rest of the debate on that topic. engaging in personalities was part of it, but there is an even more explicit prohibition on
what you can and cannot say about the president. host: you heard our guest on the phone reference tip o'neill. there is a tweet from tip o'neill showing the back-and-forth leading up to what our guest was talking about . when it comes to abandoning the post of monitoring or watching over the house, have you seen that before? caller: i absolutely have not. mr. cleaver was put in that position. not everybody gets to preside over the house, only members of the majority party preside over the house. pitchingittle bit like staff on a baseball team, there are per -- certain people called on to do certain jobs and mr. cleaver is one of the presiding officers who gets called on to preside at certain highly emotional and fraught times and
to see him, of all people, walk minister. an ordained he is known to be personally passionate, but to be somebody to can get the two sides cool their rhetoric and see him be frustrated is interesting. i have seen presiding officers need to leave the room to take a phone call or need to leave the room to take a bathroom break, but never seen them walk off in frustration. host: when it comes to this idea of civility, can that be restored when you have the big events like the one we are seeing play out over the last day? guest: it will be tough and maybe you already mentioned this as we look into today, but it will not get any easier. the houses moving on right away to have votes to hold the attorney general and secretary of commerce in contempt of
congress and there will be another test vote on a call for impeachment number which is a resolution and the democratic leadership will argo -- argue against, but it will happen. there will be other topics on the house floor that produce similarly incendiary rhetoric. if i may sort of offer that i -- the lastg back time we had a period with a civility reset was after september 11. it takes something that dramatic and calvin isaac -- galvanizing to get people to put their vitriolic talking points away and come together for the good of the country are it i hope it will not take a similarly moment like hurtful that to galvanize the country again. host: david hawking', you can
ulcrum.us.ork at thef congress votet of that will take place today around noon. bob greene will join us later in the program. to the idea of civility in congress, we are getting your take on it. 202-748-8000 for democrats. 202-748-8001 for republicans. .nd independents, 202-748-8002 from louisiana, jean is next. caller: good morning, pedro. thisaven't we had discourse with any other president? number 45 thinks he can say anything and it will be unchecked.
have civil discourse restored unless, let's be truthful, as long as number 45 as our leader who has no morals and is a racist and a bigot, who has no integrity is a pathological liar. we have not had this kind of discourse before. number 45 instigates all of this. he throws a rock and hides his head. we need to get rid of him. vote blue. host: let's hear from don in tennessee, independent line. you are next. caller: i am wondering if that lady in louisiana came up with those ideas all on her own. why don't we fundamentally change america and put a moratorium on the house and the senate? give them a two year unpaid
vacation. the president make a proposal and tell the nation okay on such and such a day, everybody use your phones and call in yea or nay. let's prove we don't need these people. host: how does that change the idea of civility in politics? caller: just prove to them we do not really need them, just vote on an idea straight up, the american public calling in. host: tony in texas, republican line, hello. caller: on the first day of this new congress, you were hosting and the question of the day was instructions we have for the new congress. i happen to be one of those collars and on that day, the first thing i said was to take a look at the mirror before you start speaking and the other one of those things i did say that day is before you accuse -- when
i say you, i am not talking about you, i am talking about congress and when they say before you accuse anyone of roles.g, reverse all the yesterday we heard -- i believe it was john yesterday and he played a clip of the four congresswomen in their statement about the president and what had happened. if you would go back or everyone go back to the transcript of that and every time they use a racial term like black or white -- by the way, the phrase, "people of color," i find that to be racially offensive because black, white, brown, whatever, we are all of color. host: all of this leading up to the idea of civility in politics? caller: exactly. if we go back to the transcripts
when they had those racist terms and reverse it and every time they say black, reverse with white. and then re-think what they are saying. sameay realize there is a tone of racism going on. for all of us, we need to stop and think that way. host: democrats line, hi. caller: good morning. i am a naturalized american citizen professor and i see civility has to be restored. however, that could only happen for years to come. has unraveled and untapped is a way of ah third of the population feeling they are the landlord and two thirds are only the tenants.
government media education in order to restore civility, equal opportunity and equal treatment under the law for all americans regardless. that is something that is aspirational and is not going to happen overnight. host: james from seattle, washington, independent line. caller: hello. how are you doing today? host: fine, thank you. caller: we cannot get civility in politics until we get a politician instead of an independent entrepreneur businessman trying to run his country for his own avenues and not considering he is the president of the people. had severale presidents before, are you saying more civility took place under their tenure? caller: i am not saying more civility, but we at least have politicians that will serve as
politicians. civility cannot be restored as long as trump is in there not acting as a politician. host: from paul in roanoke, virginia, on the topic of civility in politics. you are next up, republican line . stop.: both sides need to this is getting ridiculous. i have been hearing it from both sides. mainly democrats have been doing this for years. if they don't agree with what your opinion is, they call you a racist or sexist, whatever. it has been going since the obama administration and even before that. every time they were in the campaign, they called republicans a racist. we have to stop this and if we cannot debate each other, we should not be calling each other
names. host: do you think the current president plays a role in the current level of civility going on? caller: he should not have said what he said the other day, i agree that. too.have been saying it, this has got to stop. host: that is paul in virginia. the washington times editorial takes a look at civility. in their last paragraph reads the president scolded the squad, as is his custom and some republicans called him over the line for telling the ladies to "go home." they replied they are home, american citizens all, but the squad have spent years practicing insult of mr. trump, accusing him of racism and they are getting what they asked for. we live in angry times. it was yesterday the senate majority leader took before cameras and spoke to reporters.
he was asked about the current level of political discourse and rhetoric and had this to say. [video clip] >> there has been a lot of discussion about the events over the last couple days, so i would like to address it myself. i think there has been a consensus political rhetoric has all across theed political spectrum. we have heard facilities on the u.s. border called concentration camps. we have seen the far left throw accusations of racism at everyone. anyone who disagrees with them thenyone, including speakers of the house, we have used -- use anti-semitic tropes and imply people only support israel because of campaign contributions. the most vile accusations and insults against our nation have become incredibly routine and we
have seen back and forth over the past few days. most of you know justice scalia was sort of my all-time favorite and here is what he had to say. he said i don't attack people, i attack ideas and i think that is a good lesson for all of us. from the president to the speaker to freshman members of the house, all of us have a responsibility to elevate the public discourse. our words do matter. we know politics is a contact wert, but it is about time lowered the temperature across the board, all the bus ought to contribute to a better level of discourse. host: you can find that on c-span. the majority leader talking about the supreme court in news related to that. john paul stevens passing away
yesterday at the age of 99. eugene in clinton, maryland. democrats line. caller: yes, civility can be restored. we, as a people, i am talking about black people, are very forgiving. we are often criticized because we forgive so easily. i do believe as a 77-year-old black man, civility can be restored and i want to say this, too. america, america, let's join together and a few really want to know how i feel about civility, go to my website, lifteveryvoiceandsing.org. host: give me one way how civility can be restored? caller: it can be restored by this way.
first of all, white america, are.ct us for what we we were brought to this country, we built this country. we are important. we are part of the creator. yes, we are black. yes, others may be other colors, but we are god's gift to america and let us live every voice and sing. says susan off of facebook can civility be restored? yes. will it be restored, that remains to be seen and takes commitment -- it only takes one to start and uncivil dialogue. restoring civility needs to be a bipartisan or nonpartisan effort. ads it from facebook
think so, but at the same time, how do i question, -- come to the table for people who votes with -- those thoughts and others on our facebook page. independent line, washington, d.c. caller: good morning, pedro. i believe civility can be restored if we had politicians who knew what they were doing. i agree with the previous caller that said trump is running this like a business. that is all it is to him, a business. he is not educated in trying to be a leader. yes, he has us in an economic up line, but at the end of the day, this is not something we need to
have peace in this country. host: how does a is no span bring more civility -- businessman bring more civility to the political process? caller: how can we have a better business, not a better country. he is worried about having a better business. host: when it comes to the members of congress not in the united states, they highlight several. 29 members were born abroad, half of them parents serving in the military and working overseas. roll weise, democrat from california, a lawyer born in japan, mazie hirono, a women's -- as advocate in india real estate developer born in an army hospital in france. there are others in that list if you want to read at the new york times.
