Skip to main content

tv   Washington Journal 03082019  CSPAN  March 8, 2019 6:59am-9:00am EST

6:59 am
officials, librarians, and journalists and elijah cummings, the chair of the house oversight committee. q&a, pennnight on state history professor amy greenberg discusses her book lady first, the world of first lady sarah polk. >> i was astounded by the stuff sarah poked in and the way she did andd power -- polk the way she exercise power. she wrote letters that were completely confident, 100% about politics, and were not different from a letter that a man would write. they wrote back to her in the same vein. at 8:00 eastern on c-span's q&a. >> next, live on washington journal, your calls and comments. sotoout an hour, darren
7:00 am
from florida discusses immigration policy, including three introduction of the dream act. later, republican congress been lock emergency atomic lit acclamation. -- declaration. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2019] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] ♪ host: after days of debate commentsy ilhan omar's on israel, the congress passed a resolution condemning hate. while all no votes came from democrats, the issue has tovided them on how best respond and delayed the legislative agenda. if you agree how they have agreed -- they have dealt with congressman ilhan omar, 202-748-8000. if you disagree, 202-748-8001. you can join us on twitter @cspanwj or facebook.com/cspan. we will get to your calls in a
7:01 am
minute. let's begin with nancy pelosi taking calls yesterday on the language of the resolution. [video clip] >> i don't think that the congresswoman has appreciated the full weight of how it is heard by other people although i do not think it was intended in an anti-cement -- anti-semitic way. we have to remove all doubt as we have done over and over again. we are working on a resolution that will speak out against anti-islamophobia , anti-white supremacy in all the forms it takes. a country has no place for this. we voted a resolution on that recently. a week and a half ago or so, at the munich conference and in
7:02 am
brussels for the nato meeting, in every meeting at every level, our delegation impressed upon our european allies the importance of fighting anti-semitism. this is well before the ilhan statement that emerged this weekend. when it did, it was important for me to speak to the member first before we would proceed. she was in africa. pathsembers had different they wanted to take. i thought the resolution should issued anti-semitism, & islamophobia, anti-whites apprenticed and that it should -- whiteon her name supremacist and that it should not mention her name. it is not about her. host: joining us on the phone is
7:03 am
christina marcus, congressional reporter with the hale to talk more about the -- the hill to talk more about the divide. walk us through the evolution of the language for this resolution and what was happening behind closed doors. guest: originally, when ilhan omar made these comments at a washington forum last week and the house foreign affairs committee chairman eliot engel put out a statement accusing her in engaging in anti-semitic tropes. aaders started drafting -- resolution that would've condemned anti-semitism over the weekend. on monday, democratic aides were telling me this resolution was going to come out for votes on wednesday and i drafted resolution started coming out to media outlets, including the ill that would have condemned anti-semitism. a lot of progressive members,
7:04 am
including ilhan omar's allies like alexandria ocasio-cortez targeted should not be on her own and it should include whitetypes of hate like supremacy that targets muslims. they started broadening the resolution and when democrats started meeting as a congress -- caucus on wednesday, almost five days after democratic leaders started drafting this, speaker pelosi and democrat leaders got an ear full from a lot of did not like -- they thought there should have been more communication and that this should be much more broad. finally, democrat leaders unveiled this resolution yesterday. then, right before they were starting to debate, they pulled back temporarily to include even more language.