max is next. caller: good morning. i think a lot of your callers have been good this morning. the black gentleman i thought made some very good points. number one, we are god's creation and the way i think civility in politics can be done is if we start following the rule of law. yesterday was a great example. ownhouse overturned their parliamentarian and voted to overrule their own house rules. we look at people who come over through thely, go process and the judge says they have to go back and we look at people trying to enforce the law
as criminals. whites nazi people. congress puts them in there to do a job. i don't understand why we cannot .et civility we appoint a prosecutor to look at trump, look at the collusion thing. they come up with collusion. nobody accepts the collusion. host: civility in politics the topic for the 40 or so minutes we have remaining on this topic. 202-748-8000 for democrats. 202-748-8001 for republicans. and independents, 202-748-8002. one of the people speaking yesterday, new jersey democrat sponsor the resolution condemning the remarks about the
democratic congresswoman. [video clip] >> my first thought is my politics may not always be the same as the congresswomen he was attacking, but all of us are americans and unlike most of them, i was born in a foreign country. to support and defend the constitution of the united states when i was 10 years old with my mom when i was sworn in to be a citizen. does the president think i should go back because i am an immigrant who disagrees with his policies? million american citizens -- we chose america, we know the alternative. many of us come from other countries, broken by communism
and in many cases, broken by leaders who did what we are doing today using race and religion to divide people. the president wants the drama, the reality show. in my district, we have to deal with the reality that these words are dangerous. every synagogue either has arm security or struggling with the question of whether to have it. every mosque, state police coming to friday prayers. the man who massacred jews in pittsburgh was obsessed with migrant caravans and blamed jews for helping refugees. believed immigrants are invaders who should go back to their countries. these french haters have always been with us. a never before have their twisted thoughts been legitimized by the highest
leaders in our land. yesterday, after the president's tweets, the neo-nazi daily storm gloated this is the kind of white nationalism we voted for. we have to decide, is this the kind of politics we want in our country? caller: let's hear -- host: let's hear from al in michigan, democrats line. caller: good morning. not to demean the question we are answering today, but it is the wrong question, whether civility can be returned to politics -- my short answer is i hope not and i don't care at this point. when you have a president say what he said, he is not questioning the citizenship of those congresswomen, he is questioning their humanity, it racist. there is a false equivalency. he is trying to develop a caste
system with language like that. you are saying it is not needed altogether? caller: i am saying civility is a great goal to have, but it is not the ultimate goal. if you don't have real equality and real respect and a lack of racism, i don't care it -- in that case, you should not have civility. host: doesn't that idea involves stability? caller: you have to get there first. you cannot say let's be civil about questioning these people's humanity, let's not get upset about that. when you don't have a quality first, you should not expect civility. us, kevin inining maryland, independent line. i would say in short
civility can be restored, but it will take a lot of different changes in society for that to happen. for instance, the congress as a whole, you can hear from the comments we have already had today, the people are meant -- in america are not interested in civility at all and representatives we elect, they represent our mood and our mood is not one of civility. therefore, politicians will not be civil. in addition, there is no incentive for politicians to be civil. one of the ways of getting bipartisanship with appointing federal judges is to have simple majorities. congress has deconstructed that
in favor of one party running roughshod over the other. as long as we have these constructs in the government that de incentivize civility, we are not going to have civility back. another small -- is notou said the mood civil. what is the mood needed in your opinion? caller: what we are listening to is any time we talk about civility, the first thing anybody wants to say is i am a civil person, but the guy on the other is not civil. a lot of that finger-pointing, as american people, we need to stop that. we need to stop the finger-pointing and say it is the other side that is not civil. how we come to civility is we
need to be able to sit at the table across from each other and not look at each other and vilify each other as the enemy, frame someone who has a of view that is different and how can we get to common ground? one of the things that has been taken out of our system of policymaking is the ability to which is another way of incentivizing politicians to be civil. i know there was a lot of corruption, but at the same time, if we can put a process in place that is not corrupt so that politicians have incentive to talk to each other about legislation, that is another way to inject civility into the government. let's hear from james,
republican line. caller: my mind has been blown me,he gentleman previous to they touched on some key things i see also. .hank you for having me the two gentlemen before me touched on some factors high field --can you hear me all right? host: yeah, you have made that point. what do you think about civility in politics? what has to happen? graver it is a much issue then just politics. when you go to the doctor, you anticipate -- you: we can hear you fine, are probably paying attention to the television. it just make your thought. caller: i am. when you go to the doctor, you expect your doctor to be
professional. politicians, however, the very idea of not attacking the , a basics ad hominem understanding of logic and philosophy. as an individual who came up through the school system and i did philosophy and psychology double majors, to take logic i was like, why don't we teach this in high school? the difference between false arguments and actually addressing an issue and when we ,an engage in a true argument it can be a good thing. we are not inventing the wheel here, these things have been long part of our history, we don't know the history of democracy or how it came to be. host: that is james in iowa. represents the 23rd
district buried i wrote an op-ed about what it was like to wear my air force uniform while people questioned my loyalty to the united states because of the color of my skin. i was in my air force blues when a woman asked if i was in the chinese air force. the suspicion immigrants are not to be -- it is un-american and dangerous. many americans are immigrants or have friends or family members that are immigrants. the american people continue to support newcomers. the american people understand what makes the nation great is not bloodlines or how long ago their ancestors arrived, but their character and belief in the constitution. you can find that in the washington post. the president asked about his comments, here is an exchange with a reporter on it.
[video clip] >> not use the phrase go back to your country to citizens and women of color who have been citizens of this country. whenthink it is terrible people speak so badly in our country. things said byf congresswomen that is so bad, so horrible that i almost don't want to read it, it is so bad. when the democrats did not want to mention the name of the congresswoman not so long ago and what they did and the way they are treating israel is a disgrace. not only israel, it is what they say about our country. in my opinion, they hate our
country and that is not good. thank you very much. -- host:he president the president will be in north carolina today for a campaign rally. you can see that at 7:00 on c-span 2, c-span.org, and our radio app. brooklyn, new york, this is janice. caller: good morning. i believe civility will continue to decrease. we need to start from when obama was giving his state of the union address and they yelled one came to the floor and rebutted for that. we need to go to the campaign trail. senator warren being called pocahontas. we are talking about people's
mental state. all of this is done to produce push, so then other side can push, get their laws through and start working. when all of this has been going .n, nothing has gotten passed nothing has gotten done for infrastructure. we don't have anything for infrastructure or laws. if civility continues to go down, we can sit here as a nation and the 1% can continue to grow. host: kevin from maryland, independent line. you are next up. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. i think the people blaming trump are a little shortsighted. certainly his presidency is somewhat related to the lack of
civility and division in the country and he is exploiting that for his candidacy, but he is not the root cause of the problem. i think what we are seeing is a failure of multiculturalism and the immigration policy that is based on a view that we can have a multicultural nation. it is actually very similar to what we have seen in europe with the flood of immigrants and the subsequent division and rise of militant politics. also, what you have seen in iraq, for example, when you have suni battling each other. if a country does not have a particular set of values and national identity to unite around, you are inevitably going to have conflict. immigrationorm our
system and have people assimilating to a particular national vision, then we are going to continue to see civility decline in the country. host: from pittsburgh, pennsylvania, george, republican line. go ahead. , under thegree conditions now, civility is impossible. i say that because profit controls everything. -- country is powernow, politics or the of our citizenship is based on profit. as long as profit is in first place, it continues. the whole concept and the view
of diversity -- profit divides everything, that is the nature of the thing. host: where do you see profit carrying out in the last few days? give me specifics. caller: the racism where -- profit hasace been a death sentence. that is what the community for slavery was all about, making money for the rich or the people controlling the system. dr.as about money -- even martin luther king said the 1960's were never about relieving black people out of exploitation -- start acting
like civilians or civility, treating them like human beings. host: mary up next in michigan. caller: my name is amelia. i think first, we have to start teaching the kids the constitution, the preamble. could you give everybody the definition of what civility is because i know we the people in order to form a more perfect union. sorry, i can hear you. host: i did not say anything. how does teaching people about the constitution restore stability in your mind? caller: civility is about the preamble. we the people, in order to ensure a more perfect union, provide for the common defense, that is the constitution preamble. i am sorry? host: i did not say anything. caller: i am saying that is part of civility, knowing who we are
as americans. i am african-american. keepst know why everyone talking about racism. we have been here 400 years. a lot of people came in the 19th century to 1800s. i'm sorry? host: i did not say anything, you are paying attention to your television. caller: we have been here 400 years. 1920? trump's family came we have been here since the 1500s. host: just a tip for those of you again, if you are watching your television, you will see a delay. if you think i am responding to you, it is a time delay from when i actually said anything. that is why we ask people to turn down their televisions when they call in. douglas is next. caller: thank you very much for c-span. chest civility --
suggest civility might be restored or fostered among politicians if they would refer to at least george washington's behaviorcivility and where in to improve another be unblamable yourself for example -- no reproachful language against anyone, neither curse or revile. thank you very much. host: next up, we will hear from kevin in california, republican line. thank youod morning, for taking my call and thank you for bringing such -- this issue is important to what is going on in politics. the behavior we saw at the beginning of this program from
congress, i was embarrassed by because i think civility can be restored, but it will need two or three things. the first is callers must remember what they are there for, they have a job to serve the american people. they must be others oriented and be there for the people. dismissed the fundamental responsibility of leadership and that is absolutely uncalled for for professionals in their position to behave in that matter. they set an example for the american people, they are held at a higher standard, we look up to them and depend on them today -- to do the best job they can. kevin int is california giving us a call. for republicans voting with democrats yesterday on the resolution, the final vote count, 240 to 187. hurd,, fitzpatrick,
austin, justin amash now independent of michigan also voting yes. elizabeth is next from san diego. caller: hi. i think the people of america are very civil in general if they have a leader that will lead them in a -- that direction . i am so proud of seeing the immigrants in our country, how successful they have been. it is like a beautiful bouquet of diverse flowers and our president is, on a daily basis, insulting everybody. he is an equal opportunity insult or, he insults democrats and republicans, calls people names daily. how is that the quality of a leader? america needs to get a leader to match our people. i would recommend to president trump that he get out some of the speeches of american -- abraham lincoln and read up on
those. america needs someone that can lead the country in a great direction. host: this is jamie in florida, republican line. go ahead. yes, i am watching -- thank you, again, for having your show and taking my call and i also want to share when it comes to the democrats, the women causing the all this division and they are racist,, he may have said -- people have taken it in totally the wrong way. i do not feel he is racist. he has employed several different nationalities within his company and i believe he loves america.