7:05 am
this has been a long, and emotional process for democrats over the neck -- last several days as they grapple with the aftermath of controversial comments made by one of their freshman members. host: how has represented of omar responded? guest: she defended herself on twitter over the weekend. she was responding to a tweet from nita lowey, the house appropriations committee chairwoman and happens to be jewish and was criticizing her comments. other than that, she has not spoken publicly about this. yesterday after the vote, i was among at least a dozen other reporters having -- trying to get her reaction and neither time would she say a word in response to questions. she is trying to avoid pouring more fire on this. she issued a statement with the other two members of congress phrasing that this resolution condemns islamophobia and said
7:06 am
this is part of an important conversation. do you think the lasting impact of this is on house democrats and their agenda? guest: this shows it is difficult to grapple with their ofersity, not just in terms jewish members and muslim members of congress and members of different minority caucuses, but also some of the ideological attitude to coalition building. you saw a lot of the jewish members of congress tried to work behind scenes, approaching leadership about drafting this resolution over the weekend and they pushed to even name omar in the resolution. a lot of the progressive members were open that they did not think this was a good idea and very much made their concerns known, not just to leadership,
7:07 am
but the media and the public. host: is this over, cristina marcos? guest: it is in terms of the vote is over and democrats are trying to officially put this issue behind them. in talking with members of congress and listening to their concerns about this and how frustrated they were this was overshadowing the big vote today on hr one, which is their campaign-finance and government is no overhaul, there doubt going to be some hurt feelings over this in the long term and that is something democrats are going to have to deal with as they move forward on legislating. host: cristina marcos, congressional reporter with the hill. thank you. guest: thanks so much for having me. host: let's get to your calls and thoughts. david is first in maryland, you
7:08 am
disagree with how democrats have handled it. tell us why. caller: thank you for c-span. first of all, i don't think representative omar said anything that was anti-semitic. i think republicans just need something to latch onto to distract from the real issue, which is israel's influence on members of congress. the first bill the senate took year was to protect people from protesting against israel. are we america or are we a puppet of israel? we should be able to protest against someone without losing our job. host: should she say what you are saying? e, but not --b
7:09 am
critical of israel, but not use language that people feel are anti-semitic tropes. caller: that is what she said. and that is why she apologize because of the language could have been misconstrued for talking about how israel is tied with money when she said benjamins and the fact benjamin is an israeli name. they jumped all over that. aremain point was we distracted from not talking about what we should be talking about and that is the influence of lobbyists on our congressmen when they pay them and they are supposed to be doing what the american people do. instead, they are doing what lobbyists tell them to do. host: what do you think the leadership led by nancy pelosi in the house handled this? what should they have done? caller: a lot of the democrats
7:10 am
are also pressured by these powerful lobbyists and these people that have control over them. they make a phone call and they jump. these new congresswomen are not taking a lot of money from these big corporations. the biggest problem is the money --politics and the influence they influence the politicians over what the american people should be doing. ilhan omar apologized for what she said. i understand because a lot of people might not have understood what she said when she said it is all about the benjamin's. host: let me go onto rob who agrees with how the democrats are handling this. rob in boca raton, florida. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. i don't necessarily agree with the previous caller that our biggest problem is the lobbyists . i think our biggest problem is having a president who is
7:11 am
somewhat short on knowledge experience. televisionre on fox the republicans such as -- i think his name is jim jordan, steve king, even the president and others in the republican party who have made remarks that were anti-semitic only focusing -- they are only focusing on this woman with the headscarf. the optics for them are just that, optics and they are very powerful optics. it is firepower for republicans .lso with ocasio-cortez i don't know where she comes off. both young women, god bless them, but they are young, inexperienced women all the sudden in the forefront. i don't mean to sound this -- this does sound as a sexist
7:12 am
thing, but they need to really -- i think, listen more than talk. i think they need to learn. they are new to this congress and cortez should not be the environmental savior. this is not going to get us a competent, whether it be a republican president or democratic president, we need a competent, experienced, knowledgeable person in the white house. we have someone who is completely self-serving. everything the person says -- the opposite is true. he guy golfs more than legislates. host: i don't want to get on a tangent. you called on the line for agreeing with house democrats -- how they have handled represented of omar. caller: i think nancy pelosi, god bless her, she does the best she can do, but they need to womenr put the two young
7:13 am
who have become the face of the democratic party according to fox, they are giving fox too much firepower. by the way, the president has very lousy grades. host: alexandria ocasio-cortez tweeted this yesterday. where is the outrage over the 23 gop members who voted no on a resolution condemning bigotry today? there is none? did they get called out, ambushed, raked over and endlessly asked why not? okay, got it. some republicans said they voted no because they thought the resolution should just have called out representative omar's for the comments she made and just dealt with anti-semitism. one of those no votes was congressman louie gohmert and here is what he had to say on the floor. [video clip] >> what makes this so dangerous and the reason i will vote against this resolution is
7:14 am
because we came here because of an anti-semitic remark and we came here to condemn anti-semitism. this resolution as changed over the last hour now condemns just about everything and the reason ist is so dangerous anti-semitism, hatred for the children of israel is a very special kind of hatred that should never be watered down. there has never been a persecution of a people like the jewish people from 1933 to 1945, killed.illion it started with little things, hateful remarks made about the children of israel that grew and grew and it was okay because it was made by somebody who had a garage, it was let go and it grudge, it it led -- was let go and it built until it
7:15 am
led. we will not let it go on. host: representative steve king voted present yesterday. he was the subject of rebuke on the south -- house floor over comments his -- colleagues deemed to be white supremacist. the chair ofo is the house foreign affairs committee from new york said that decision belongs to party leaders and not him. such a move likely would spark a civil war, particularly with liberal groups rallying to defend miss omar. asking supporters to pony up three dollars as a sign of support for the embattled congresswoman. ralph in delaware, you disagree with how democrats have handled this. it is your turn. good morning to you. caller: good morning. i would like to start out by
7:16 am
saying i am not anti-semitic. i was joined -- raised in west kent -- west chester, pennsylvania, and the jewish people were always our friends. my first job was working for a -- myman right over from second job was working for a .ewish fellow i noticed one thing about c-span. any time the subject comes up about jewish people, the commentators always put their hand near the phone so you can be disconnected at any moment. i am not exactly sure what this woman said because i haven't followed that closely. i noticed people are very -- very -- they are afraid to say anything about a jewish person
7:17 am
whether it is true or -- false. host: stephen strauss is a visiting professor at princeton university's woodrow wilson school of international affairs and right critiquing israel minus the anti-semitic cliches, omar should think about how he talks about jews. if david duke, holocaust denier and former grand wizard of the ku klux klan defends you and thinks you are saying the right thing, maybe you should rethink what you are saying or how you are saying it. "hypnotizedrael has the world and implied american jews have divided loyalties." platpundits labeled these -- classic anti-semitic tropes while others say her comments are being blown out of proportion. the episode culminated yesterday in an overwhelming passage of
7:18 am
the house resolution condemning anti-semitism and other forms of intolerance. granted it is great fun to endlessly debate what omar said and meant, but let me suggest topics we should be discussing about israel that don't involve anti-semitic cliches. why do we continue to give so much money to israel? it has literally been the largest cumulative recipient of u.s. foreign aid since world war ii, totaling more than 130 billion. america's financial support is ongoing with israel receiving $4 billion a year. if israel needs an extra $4 billion for its military, perhaps it should raise taxes. do we plan to protest benjamin racists?'s ties to the leader has formed a coalition with an anti-arab political party described as racist and akin to not see is zism.- akin to na
7:19 am
what about israel's human rights record? perhaps congress should evaluate the validity of these allegations in hearings and be sure to invite both sides since israel has serious and legitimate concerns about palestinian terrorist attacks. omar has been subjected to many vile, racist attacks, that doesn't excuse her thoughtless remarks. if she and her supporters wanted to have a serious conversation about changing policy toward israel, they will find many people in and outside the jewish community who want to have that discussion. if they just want to make vaguely worded comments about newsome people control the media and have divided loyalties, maybe they are just anti-semites. ralph and washington, d.c., let's go to you.
7:20 am
you agree with how the democrats have handled representative omar's comments. go ahead. caller: i would say it depends on which emma kratt are talking about. what i found -- democrat you are talking about. what i find astounding is you have two young women who came to congress. more power to them, that is great. they are so wet behind the ears, it is stunning. they are making proposals that don't make sense. i support some of the things they are saying, but their lack of knowledge is amazing. all you have to do is watch a state of the union address, this side will get up and clap, this side will get up and clap. even mom and apple pie, they get up and clap. if you want to see how much control the pac has on congress, wait until they mention israel. they look like a bunch of seals standing up.
7:21 am
do you disagree with with u.s. policy toward israel? caller: first of all, i think they give them too much power. they give them too much money. secondly, i don't think israel is a state of the united states. i think we should be more critical of israel policy, but congress is afraid to criticize israeli policy. host: you called in on the line that said you agree with how house democrats have handled. caller: some house democrats have remained silent and some have not. host: what do you agree with? caller: i agree with the fact some of them said maybe we should back off and let her alone and some of them said let's hang her, pass a resolution. this shows the power, the absolute power and the fright within congress.
7:22 am
that apac organization has a headquarters downtown and i have read -- i am a communications engineer, they are allowed to tap into our communication lines. host: you understand where people say you are heading into that direction of categorizing jewish people as being disloyal or having split loyalty? caller: just because i criticize israel and a few entities does not mean i am anti-semitic and just because i criticize what saudi arabia does does not mean i am anti-muslim. the moment you have something against israel, we have reporters and ultimate pc want to label you as an anti-semite. that is so disgusting. host: we will leave it there. let's go to eddie in los angeles. you disagree with how democrats are handling this. good morning to you.