like noneperfect other before that has been in office, especially with all the corruption going on with obama and the clintons. who seems to want to clean all that up to the best of his ability while he is here in office and i like that he is taking god word because the word is whatthe holy bible was originally based on how to build this country. host: we will have one more call after that from this segment from georgia, terry on the democrats line. caller: how are you doing? host: fine, thank you. go ahead. caller: we need to get over this. he can say what he wants to say, there is a thing called freedom of speech in america. heknew he was a racist when
ran for president and he still is so what is the big problem? host: the idea of civility in politics, do you think it can be restored? caller: of course it can. the only thing we need to do is -- about what people say and we need to think about he has done a lot for america. host: a couple of events to talk about today. hearingthis morning, a on the southern border issue. you can see that on c-span3 and www.c-span.org. also today, a discussion taking a look with the homeland security secretary on this idea. that's on thursday morning. you can see that tomorrow. secretarycting of home and security talking about the border issue tomorrow
at 10:00 on c-span3. coming up, we will talk to representative kelly armstrong of north dakota. we will talk about trade. later on in the program, democratic congressman al green. he filed orders of impeachment last night. we will show you in light of the passing of justice john paul interview onad an our program, q&a, talked about being the third longest serving associate justice and his book "the five chiefs." wholl 112 over the years, would you have liked to have known? >> that's a wonderful question.
guess the three that come most three iely are the regarded as heroes as a law student. holmes --nd >> brandeis was the first jewish member of the court? >> yes. i think that's right. there's sixlieve catholics and three jews on the court now. when people look at the court from the outside and see that, does that make a difference for how people make decisions? >> i don't think it makes a difference at all. at one point, it was considered to be important, it was
considered a jewish seat for a while. i don't know whether steve or last-- i guess i'm the wasp. court,first came on the most of the court over the years has been protestant and white anglo-saxon. it is totally irrelevant in the discussion. there may be an occasion when religious holidays are given particular significance, but other than that, it is totally irrelevant to the decision process. >> "washington journal" continues. host: this is representative kelly armstrong, republican of north dakota. we thank you for coming to the program.
guest: absolutely. thank you for having me. host: tell us your perspective of the events of yesterday. guest: i was critical of the president's tweets. yesterday was truly political theater. the resolution was full of hyperbolic and unrelated language, so i voted against it. we could serve our citizens a lot better if we got to work on issues people back home care about. host: did you deem his tweets racist? guest: i don't think they were racist. i wouldn't have said it that way. my wife is an immigrant. i don't think you should say a u.s. citizen should go back to where they came from. that's where you lose a lot of republicans. host: a lot of issues to still be considered on budget matters.
where do you think the relationship between the two parties exists today? have ayou republican-controlled senate and democratic-controlled house and a whitete house -- relationship is practice wish we could some of those issues like criminal justice reform and opioid issues. host: from the pushback that republicans offer yesterday, it was over parliamentary issues. what did you think of that process? guest: it's bigger than parliamentary issues. i'm on two very contentious hearings. we've had a few of those incidents as well in those hearings. then't think we should call president a racist on the house
floor. host: call us at 202-748-8000 for democrats, 202-748-8001 for republicans. independents, 202-748-8002. you can also tweet us. because you are on the judiciary committee, you have a lot of issues coming up, robert mueller being considered. where do you see those hearings taking place? guest: with robert mueller, he's been pretty clear he will stay within the four corners of the document. it will be interesting how democrats and republicans handle that hearing. there's a lot of questions about bias in the process and how the hearings started. i have experience, i used to be a criminal defense attorney, so my plan is to listen and wait and then try to ask
questions based on what happens prior to my ability to ask. my plan is to listen to the hearing, listen to the interaction between the witness and republicans democrats as -- and republicans and democrats as well. i spend a lot of time with the mueller report, both section one and section two. issues, what'se going on on the border. talk about your committee's role in that. guest: when we are talking about the border, one of the things i try to do is point out the fallacy of our laws.
you get outside of the rhetoric, when you have laws that require certain things such as release after 20 days and the minimum the court case can take without , you are tactics - stretching out into 136 days. the framework of the legal system everyone is working in is fundamentally flawed. talking about the mueller testimony and immigration. a coupleere are issues we can work on in this town. i'm not sure if that's one. we should be looking at the framework of our laws and make sure it's working particularly because there are so many more family units coming to the border. the types of people coming to the border is significantly different than it's ever been in our history. host: what part of the law would you revise? guest: we need to look at how
the court process works. we need to be able to work out any detention. the one thing we cannot do is let everybody go. host: there were changes by the trump administration -- what are they proposing? guest: when we start talking about asylum law, asylum law needs to match what we are trying to do. if there is a five or six-year-old that comes up to the border, i want to give them a hug and protect them from the world. take 100 million people all across the world because they live in poor communities. helping thosek on countries and building out their infrastructure so we don't see that as much.
the laws are different for mexico than they are for the northern triangle countries. host: when it comes to those exemptions to the new law, one saying if an asylum seeker was denied entry, a migrant could still apply -- guest: anyone who is being trafficked we should deal with in the most humane way possible. large oil boom in western north dakota. it's been great for the north dakota economy, great for the world. one of the side effects of that kind of growth and activity is traffickinghuman even in a state like north dakota. it is difficult to enforce whether it's at the border or not because of the transient
nature. human trafficking at all levels is something the federal government needs to continue to get involved in. host: what goes through your mind when you hear what's going ?n at the border the democratsd are on board with saying there is a crisis at the border. we need to get infrastructure in place to hold them in a way that is becoming of the united states of america. host: first call comes from san samuel in south pasadena, california. go ahead. i want to ask the congressman, you know, president trump is doing a great job, he's brought so much wealth back
here, but when the democrats say it's manufactured -- it wasn't manufactured. barack obama said there was no i think the -- president is doing a great job. you better stick with the president now because the president will make this country greater than it's ever been. when miss omar talked about the , the speaker of the house didn't say anything about it. i don't know what's going on with this country. democrats where i live voted republican. they will stick by president trump because they like what he's doing in this country to make the country great.
that president trump is doing a great job. yesterday was a bit of political theater. the last time we tried that resolution on the floor of the house to condemn anti-semitic down to, it got watered the point where i supported it because it didn't say anything. has been to north dakota more times -- my state has received more interaction from this white house and this administration then the last five combined. i support the president. his policies are great for my state and great for the country. thing everybody who knows me if you ask me a question,
you will get an answer. i have no problem telling the president when i disagree with something he says. host: what do you think of the squad, asaof the it's known? i get aven back home, lot of questions about whether -- i approach it with the same way speaker pelosi did. i serve on committees with representative a conseil cortez -- representative a conseil ocasio-cortez. i think their policies are bad for the country. thoseon't invite me to meetings. they've caused some problems.
think their supporters accused nancy pelosi of racism last week. that's where we get into trouble in this town. whether i'm disagreeing with the president or the squad, it doesn't always have to be personal. we deal with highly contentious issues every day. if you are going to agree with somebody 100% of the time, politically, you're going to vote for yourself or your dog. it doesn't mean every time you disagree with them you are a terrible person. they escalate that rhetoric and when it comes back at them, they claim victimhood. line, minnesota, sharon. caller: i want to start with a couple of facts and then a quick opinion and then a couple of quick questions. the majority of we the people
believe 45 is a racist. 90,000 liked his tweets. four from your party decided to about their conscious and not their party. least three countries have publicly condemned his racist words. applaudedas a 45 for his racist words. i don't believe every conservative is a racist, but we have to look at moving forward. i cannot not believe moving forward that although he is a racist you want to claim you're not a racist -- i'm sorry, that doesn't fly with me anymore. you simply are a racist. host: why don't we leave it there? guest: i don't think his tweet was racist, i don't think the
president's racist and i don't think i'm a racist. that's an unfair analogy. that's the problem. i stand by my criticism of the tweet. as somebody who has practiced criminal defense for as long as i have, there's been nothing better for minority communities -- ithe first step back don't rise to the level of saying absolutely. in thehe current debate house is whether they will pass the usmca. where does that stand today? is a commodity
based economy -- we border canada and mexico, our two biggest trading partners. there's votes on the floor of the house to pass it now. leadership needs to bring it down. lifted terrorists were tariffs were lifted. we continue to move forward. it's important to north dakota, important to the economy, it's important for how we negotiate with china and other countries. host: one of the hesitancy's was labor protections. howdy think this version addresses those? guest: this version is better than nafta. we had three democratic congress members who voted against the original nafta.
everybody gets to work with them. whether it's auto parts or grain trading, this deal is significantly better for north .akota that was one of the requirements we had for mexico, which they passed through the legislative body. the wholen it up, thing comes open. are,ver other issues there we have to deal with external letter agreements to get this past. host: is there a date or some type of roadmap for considering the usmca? guest: i believe there is. this administration hasn't always been the best at dealing with capitol hill -- i don't think that's unique. on this issue particularly, the white house has been good at working with capitol hill to get a path forward. we have one week before our
august recess. canada is going into an election cycle. it has been approved in canada and mexico. they are ready to ratify it. i'm hopeful because it is essential and it's really important to the citizens of north dakota. host: roger in kentucky. republican line. caller: i'm a republican. thank you, c-span, for having me talk. everyone should respect donald trump as our president just like they did all the other presidents. if anyone makes remarks that he's racist or whatever, there ought to be a law that you get a ticket or something. president,t like the go to another country. god wetrump, thank because inald trump believe in the pledge of
allegiance and making america great again. just say something nice about the man. that's all i would like to hear. side, the whole united states is getting fed up with that. i'm not saying this to be mean, but if they would have put their hats on while wearing white robes, they would have been the klan. guest: you were just having discussion about civility and government -- civility on social media would be a good idea as well. i don't agree with giving somebody a ticket for exercising their first amendment rights.
that's the best part about this country. host: to what degree do you think civility is needed in the political process? it's an interesting question. it is as divided as government has ever been. if you read poor richard's almanac, the real big difference right now is the access to different communication mediums. isdaughter is 11, my son nine. i've got to go to middle schools and talk about social media. we talk about it and government. -- in government. if you have kids those ages they are walking into it, this is a theconversation -- golden rule is do unto others as you would have them do unto you. if you wouldn't say it to their face, don't say it with your
phones. host: independent line, from jamaica, new york, wayne, hello. caller: following that gentlemen -- i use that word loosely, "gentlemen," saying respect donald trump. let's respect the people's house -- i would never put him in there. you said you married an immigrant. do you think you could protect whenwife in any instance she's attacked? how will you protect her? it's amazing that you say you support the president and you support his actions. i can't believe it. all you republicans are in lockstep about the same rhetoric over and over. it is tiring. it's always something about
race. it's tiring. it's moneymaking. sure howm not entirely to respond to that. i support the president and i love my wife. part of the reason i wasn't impressed with the tweet is because i'm married to an immigrant and i said as much. up into theheted most extreme political theater and that's where you lose me. host: four republicans voted for the resolution. guest: that's the decision they make. that's the best part of the house of representatives. everyone gets to go up there and vote how they want. republicans -- we lose 40 republicans on votes four time -- we lose
republicans on votes every time. caller: i taught in a classroom -- one of the kids said something to another child that had an accent, "go back to your country." andad a meeting about it explained to them because maybe they didn't understand why that was the wrong thing to say. you talk about political theater -- when donald trump sent out that tweet, that was political theater. and then you followed his orders, to vote against the resolution. you sound like you are kind of an independent thinker, but i don't believe it. you voted right along with it,
even though you disagreed with him. i'm surprised to hear you say you have a nine-year-old and 11-year-old. i hope you are teaching them the right things because it doesn't feel like it because this was wrong. guest: i didn't like the tweet. i didn't think it was racist. host: ohio. donna. this is on our independent line. caller: actually, i'm a republican. he's not a racist. 's going to attack anyone who disagrees with him. he's got the emotional maturity of a five-year-old. low energy,ople they sweat a lot, their hands are small -- i'm tired of all the lies, i'm tired of the way he's operating with distractions.
he's not a politician. he's a marketing genius. i will not vote for him. i think that's the greatest part about this country. people get away and how they weigh in howo they want. he is the greatest part, a disruptor in washington. that this you president has a tremendous amount of support across the midwest. host: do you find the reason tweet a disruptive one? where does the line get drawn? drawn on aline gets daily basis. when i say disruptor i mean --ut the norms in washington
only communicating through d.c. media. he communicates directly with the people. one third of his tweets are great, one third of them aren't. the president will do what he does. he communicates in the manner in which he communicates. a lot of people across the country appreciated. -- a lot ofciate it people across the country appreciate it. when you engage in those types of things, there's a lot of people that you deal with the issues the way they are. doesn't wait for somebody to write what he thinks they should write. our republican line. he's in michigan. go ahead. caller: how are you this morning? host: fine. go ahead. you are on.
caller: i'm a republican. both parties are completely out of control. let's just rewind a bit. othera republican, conservatives across the united states, republicans have been called deplorables, compared to hitler, called homophobic, xenophobic, racist, nationalist, out on, these women come a constant attack against the united states -- this stuff is on record -- where is the line? i find it hard to defend the president but we have four minority women berating the president and everyone who doesn't think like democrats across the country -- that's ok, and we aret back
called racists. do all these politicians have screen actors guild cards? -- onei will agree with of the problems is the reference to the four minority women -- got are four democrats who elected by their constituents. when they start talking about socialism and those types of issues, they will see me on the front lines fighting those policies. this is part of the problem in this town. they believe in their own celebrity and that's fine. they have of the day, four votes just like everybody else. pretty much every policy that comes out of that group is bad for the united states and bad
for the state of north dakota. host: what goes through your mind when the discussion of impeachment comes up in the house? guest: one of the things that's been said by one of the members of the group is that we should take the politics out of impeachment. nmpeachment is a po inherently political proceeding. i don't think anybody would disagree that it really hurt that party at the ballot box that next election -- i know your next guest has filed articles of impeachment. either do it or don't. there's a lot of issues we should be dealing with on those two committees, whether it's prescription drug prices or criminal justice reform, there are issues where we can get bipartisan support. talking about issues dealing in the tech community -- one of the biggest conversations we need to have in this town moving forward
government privacy and private industry privacy but we are not having those conversations because we are having impeachment discussions three days a week and judiciary. if they are going to do it, we should get on with it. is there a case to be made -- guest: it's amazing to me -- i follow this. one of the more amazing things for me is for two years, we were talking about collusion, conspiracy. 10 days before the report came out, some of my friends on the left started softening the blow of collision and started pivoting to obstruction. you can have obstruction without an underlying crime. the reality of the situation is it doesn't get charged often. if there isn't an underlying
crime, it is difficult to prove obstruction. i would be comfortable defending the obstruction case. host: representative kelly armstrong, thank you for your time today. nextr guest mentioned, our guest has filed his third attempt in articles of impeachment the house. program, thehe trump administration moved to limit asylum claims -- we will talk about that new policy. all those discussions coming up on "washington journal." ♪
>> this weekend, "washington journal" is live from the smithsonian national air and space museum to mark the 50th anniversary of the apollo 11 moon landing. join us saturday morning starting at 7:00 a.m. eastern. the founding director of george washington university's space logsdon,stitute, john historymuseum's space curator. join the program all morning with your calls, facebook questions and tweets. watch "washington journal" marking the 50th anniversary of the apollo 11 moon landing.
sunday night on q&a -- >> we found that public officials, the people who really govern this country, it's not the congress, it's not the president, its bureaucrats. they write the rules and regulations that have the force of law. they don't think much of ordinary americans. from johns ginsberg hopkins university discusses his book, "what washington gets ."ong >> what did we learn. we elected congress, they make the law, the president executes the law -- that ain't exactly how the system works. much of what we think of as the law consists of rules and regulations written by
bureaucratic agencies, by bureaucrats who aren't elected by anyone and often served for decades. c-span's q&a.t on >> "washington journal" continues. host: this is representative al green, democrat of texas. he serves the ninth district. that includes houston. his articlesabout of impeachment. guest: pleased to receive your 40 years mug. host: thank you for joining us. the third attempt at this -- what makes this time different from the previous two times? guest: we are now engaged in a bifurcated process. yesterday was a vote of condemnation. today, we will have a vote to punish. when you go to court, the first phase of the trial is to
determine whether a person is guilty or not. clearly, 240 votes, he was found guilty. yesterday, there was no fine imposed, the president is not going to lose his job. the president won't lose his job, so we have to punish the president and impeachment is the means by which you can be punished in the house. when you are impeached and you had that stain on your record, indelible stain on the rest of your life, that is punishment. hate and fear in this country. ............... for those who would. say this is disconnected, he associated himself with those in charlottesville shouting "blood and soil, jews will not replace us."
a lady lost her life at the hands of one of the bigots. this is serious business. we ought to impeach this president for his bigotry which we have condemned. yesterday, found guilty. today, we punish. host: how does house leadership react to this attempt of yours? guest: they understand this is what is permitted. i think they will vote their conscience. leadership has not said one word to me about the position i'm taking. host: does that surprise you? guest: not at all. they know my position. i assume if they wanted to know more, they would ask. i see them every day. we greet each other. host: are you disappointed that they don't support this effort more? guest: i'm disappointed that we
have not moved forward on impeaching this president. what we are doing tomorrow -- in no way withs the ongoing investigation. the investigation has nothing to do with bigotry. it has to do with obstruction of justice. the mueller report was enough for us to impeach. he's already testified by way of giving his statement to the press. we should impeach him. we have a moral imperative to do so. if we don't do so, the president will say they could have impeached me and they didn't. i was innocent. i've been vindicated by the virtue of the inaction of the house of representatives.
democrats alone could impeach this president. i see no reason for us to conclude -- why should we say that we have to have them before we act? you willad federal 65, understand better what is expected. there are those who say the house will impeach but the senate won't convict. there no requirement that the senate will convict. i believe we ought to afford them the opportunity. to, thechoose not indelible stain of having been impeached will still be on this president. i want to take the affirmative step to impeach him. i represent a good many people of color, i represent members of
the lgbt community. i believe i ought to vote for them, i ought to vote in their best interest. it's in their best interests to remove this person from the white house who has made it clear that he has little respect for women, he will say almost anything about people of color, he disrespects religion, tried to ban muslims from this country. this president is out of control. get hims by which you under control is by impeachment -- host: kevin mccarthy spoke yesterday and talked about the president's recent comments. [video clip] --where the president tweet were the president's tweets
racist? >> no. i do not believe that. this is about ideology. this is about socialism versus freedom. understand when i listened to their press conference yesterday, they talk more about impeachment than anything else. in,he night of being sworn they brought all their supporters together, they spoke about impeachment in words i will not use here. this is about politics. we should get back to the business of america. said this is politics. you said this is one chance to go after the president -- there's a vote on the floor today -- you will encourage your members to vote against the resolution? >> yes.
it's all politics. you can't even name the resolution on the floor. if this is a case of what they're concerned most about, let's go through every comment individuals who have made on the other side of the aisle -- do we bring up a resolution about their comments? no. host: this was all about politics. that's what he said. guest: not at all. about politics in the sense that whatever we do in the house is political. this is really about bigotry emanating from the presidency. when the president talked about their home countries, he went on to push a policy that with worth the efforts of people from africa coming to this country. the president talked about banning muslims from the country. that's policy. he does it by way of tweet but it still policy.