7:23 am
good morningaller: to you and good morning to my fellow americans. europeans like to call judo thistians and rougher to country standing on those values. you was mentioning a lot of quotes this morning. there is a couple of quotes in the bible that discussed this thing. have you ever read revolutions 3:9?velations 2:9 and host: what is your point? caller: it is talking about the synagogue of satan. i disagree, she should have the opportunity to speak. host: and say what she said. you don't see anything wrong with what she said? caller: no. under those terms, you would say they were sanctioning god for
7:24 am
talking about the synagogue of satan? host: there is a piece on vox with the headline -- let me read it to you. omar anti-semitism controversy explained. i have to scroll down to say that part because the writer goes through what she has said. she says it is true there is a powerful political influence that pushes american policy in a pro-israel direction. they are not all important. the ties run a lot deeper from lobbying money, but evidence suggests they clearly have clout. the chart of anti-semitism is used to immunize israel from criticism at any time. i cannot count the number of times i have been called an anti-semite or self hating jew.
7:25 am
a muslim member of congress is far more likely to be targeted this.usations like the point that it would be better to talk about the underlying issues is reasonable. the irony is her word choice is what causes this problem, the allegiance, is a touchy subject for good reason. it touches on aid old anti-semitic conspiracy theory. the infamous early 20th century russian forgery describes a plot to subvert and destroy christian societies and turns on a deeper tradition that portrays jews as not just greedy, but fundamentally disloyal working to subvert western societies from the inside of their own nefarious end. that, this writer explains, is why what she said is controversial.
7:26 am
patrick in pittsburgh, you disagree. good morning to you, go ahead. with the agree resolution to condemn anti-semitism. we just went through a horrible situation with a massive slaughter at one of our spiritual institutions and we are deeply affected by it. that being said, i completely agree with her right to criticize the state of israel and why is it ok for the former minister of israel to say all palestinians should be put in the ocean and drowned and yet american politicians say absolutely nothing when a country the side of rhode island has complete control over our nation? let me be clear. host: why do you think that? complete control. caller: you go to the mid east section of the u.s. state department, there is no mid east section of the u.s. state
7:27 am
department, there is the israeli state department. host: so you think there is too much money? caller: i am telling you, complete control. host: how can you say that? isler: the state department supplanted by a foreign government. i am an italian american. host: what evidence do you have of that? caller: the obscenity of these american people having this influence. let's go to the other end and say it is influence. it is out of control and the saudi arabia government is just as bad. you never heard any statement out of any politician in this country condemning the khashoggi death by israelis. not a single one. in newet's go to ed jersey. you disagree. caller: i disagree. let me .1 thing out. in illinoisgressman
7:28 am
wanted at that time to bring the palestinians and israel together to the peace table. apac went after him. when he went up for reelection, he lost by a slim margin. they dare to speak out. is available from amazon and illustrates the power of the israeli lobby. host: two you think they should have had this resolution then at all? caller: it is almost anti-freedom of speech. you mean to tell me you cannot
7:29 am
criticize the israeli government? , the prime minister and his predecessors are criminals. they were brought up for criminal charges. we can't even bring that subject up. host: what she is saying and what nancy pelosi said yesterday is when you use the language she , you are propelling, promoting classic anti-semitic tropes that have led to hatred and violence against jewish people over the years. nancy pelosi was asked yesterday by reporters and whether or not she thinks congressman omar needs to apologize for her comments. represented of omar has apologized for some of what she had to say. listen to how the speaker
7:30 am
response. [video clip] >> she hasn't responded -- apologized. does she need to apologize? >> it is up to her to explain, but i don't think she understood the full weight of the words. when you are a congressman, you are an advocate. i appreciate the enthusiasm that comes to our congress. that was me pushing a stroller and carrying a sign. i understand how advocates come in with enthusiasm. when you cross that threshold into congress, your words way much more than when you are shouting at somebody outside. i feel confident her words were not based on any anti-semitic attitude, but that she did not have a full appreciation of how they landed on other people where there is a history and cultural impact that might have been unknown to her.