it can be political in the sense that we deal in politics, but the truth is, this is about the soul of our country. and it's about the soul of the house of representatives. if we lose the country, we will lose the house. this mental.e we must do what is right. those who will say this will hinder the obstruction investigation, not true. the condemnation did not hinder it. this is an opportunity for us to yo on record for histor purposes to show generations unborn that we had the courage the samet of 1868 when issue was before the house of representatives with andrew johnson -- they impeached him for his bigotry.
slavesall about allowing the opportunity to live and breathe freely in the united states of america. host: our first call for you comes from south carolina. don, go ahead. caller: good morning, pedro. green,ou, congressman armstro g for your leadership. i have contacted jerry nadler's office,nancy pelosi's and congressman clyburn to relay that we need to start impeachment procedures against this guy. it is written in the declaration of independence it is the duty of the house of representatives to throw this bum out.
no more money, no more support from me as a democrat until we move on this issue. i don't know what else to say to nancy pelosi, who i love dearly, but she's wrong on this issue. i greatly appreciate your leadership and i to my hat to you -- take my hat off to you. guest: thank you for your call. i especially thank you for your service to your country. it means a lot to know that there are people who are willing to make that old mitt sacrifice so we can have liberty and justice for all here in the united states of america. -- willing to make that ultimate sacrifice. they arenced that causing the party to move in the direction -- i believe this president will be impeached.
i believe what we are doing is going to help push us to the point of doing it. .. it's just a matter of time ................ -- it's just a matter of time. i hope democrats will understand that we don't have to wait for storm ofct republicans supporting impeachment, have a means by which it is irrefutable, have someone else tell us that we should. it was never intended that the executive branch should investigate itself. mueller is part of the executive branch. this is why we can't get the information we want because it goes to the president. it doesn't come to us. the framers of the consultation never intended for this to happen. this is the responsibility of the congress. we have tostand up,
make it clear that this guardrailsas around him. if we do nothing, it will only get worse. we've seen what's happened to people in this country, the fabric of the social order is degenerating and deteriorating. it's time for us to take a stand. host: from ocean city, new jersey. diane, hi. caller: good morning. sad onto say it is very two points that the democrats want to impeach him and they aren't able to see the work of god in this. up forsed donald trump this job. he knewore he was born, donald trump was going to have this job. the democrats aren't seeing that.
they are obsessed with this impeachment, they are wasting their time, money and energy on this. all this time, they still cannot see it. guest: i appreciate your religiosity. there's something called free will. kennedyve is john f. stated here onhe earth, god's work must be our own. we all have the opportunity to do what is right. one has toimes when do something that's not popular, but right. ,e have to remove reckless lawless persons from the white house.
president does not respect the judiciary. a person whoudge cannot judge him because of his race. this president does not respect the congress. he will not provide information. he does not honor subpoenas. to dishonors others the hearings by not attending them. no person is above the law. he ought to be impeached. if we don't do it, we are putting a stain on ourselves. we are at a crossroads of accountability now. either we will hold him accountable or we will be held accountable. host: santa monica, california. independent line. caller: hello.
i couldn't agree more that you should impeach the president. you strongly believe it and you talk about it all the time. i am an ex democrat. i love and respect you and the party but you guys have become the word police. i can't believe all this money ey this is the taxpayers' mon you are spending to tell each other what to say. you guysc will judge for talking about talking about talking. guest: thank you for your comments in terms of the thought police but you and i know you cannot yell "fire" in a crowded theater. this country is dealing with the theatrics of the president. people to theite
extent that other people can be harmed. when you walk into my congressional office in houston, the first thing you see is a person with a gun. that's there because there are people who would do harm to me and my staff. i ami met a parade -- when i have to have armed people around me. i'm going to exercise my freedom of speech. i appreciate that you say you believe i believe what i'm doing. no one is telling me what to say. i'm going to vote to impeach the president today. i'm going to do it for harriet foran, for rosa parks, martin luther king, for many unnamed persons who lost their lives in the quest for freedom, liberty and justice for all.
he should not occupy the white house with the racist ideology he has weaponized. -- i'm assuming he's talking closer to the election. then he mentions timing and support. guest: there is some belief that it would be expedient to do so at a time near the election. it would be difficult for republicans to have an appropriate response. i know that exists. dr. king said the time is always right to do what is right. year andit until next as a result of some of these comments, someone is hurt. i'm in the position to act. i don't want some member of congress to be hurt when we
could do something now. i want to prevent someone from hurting someone else. this president has a nuclear button. you see that he is volatile. you see that he does things in a visceral way. do we really want to allow this to continue when we have grounds to impeach him? he has obstructed. created a climate in this country where hate is being legitimized by him. we don't want to legitimize hate and we don't want a president who thinks he is above the law. if we don't do anything about it, he will say he was vindicated by our inaction. thenresult, he will campaign on that very pr premise. impeach him because it is the right thing to do.
host: here's amber. bay city, texas. go ahead. caller: thank you for standing up for americans and what the majority of us have as our core values as far as race and ideology. i would like to talk a little bit about what trump said and agree that he needs to be impeached. he's obviously uneducated. his idea that whites are not from immigrant descendents are uneducated. there from shady ways -- the faster the better. he's exposing the republican party's underbelly as racist. out of hishe says mouth and them ignoring it or not directly commenting on what
it --s and just spending spinning it and pointing the finger at someone else, i hope everyone can see that they are sheep. he's changing policies for their ideas, putting money in their pockets. --h human being has a right guest: i thank you for your call. i will simply say that my desire to do what iay believe the constitution requires of us. that is having condemned the , today, taketerday the opportunity to punish him. today today, punishment
-- guilty yesterday, punishment today. and a slot and move forward with impeachment. if we don't do that, history will not be kind to us. i appreciate your commentary. host: from indiana, republican line. dennis, go ahead. caller: in my opinion, the representative is a racist bigot. his racist quotes -- the republicans can come along, but they have to ride on the back of the bus. guest: thank you for your comments. you are entitled to them. -- my recordre speaks for itself. let's talk about the president. president happens to have
the awesome amount of power that no member of the house has. the president has an army at his disposal. the president can issue executive orders and cause babies to be separated from their mothers at the border. the president can ban people from a country for their religious beliefs. the president has this awesome authority. we ought to be concerned about the reckless, ruthless president. if you can talk about people of color and excite violence against them, he can do similar things to other people. it doesn't get better, my friend. it will get worse unless we put guardrails against him. host: bob in arlington, texas. independent line. caller: good morning. . lived in houston for 20 years i've been in texas since 1961.
al green is not a true texan like ross perot, who we buried yesterday. forcan watch the funeral ross perot on rossperot.com. see that you have your zipper fixed -- guest: my comment for you is this. i'm an american. i love my country. i salute the flag. i say the pledge of allegiance. i sing the national anthem. i love my country. i also defended the right of persons such as you to say what you desire. you have the right to say it as long as you don't hurt other people by virtue of inciting people to hurt. you cannot yell "fire" in a
theater. you can't't do that, incite people to harm other people. this is what the president's s language will ultimately lead to. the people i represent will know that when i had the opportunity to stand up to bigotry, i did it. there are people who built the reputation fighting bigotry. there are organizations who built the reputation fighting bigotry. for some reason, they are absent in this debate. they are not taking the stand against this bigotry they see and may have condemned in the past. there are members of the clergy -- [knocks on wood] guest: who have literally sold their souls, who know that what this president is doing is antithetical to the teachings
that they teach, but they do not take a stand against it. i'm not going to be one of these people. and do what you make, say what you may, i will stand alone, because i know that on some questions it is better to standalone then not stand at all. now we go to the second part of this bifurcated process. these two things are to be done in tandem with each other. west, you make the move, as did yesterday, to find the president guilty. we found him guilty of the resolution that was passed, 200 persons voting for it. today, we have the opportunity to punish. either we will punish the president today, or we can try time.ay it to some other but i believe if we don't punish him today, we are saying he is above the wall -- above the law for some additional amount of time. if you break the law in this country, you are going to be punished for breaking the law. we cannot allow the president to
be that exception, because when you do that, you will only allow this president to conclude that he can do whatever he chooses. he becomes an imperial president, assuming that there are no guard rails for him. we are the guardrails. justice for the president is the house of representatives. we ought to punish him for what he has done. the articlesify, of impeachment -- have you heard if it will get a vote? guest: there will be a vote. you cannot avoid a vote on the articles. here is the point. the vote can be to table the articles of impeachment. to send the articles to the judiciary committee for further consideration. or it can be to go forward and have an actual vote on these articles of impeachment. that is what i am pushing for. i am not asking for them to be tabled. i am not asking that we send this to the judiciary committee. i am asking that this be voted
on, that every member has an opportunity to vote up and down on whether or not you believe the president should be impeached. if you do not vote to have him impeached by virtue of voting to table -- and that is what you will be doing -- if you vote to table, you will not move this process forward, which means you will circumvent the opportunity to vote to impeach the president. if you vote to send it to judiciary, you are circumventing the opportunity to give every member of an opportunity to go on record, to say whether the president should be impeached. you will be able to say to the world,, "i voted to table it so we could do something else at a later time." let others do what they may. i will be voting to impeach. we have already condemned him. now we need to impeach him. representative al green of texas serves the ninth district. coming up, we are going to talk about changes by the trump administration when it comes to foreign policy. joining us is sarah pierce of
the migration policy center. we will have that discussion when we return. ♪ ♪ >> this weekend on booktv, saturday at 8:55 p.m. eastern, and author of the book "this land is our land." >> for migrants, etymology is destiny. at the border, when asked, "what are you," the difference between refugee, migrant, or economic migrant can mean literally the difference between life or death. >> sunday and i eastern on ords" they examine the
confirmation of supreme court justice brett kavanaugh, and the future of the court. we were trying to find out in talking to all of these people -- we find a different judge kavanaugh, more the bush approach. on thursday, when he really came out strong, it was fascinating to learn that in fact that was the person he really had been early on, as the court has become more political in its decision-making. when it makes law rather than interpreting the law as it is written, that creates a very political situation, and it is not altogether surprising that the process itself becomes more political. >> at 11:00 is done, a cbs news analyst offers her guide to reading and understanding the
u.s. constitution, and her new book, "how to read the constitution, and why." is, question i get a lot "can he do that? can the president do that?" that is the wrong question. if he does that -- and we have had presidents to do not cross certain boundaries -- what is the consequence? what are the processes for holding a president accountable? >> watch booktv every weekend on c-span 2. host: joining us now, sarah pierce, of the migration policy institute, talking about asylum law in the united states. and just by the administration concerning some aspects of asylum law -- what happened? guest: it is a huge change. it effectively m asylum for the vast majority entering at the southern border. it says you cannot apply for asylum at the southern border
unless you have been denied asylum in a company through which you transited on the way to the u.s. border. mexicans tend still apply for asylum at the u.s. southern border, but anyone who transited through mexico would be obligated to apply through mexico first. host: has that not always been the case? guest: not at all. host: what force the change of policy? byst: this was unilateral the admin straight in. they sent a regulation and said it was published, so it was effective as of yesterday. host: a person living central america, coming through mexico, if another country offers them asylum, are they required to take that before applying in the united states? guest: before this regulation, they were not even obligated to apply for asylum in a country through which they transited on the weight united states. the vast majority have not applied for asylum in mexico or any other countries through which they may have transited. someone ishappens if
in the process of asylum? does something change for them, or is it for new applicants only? guest: it is going forward. the administration's justification, what did they offer? anst: they are dealing with unprecedented crisis. we have more arriving than ever arrived before, and they are trying to create more of a thisnal burden sharing of asylum flow, and trying to push it back on the country's south of our border. host: there were a couple of assumptions in this. soughtsylum seeker refused, if they were trafficked -- could you expand on those? host: those are quite -- guest: those are quite small exceptions.
if you can prove you were trafficked on the way to the united states, you are not obligated to apply for asylum. you did not have a say in how you were coming to the united states. that is going to be a really small exception. being as countries members to the refugee convention, the majority of countries sort of our border are members of those conventions, so there really won't be anybody who falls under that exception. host: for these changes to asylum policy hama if you want to ask our guest questions, -8000 four democrats. 202-7 48-8001 for republicans. for asylum-seekers, we
require a credible fear interview. this happens a day or two after they are apprehended at the southern border. it is a three-hour long interview and they need to claim they have a credible claim applying for asylum, and most people pass that, about 80%. their case is handed to the immigration court system, where they are required to prove they face persecution on the base of race, religion, nationality, never ship in april -- in a particular social group. it is a high bar. they need to prove there is a 10% chance that if sent home they would face persecution. other aspect of current law says that asylum could be granted to those already in the united states. is that correct? still have asylum available for anyone currently in the united states. if we have a student studying here from nicaragua who suddenly decides, "i can't go home. there is major danger at home."
this ruling does not affect their application. host: talk about the length of time it takes overall, and what goes into factoring the length of time. why is it so long? guest: it takes a massive amount of time. our immigration court system is externally backlogged, a backlog of over 900,000 cases. it can be five years before a case is fully adjudicated before the immigration court. that is one of the problems the trunk demonstration is trying to deal with. host: in "the wall street journal" this morning, they talk about waiting times even going to the port of entry. oncen take weeks or months you get to the border. you are taken into custody. what happens in the custody process, and how long does that take? host: it should happen that your taken -- guest: it should happen that you are taken under custody by border patrol and then taken to ice. in ice custody, you would have an interview with an asylum
officer. but because we have unprecedented flows of asylum-seekers, a lot of this process is breaking down and people have to wait and border patrol custody for longer than they normally would have. normally, they would be in border patrol custody for a few hours. now they are waiting there for days or even weeks. people inen overcrowded border patrol stations that were never going to house people for long periods of time. host: people are held for a certain number of hours. is there an option for them to go back to mexico to wait for their claim to be process? guest: in theory. there is a new program that has gotten a lot of attention, the migrant protection protocol, informally known as "remain in mexico." some migrants are chosen for that program by border patrol. they are sent back to mexico and told to wait in mexico while there asylum claim is going forward.
while waiting to be transferred to ice custody, in theory they could probably say they would prefer to go home rather than of timese long periods in these facilities, but whether there are the resources on the ground to allow them to make the choices is another question. host: is it strictly the administration that decides what the process will be, or can congress amends the process to make it more streamlined or efficient? guest: congress can definitely amended. we have not seen enough will in congress to push changes forward. phone lines, our first call is walter in staten island, new york, democrats line. go ahead. caller: i would like to ask your is mexico going along with it? how much is the united states pay mexico, which they have been doing sometime before president trump? they have been paid to carry out an intercept since when? mexico is now the 51st state.
guest: mexico came out and said in a statement earlier this week that this is a unilateral policy decision on the part of the trump administration and they are not involved at all. are notue that we necessarily directly putting withobligations on mexico this new policy. if migrants are caught up in this new regulation, they will likely be deported back to their home countries. they will likely never be sent to mexico. assumeot axing mexico to -- not asking mexico to assume any non-mexican nationals. caller: my question is why, then knowing they have not got enough ,udges to handle this problem why are there not more judges being hired to take care of this backlog of 907,000 people? 900-some thousand people?
this whole and ministration is ridiculous. guest: that is a legitimate question. this administration has hired judges significantly, hired more judges them past administrations, but it is still a slow process and we are seeing money being prioritized for other things, such as a wall, rather than investing in immigration court. host: how many judges for this process are needed to take care of the backlog? guest: it is a lot. right now our judges are somewhere in the neighborhood of 500 judges, but we need significantly more to deal with the 900,000 case backlog. host: from texas on our line for republicans, from southlake. caller: you are sounding like you don't agree with this policy that they should have to declare asylum at the first country they come to.
what everybody does not understand is with the influx we , it is overcrowding our schools. it is overcrowding our hospitals. it is overcrowding our roads. do something, and nobody seems to have a solution. they just have complaints. so what is your solution for this? true, i have reservations about the regulation that came out this week. the big problem i have with this is we know under this new regulation individuals who would qualify for asylum in the united states will be deported back to the countries from which they fled. there were enough protections built into this regulation to protect people who are legitimate asylum seekers. but you are right that there is a problem with the new influx of immigrants. we need to deal with new arrivals. that is a problem the states and federal government need to work
out. host: before the policy went into place, how many planes were coming -- how many claims coming into the u.s.? how many were accepted? a long processch it is difficult and complicated to say. this year, we are on track to have more than 900,000 applications at our southern border. the majority are using the asylum process. the majority are claiming credible fear and have their cases handed over to the immigration court system. because the process is slow, it is hard to say how many would be granted asylum. of central americans who filed applicationslum before immigration court, it is about 20% that ultimately get asylum, a relatively small number. host: your organization, when it comes to the first seven months of the year, 15,000 refugees resettled during the first seven months of this year, going back to fiscal year 2019. it is 45,000 in 2018.
2017, 50,000 refugees. what do we know about these numbers? guest: it is important to distinguish between a refugee and an acai lee -- asylee. a refugee was in the country, apply for refugee status, went through a lot of vetting, and was accepted in the united states as a refugee. they are in refugee status the moment they arrive. ees arrive in the united states or on u.s. land who are then applying for protection. so refugees go through that vetting process ahead of time. asylees do not. we are vetting them as we come. this instruction has accepted an unprecedentedly low number of refugees. are: once the asylees accepted, what do they get in financial support? guest: it is low.
refugee resettlement gets a lot of attention because we have a robust, although temporary, offer of resources and help for refugees being resettled in the united states. asylees are offered very little. host: from ohio, democrats line, you are on with sarah pierce. go ahead. caller: yes. quick questions. you are saying only about 20% of the people that apply for asylum are approved under that category. i guess my question is what happens to those that don't, typically? policy analyst, you have to have some specifics. people trying to be moved out and that kind of stuff -- i am wondering. attorney, i, as an think you should probably know , immigrationght and nationality -- i was stationed on the border, all
that kind of stuff. looking at the definitions, it is clear to me there is 120 some odd definitions of the term immigrant, and only one term for alien, and i am trying to figure out where the legal definition for undocumented immigrant and that kind of stuff is. i cannot find that. can you please help? thank you. guest: let me start with your first question. for those not approved, typically they are given removal orders to leave the united states. a lot of those removal orders are granted in absentia, meaning the migrants are not present in court when the removal order comes down. as a result of that, many of them are not actually deported from the united states. this is one of the major dysfunctions of our immigration court system. it is a confusing and complicated system, and a lot of that could be resolved by providing counsel to immigrants. in kernel proceedings, the
government gives you an attorney. when you are in immigration court proceedings, you are not given an attorney. if we were to give immigrants attorneys, we know the vast majority of those with attorneys show up to their court proceedings, because they understand them better. the chances of getting benefits such as asylum also increases by about 10 times. i think that is one of the major breakdowns in our immigration court system. this is what is preventing these migrants from being removed when they get removal orders, because we do not know where they are. to your second question, i am not quite sure. i can point to a section of the immigration and nationality act where we are defining unauthorized, what we define as when someone has legal status in the united states. if you fail to meet that definition for legal status, you are considered an unauthorized alien, is the term we use in our statute. more casually, we use immigrant.