7:31 am
has: congressman omar talked about her comments at a event andhington post here is what she had to say. [video clip] >> what i am fearful of is that because rashida and i are muslim, that a lot of our colleagues and constituents and allies go in thinking everything we say about israel to be anti-semitic because we are muslim. to me, it is something that end thedesigned to debate because you get into the space of, i know what intolerance looks like and i am sensitive when someone says the symbols ofsed are intolerance and i am conscious of that and i feel pained by
7:32 am
that. it is almost as if every single time we say something, regardless of what it is we say, that is supposed to be about foreign policy or engagement or efficacy about ending oppression or the freeing of every human get and wanting dignity, we to be labeled in something that ends the discussion because we end up defending that and nobody gets to have a modern debate of what is happening with palestine. [applause] i want to talk about the political influence in this country that says it is ok for people to push the allegiance of foreign countries. i want to ask why is it ok for
7:33 am
me to talk about the influence of the nra or fossil fuel industries or big pharma and not lobbyingt a powerful -- influencing policy. host: representative omar explaining her comments. the headline in politico, a couple for you. senator bernie sanders seizes the pro-omar lane in 2020. no other presidential candidate came out as quickly or as forcefully as the vermont senator. harris andmala elizabeth warren also tweeted about it. elizabeth warren tweeting out we should be able to have a respectful debate and your harris saying we all had a responsibility to speak out. politico, thisin
7:34 am
headline represented of omar has bailed out president trump. she snidely refers to him as individual 1 and accused him of engaging in dehumanizing rhetoric. omar has beenan president trump's dream come true. ranging from his failed north korea summit to the scathing testimony of michael cohen to a rebuke by the republican senate, omar consumed the headlines, giving lawmakers a taste of the scandal and controversy that dog republicans for two years. william in kansas city, missouri, you disagree with how house representatives handled her comments. tell us why. caller: good morning. thank you for having me on c-span. this is an honor to talk to everyone and i encourage c-span to keep educating.
7:35 am
we need education more than ever. it seems politics has run amok. hot button issues are being thrown back and forth. you just played it. i did not know what she said and i don't findeard fault in a lot of what she said. i did not find it anti-semitic. i am for the bill, the anti-hatred. i am for that. i hope everyone is. to squelch debate and conversation, i think you should encourage those with ideas outside of the box to speak up it if you disagree, defeat in fair debate. to turn her into a caricature is not helpful.
7:36 am
i encourage c-span to educate the public by producing her comments, produce what is in the bill or summarize it for the people. i think that will go a long way to educate in the body politic and that is what we need in that country right now. host: you mean the language of the resolution? tell people what is in that? caller: yeah. first, tell the people what she said. i am not even fully aware of the comments she made. i just -- i googled them. i am not sure i heard everything. i don't know what we are talking about. we all need to be on the same page with exactly what she said. first of all, if you ask someone do we agree with a bill, tell the people what is in the bill. you can summarize it. host: it is house resolution-183
7:37 am
over five pages long, about seven pages and in it, it has -- rejects anti-semitism, islamophobia, and it goes on. as we have been talking about, they also added other language to it to talk about african-americans, white supremacy, et cetera white supremacists in the united states continue to exploit bigotry and weaponize hate, targeting traditionally persecuted groups, peoples including african-americans, latinos, native americans, other people of color. if you cannot read -- cannot read all seven pages, that somewhat summarizes. you can go to our website and find the resolution text. we are asking if you agree or disagree with how house democrats are handling this debate that happened yesterday
7:38 am
and came to a vote in the house. one of the yes votes came from congressman elliott ingle who is jewish and chair of the house foreign affairs committee. here is what he had to say about his misgivings on voting yes. [video clip] >> the words spoken by our colleagues touched a very real, very raw place and my desire for go record to go -- house to on record condemning anti-semitism was not a desire to single the gentlewoman out or stifle debate on u.s. policy toward israel, but a desire and a need to say certain words have no place in our public discourse and can be dangerous. when a member of our body speaks the way the representative from minnesota spoke and we need to single it out and say we will not tolerate it. these problems have been compounded since the comments that sparked the controversy, the gentlewoman of minnesota has
7:39 am
anti-islamicet of smears and threats. that is horrific. islamophobia has no place in this body or any other place and anti-semitism does not either. i wish we had a separate resolution about anti-semitism. i think we deserved it. i think it was wrong not to have it. i don't think we should mix everything. anti-semitism will never be tolerated by me, by this body, and no member of congress should be making anti-semitic statements. no member of congress should say hurtful things and not apologize for them. host: william, kansas city, missouri, you disagree. caller: i disagree in the fact squelched. is being to turn her into a caricature, i
7:40 am
disagree with that. i agree with the anti-hatred bill. i could not agree more. i am african-american and i sort of take issue with anti-semitic. out i thinkrving african-americans have suffered .uite a bit i disagree with the handling of representative omar. i think we need to debate and that starts by educating. i still don't know the extent of what she said. host: i want to come back to that. if you go to npr.org, you can find this headline, minnesota congresswoman ignites debate on anti-semitism and israel. you can find all the comments she made. whether it was a tweet or
7:41 am
comments on camera. matthew in new york, you agree. caller: listen. i have to be honest with you. if you have ever been on social media, what representative omar said was kind of tame. host: should she be held to a higher standard because she is a member of congress and has a platform? caller: yes, i think her speech been --t could have like the snip you played of her discussing what she actually meant. had she started that way, i think she would have gotten more support for what she ultimately meant. i have to mention something real quick. this is not a generational thing . a lot of people are trying to report it is the younger incoming freshman against the old guard, it is not.