applying forn asylum, do they get offered legal counsel from the united states? guest: no, there is no offer of legal counsel from the united states. at times, we will give them a list of pro bono attorneys. if they are lucky enough, those pro bono attorneys might have room in their docket to accept cases. but most immigrants before immigration court are not represented. host: from philadelphia, independent line. caller: good morning. i would like to make a couple of quick comments. i believe the entire problem at the border is caused by the globalist movement who is providing financial support and advertising in foreign countries, and telling people to come here. and the democratic party, i blame them. obviously, they are looking for a voting block. -- bloc.
is toeve the whole goal overwhelm the united states border and destroy united states citizenship. i will be listening for your comments. guest: i think there is a lot of debate right now about what is causing the current asylum flow at the southern border. in my organization, we have been looking at a few different factors. there are push factors in the home countries -- unprecedented levels of violence, negative economic conditions, political instability. there is also transit factors. the rise of the caravans inspired the smuggling industry to change their tactics. we have seen smugglers offering more options for migrants coming to the united states. and then there are the pull factors. in the united states, we have a tight job market. that is attracting people to the united states. we also have this outdated asylum system, which is allowing people to enter the country. i also think the president's
policies are playing a big role. every time the president and ask a really harsh policy, he is creating urgency in the minds of migrants, thinking they need to get here as soon as possible. every time he tweets he is going to shut down the southern border, he makes migrants think now is the time to go perform -- before he shuts down the southern border. i think there are a lot of this crisis.ng it is true this is an unprecedented number of asylum-seekers arriving in the night is dates. we have seen significantly higher numbers in the past. we expect about 900,000 people to be apprehended at the southern border this year, but atthe year 2000, we were 600,000, so this is not unprecedented, although it is presenting a serious challenge right now. are the main countries asylum-seekers are coming from? guest: the majority are coming
from guatemala, honduras, and el salvador. long countries have for a time been considered some of the most dangerous countries in the world on account of the gang violence occurring there. they are also suffering specific economic problems -- for example, serious drought and political instability as well. host: the republican line, this is heath in tallahassee. caller: good morning. i just had a couple of really quick comments, because for some reason i turned on and was listening. the first very quick comment is this. you might have heard of sanctuary cities, or catch and release policies. catch and release policies and sanctuary cities -- i was wondering, do those polys they implement when they release them back out to the public, when they do not work with the ice people to make their job a thele harder -- when we got
biggest state in the nation, california -- i am pretty sure, it is close to texas -- we have massive amounts letting people in and out, do you think it helps the ice or immigration? host: you are breaking up, so i will leave it there. heard enoughk i've to at least address some of your concerns. sanctuary city policies, that is a reference to local jurisdictions, or in some cases states like california that have decided not to cooperate with immigration enforcement. typically local law enforcement agencies will hold onto individuals for a number of extra days beyond when they would normally be released from law enforcement custody in order to hand them over to immigrations and customs enforcement, but a lot of local law enforcement agencies saw this as problematic. they wanted to have a good relationship with immigrant communities and decided that working with ice so closely was
hurting that good relationship and hurting their law enforcement goals. we have seen many jurisdictions across the united states engage city policies where they are not corporate in with ice or they are listening how much they cooperate with immigration enforcement. is a referencese typically to our southern border policies. i would distinguish the two, one being interior enforcement and one being what is happening at the southern border. canterm catch and really's be used to for to our asylum policies, because individuals are apprehended, and once they are in the asylum application process, typically they are released into the united states. host: what's going on in the interior -- is anything come out about the immigration raids the president talked about living up to, starting on monday? some publicding to government statements, the raids did go forward, that we are not seeing much on the ground. there was mass mobilization of civil society educating people
on their rights, making sure immigrants stay put or stay home, did not answer the door. it is possible ice decided to delay it a little bit longer because there was so much public attention on the raids. we are not totally sure. children, is there a separate asylum process versus adults? about we are talking unaccompanied children. if a child arrives at the border without a legal guardian or parent, we have specific laws and procedures for how we deal with that child. those were started in 2008. typically, that child is handed over to the custody of the department of health and human services. they areepartment, either put into licensed facilities, or the department tries really hard to find them sponsors throughout the united states, whether that the parents, relatives, close family friends that can host the child while that child is in immigration proceedings. more about migration
policy can be found at migration .olicy.org sarah giddens is their policy analyst. democrats line, you are up next. go ahead. caller: hey. i would like to see pablo's green card, and i would like to see why is it that you can't enforce the laws that are on the books. and they need to be -- they need to be enforced more, actually. why is it true i can go out on the street and get arrested, go to jail? why are you for mexicans more than you are for americans? guest: steve, regarding that sentiment about why aren't the laws on the books being enforced, they are. the reality is that we have 11 million unauthorized immigrants in the united dates, and we do
not have the resources, nor should we deport all of them. it would be hugely damaging to the u.s. economy, the u.s. culture and society. the majority of these individuals have been living here for over 10 years. we have kind of decided as a government, as a society, that we will be enforcing the laws on the books, and we will continue deporting migrants coming to the united states. but for the most part, or at least under prior presidencies, we have focused on individuals with serious criminal records. has blown upt those priorities a little bit. we see a lot of individuals without criminal records being deported under this presidency. the immigration raids last weekend were supposed to focus on families, which is traditionally not a population we focus our limited enforcement capacity on. host: independent line, linda. caller: i was in eastern pennsylvania about six years ago
and i saw these people coming in and getting welfare and food stamps. their husbands come around and sent 700 dollars back to mexico. why are they getting that kind of money and getting welfare to send money back to mexico? 's husbandehind me could not get work. she was american. america, will you please wake up? host: apologies for that. linda, i apologize. concernhere is a lot of even in this presidency about whether or not or how immigrants get public benefits in the united states. in reality, immigrants, and especially unauthorized immigrants, are really entitled to public benefits. there might be a few benefits they are entitled to on a , you needtate basis to have a green card and to have been in the united states for
years. host: is asylum seeking in the u.s. different than in other countries? our laws international? they are international. we have this refugee convention that determines how refugees and asylees should be treated in general, and defines who is an asylee. it is up to the individual nation. there is a little bit of policing to make sure countries are respecting the rights of asylees and refugees, and the human refugee agency is tasked with doing that. hcr did release a statement because they are concerned about this new regulation. host: we will go to oregon on our last call, on our line for democrats. caller: i am currently studying to become a representative. one of the things we are learning about is the trauma
that the asylum-seekers can undergo in terms of their home and when, in transit, they arrived in the united states. so i have a question in terms of release. one of the things in oregon we had shared in was a detention center. we had 123 asylum-seekers released, but they were released to faith communities. in other words, i think the faith community can assist. thatther thing, for those are returned to mexico under the new policy, what contact mechanism is available for them to know that they're hearing is coming up in the united states? thank you for your questions. as far as resources given to asylum-seekers in the united states, that is entirely on a local basis.
it sounds like where you are working there are resources for asylum-seekers, recognizing that many are extremely traumatized by what occurred in their home countries and en route to the united states. that is fantastic but is not true across the board in the united states. as far as migrants being placed into these migrant protection protocols or remain in mexico programs, they are not provided any resources. that is one of the problems with this process. the federal government in mexico is not providing funding to the northern states in mexico where these migrants are being released. they are having to rely on the generosity of local communities for housing. attorneys are having trouble contacting and staying in contact with immigration attorneys in the united states to help them with their cases. even with this new asylum policy in place, there are legal challenges potentially. could a legal challenge change what is being put in by the
united states and -- administration? legal we saw two challenges. one judges in california and the issue and.c. could injunction that would suspend this new rule and allow asylum .t the southern border host: sarah pierce is with the migration policy institute. thanks for your time. time, we goder of back to the question we started with about civility in politics, particularly over the events of the last few days. tenant be restored? democrats, 202-748-8000. republicans, 202-748-8001. .n independents, 202-748-8002 we will have more when we return.
this weekend, american history tv features the 50th anniversary of the apollo 11 mission and moon landing. starting saturday at 10:00 a.m. eastern, with president kennedy's moon speech, recorded at rice university in houston. we choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard. >> the smithsonian international -- the smithsonian national air and space museum host a discussion with spacesuit testers and designers. a take all the systems of spacecraft, given your oxygen to breathe, scrubbing out carbon dioxide, temperature control. shake those around a person. you want the person to stay alive, be safe, and get their work done.
film 10:00 a.m., the 1970 showing parades for the astronauts after their safe return to earth. >> two minutes 10 seconds and counseling -- and counting. the tanks are pressurized. , 39 seconds.inute t -60 seconds and counting. we have passed t -60. 55 seconds and counting. neil armstrong reported back that he received the good wishes. thank you very much. we know it will be a good flight. histories,"n "oral flight director jean krantz -- the julytz talks about 20 moon landing. gene: we get this weird feeling.
it is chilling. it soaks through the room. i get a feel like, god, we are actually on the moon. >> explore our nation's past on "american history tv," all weekend, every weekend, only on c-span3. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are asking you about civility in politics. can it be restored? 202-748-8000 for democrats. 202-748-8001 four republicans. and for independents, (202) 628-0184 --202-748-8002. contempt content -- for president trump based on what he said. pelosi: these comments are racist. how shameful to hear continued
defense of those offensive words we have heard and repeated not only about our members but about counseling -- countless others. our caucus will continue to forcefully respond to those attacks on our members, which reflect fundamental disrespect to the beautiful diversity of america. there is no place anywhere for which areent's words, not only divisive, but dangerous, and have legitimized and increased fear and hatred of new americans and people of color. it is so sad, because you would think that there would be a given that we would universally, in this body, just say, "of course. of course." and there is no excuse for any response to those words but a swift and strong, unified condemnation. every single member of this institution, democratic and republican, should join us in condemning the president's racist tweets. to do anything less would be a
shocking rejection of our values, and a shameful abdication of our oath of office to protect the american people. -- the balance of my time. >> i would ask the gentle speaker of the house if she would like to change your comment. pelosi: i have cleared my remarks before the parliamentarian for speaking. >> i request that my words be taken down. >> the chair reminds all members please do not make comments toward personality-based comments. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. >> i made a point of order and request they be taken down. host: that took place yesterday.
comments were initially ruled out of order on the floor itself, a small victory for republicans during a day when both parties exchanged accusations of bad behavior. house republicans are not allowed to refer to trump or his tweets as racist when speaking on the floor, even though the resolution says as much. this is part of a package approved by the body on the first day of the current congress. york,rooklyn, new democrats line, ann, go ahead. because iam calling feel that the people of the united states -- i am an immigrant. i believe in unity. i think as a people we have to unify with each other. i think a lot of people are manipulative and they use certain sentiments to incite rage. think that trump and a lot of
people have a lot of hate in them. i think he manipulates not only the jews but hispanics. civility indea of politics, do you think it can be restored? how so? caller: it will be a struggle to restore it because of all of the divisions, because of what he has done to manipulate using racial politics. i come from a country where racial politics is used in the political arena. once you bring in race, that is a big issue. host: from michigan, republican line. jack from michigan, hello? you are on. go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. i've got a couple of comments to make about the parties getting civility. in my opinion -- of course, this is my opinion. i remember a speech dr. martin luther king made, i have a
dream. he said he hoped to see a day when the content of their character would be more important than the color of their skin. if we don't get the content of character in that congress, we will never have civility. i was born and raised in alabama , but i spent most of my life here in michigan. bigotry at its worst in alabama when i was a kid. -- i don't think he is a racist, but i don't think he uses language sometimes he should use. what i think he has done a good job for the country. and michigan.jack this is sean in baltimore, maryland, independent line. caller: i just want to say that i think civility will eventually be restored, but i think it is going to get worse before it
gets better. unfortunately, the people in congress are so divided. from and the republicans, they totally embrace white supremacy. the democrats, they totally embrace fairytales that they just want to put on everybody. neither side makes sense. nobody wants to listen to each other. one thing that i really think is going to make things worse right now is a few weeks ago the supreme court ruled against partisan gerrymandering. and you would think they would i amhat is wrong, but sorry. they ruled in favor of partisan gerrymandering. you would think they would say that is wrong. i think that is really driving this craziness in this divide. excuse me. i cannot even say the word. the districts, they are just --
they are totally democrat, totally republican. they are not going to change. int: let's hear from milton pennsylvania, democrats line. caller: good morning and thank you for taking my call. i would like to make the point -- i am proud the democrats are finally standing up, and they finally took a vote against trump to condemn his racial remarks. of hisas a history racism, and i don't understand how people keep calling in and saying that president trump is not a racist. you look at central park five, look at the birther stuff he was pushing against president obama, questioning his grades and intelligence. you look at charlottesville. even his father and him was pay for ahad to lawsuit in new york, not renting to minorities. host: the call for civility in politics? caller: civility has to come from both sides. when you see trump make racist
remarks, it would help a lot to calm things down if you had anders like mitch mcconnell mccarthy, and lindsey graham. i am shocked at him. i don't know what happened to him. host: that is milton in philadelphia. here is senate majority leader mitch mcconnell from yesterday. mcconnell: there has been a lot of discussion of events the last couple of days so i would like to address it myself. i think there has been a consensus that political rhetoric has really gotten way, way overheated all across the political spectrum. we have heard facilities on the u.s. border called concentration camps. we have seen the far left throw accusations of racism at everyone. anyone who disagrees with them on anything, including the speaker of the house -- we have seen a freshman democratic congresswoman use anti-semitic
tropes and employ people only support israel because of campaign contributions. the most vile accusations and insults against our nation have .ecome incredibly routine and we have seen back and forth the past few days. most of you know justice scalia was my all-time favorite. here is what he used to say. he said, "i don't attack people. i attack ideas." and i think that is a good lesson for all of us from the , the speaker, freshman members of the house. all of us have the responsibility to elevate the public discourse. our words do matter. a contact sport. it is about time we lowered the temperature all across the board, all of us. we ought to contribute to a
better level of discourse. let's hear from david in alabama, republican line. caller: what mitch mcconnell just said -- civility is something, and congress is a contact sport. civility is taught at home or in schools. we are a melting pot of people. has abody in this country right, it is the american indian. our president is not a career politician. he has a mouth on him. and people have to deal with things. each side isn getting ridiculous. we need to stop that. host: what did you think about the president's tweets?
caller: i did not agree with him. no sir, i did not. but i do agree with his right to say whatever he said. i also do not agree with the other side and the way they have been saying things either. i am not a politician. i am just a layman. we are almost at each other's throats because of what our sitting congress cannot get along. this is j in north carolina, independent line. good morning. thank you for taking my call. i do not see personally anything ifist about telling someone you don't like living in the united states, leave. these four congressional halfwits have been saying all use -- these four
congressional halfwits have been saying anything they can, ad nauseam, to denigrate the united states. i do not see anything wrong with the president saying if you don't like it here, you can leave. no one is holding you hear. i am really tired of people badmouthing this country and all what ithas done, and has stood for. sure, we have made some mistakes , but i cannot imagine i would want to live anywhere else. maybe they would enjoy cuba or russia, or kazakhstan for that matter. host: bill is in houston, texas. morning. caller: thanks for taking my call. think civility is going to be restored with this president in office. we have to have somebody in
there to get back to civility with the congress and the presidency. my question for this is, when we see that we are asking the why don all along, republicans not stand up to this question, we should be asking the question that you can go back. you have the ability to put up a statement when the president said that he knows things about our elected officials that they don't want u.s. citizens to know. holdss it the president over our elected officials? he said it. you can go back and pull up some of the statements he made. this is one of the statements you are going to find. i do have concern.
when did these people stop becoming americans? hey are coming to the u.s. we denigrate them for not being american, where do we stop? host: a story saying almost a year after the president urged presidents to reject mark anford, he is considering presidential run of his own in 2020. he confirmed he will take the next month to formulate a potential run against president trump as a way of pushing the national debate about america's mounting deficit and government he would run.ng he will be in greenville, north carolina for a campaign rally. you can see that on 7:00 -- at
7:00 on c-span. from copy springs, alabama, patrick is next, republican line. caller: good morning, c-span. you were talking about the civility. civility ist is only going to return when one party renders the other party inconsequential. right now, we have this divide. it is republican, democrat, socialist against nationalist. that divide is just going to get better. imagine -- the republicans they have got, i am on firm footing here that america is the greatest nation of all, built under god's will. but people are drifting from god. heart.ocrats have got
i can see they have sympathy for these immigrants, but the law is the law. the only way it will be solved, i think -- let the president finish building his wall, and build one of these great big holding centers that you can either let them into the interior or let them out, back into mexico. maybe when one party can bring , and with the sensibility common will dictate which party will dominate the other party. host: douglas in athens, tennessee, democrats line. douglas in athens, tennessee, hello. you are on. iller: about the civility --
understand how people can get rhetoric,mp and his and how it inflames a certain .opulace in this country the things he says, no president has ever said everything he has gotten away with. it is unbelievable. i just don't understand how republicans can normalize this. earlier in this program, we asked representative kelly armstrong, a republican of north dakota in politics the next few days.
if you read "poor richard's almanac," i think the difference is the access to different communication mediums. my daughter is 11. my son is nine. one of the best parts of this job is i have got to go to middle schools and go to social media, and dealing with that. if we have kids the age they are walking into it, cyber bullying, and these types of issues -- this is bigger than a conversation in this town. the golden rule is "do onto others." i have a new social media golden rule. if you would not say it to their face, do not say it with your thumbs. i think we would do better if we live that way. host: independent line from indiana, howard is next. caller: good morning. i think achieving civility under this presidency is going to be very difficult. instigatingy, he is
and stability for a variety of reasons. i think he gains power by in power in the legislative and governmental agencies in order to get things done. i just don't know that we have the option to abandon it. difficultg to be very to achieve. i think trump is trying to create a climate where he can and take martial law more aggressive actions. we need to be careful. he is a dangerous leader and we need to be alert to what he is trying to accomplish. host: to tina in pennsylvania, republican line. you are next. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. iam totally astounded by what am hearing when people refer to our commander in chief. from day one, that man has been under attack. he has done phenomenal things for this nation, and no one can deny that.
is what really angers me from the day he was inaugurated, he and his supporters were all racists. out was nobody points touring, obama was when he was going up for reelection -- he came through central pennsylvania, and referred to those of us who live in central pennsylvania as a bunch of hillbilly rednecks with a bible in one hand and gun in the other. that was a racist statement. nothing has ever been said about that. these four women, these congresswomen, i do not want my looking up to him. -- up to them. stop attacking your leader and do your job.
host: we had al green earlier on this program. a tweet from a reporter, al green saying the house will vote on his impeachment article between 4:30 and 5:00 today. it is unclear if it will be a motion to table or a motion to refer it to the judiciary committee. in utah, democrats line. i think that in civility started around the time of nixon. that is my memory. it has gotten worse and worse. tohear people saying we have anything to to get come push. many to lock people in a room, give them sandwiches and bathroom privileges, before they are going to do anything or be civil. that is lynn in utah, talking about the process of civility.