7:42 am
it really is not. there is a lot of people that felt strongly for many years like me because i am a middle-aged white guy that this has been going on for so long and what is the real purpose of this? it feels like the israeli lobby has had a stranglehold on our government for some reason or other and it is beyond me or others. much you do not like how influence they have and how much members of congress react to that? caller: it is not just in them, it is all lobbyists. i don't think lobbyists should have the access they do to our representatives. any of them. host: tom in new york. you disagree. caller: i disagree because i feel there should be a more harsh -- she should be reprimanded more harsh than
7:43 am
that. she should be taken off a committee. pete king said something -- host: steve king, from iowa. caller: i am sorry. king, so i is a pete wanted to clarify. caller: she should be taken off her committee too for doing the same thing she did. the rise in anti-semitism is not from the right, it is from the left because it seems to be these new liberal democrats coming in. they are more pro-palestine and anti-israel and that is where the spike in anti-semitism is coming. they are blaming it on the right, but it is really from the left. host: you saw alexandria ocasio-cortez's tweet talking about comments republican to have made in the past. congressman mccarthy, congressman jordan just recently in a tweet, people accusing them
7:44 am
of going down the road of anti-semitic tropes and not having the same response. caller: go to the college campuses and all these professors, they are preaching pro-palestine and anti-israel. that is all i am trying to say. jersey, youn new agree. the democratse handled it well, keeping in mind there is a lot of dynamics in .lay her comments, which i think were misinterpreted, at least it has opened a dialogue we can begin to talk about submissions that need to be talked about in terms of the powerful lobby influence
7:45 am
that israel does have. i think the resolution was well-crafted and allows us to about our conversation all types of racism in this country. that is all i have to say at this point. i have a lot more to say, but i will probably take up a lot of the time. host: cheryl in tampa, florida. your turn. caller: good morning. how are you? can you hear me? host: we can hear you. caller: good morning. i do agree with the anti-hate law. i have not been able to read it, but being so inclusive of multiple hatreds, that is why i agree with it. i disagree with congresswoman omar being the key to this. i have someone in office,
7:46 am
will call him 45, you all call him the leader, donald trump. against collin cabinet, i am a united states army veteran honorably discharged -- colin kaepernick, i am a united states army veteran honorably discharged. going back to the law itself, i am glad they used her to be a face. democrats did something right. people want to do right for everyone versus just doing the right for a group of people. all different colors, whatever you want to call it, leadership, i am glad it came out. , i wantnd of the day
7:47 am
people to be able to speak the way they want to speak. don't get me wrong, it is wrong. in regards to talking about the debt, what about the cost of african-americans being killed daily? in montana, you disagree with the democrats handling of this debate. with the agree resolution in principle. i wish it had just been about anti-semitism. exert to say i am a gen and i think people like eliot engel should be listened to. they have a wealth of experience in this issues on foreign policy and it seems like in coverage, they are almost being used as i flail for represent of omar. i think people should listen to congressman engel's comments on
7:48 am
the house floor. that was pretty much my comment. host: chris in montana. elbert in indiana, you agree, you are next. caller: i agree with the way the house done -- if they had put one little issue there, they had a wide range of it. as far as the israeli lobby goes, as far as i am concerned, they use their money to shut down the resolution 242. the palestinians, that is the main issue. host: let's go to shirley in newcastle, pennsylvania, you disagree. caller: listen, here is what happened. democrats have been so busy going after the president who is trying to do things right that while they were busy going after slid in muslims have
7:49 am
and taken over the democratic party. nancy thinks she is house speaker. host: hold on. what evidence do you have of that and are you against muslim americans having influence over the democratic party and the addenda? -- agenda? caller: what they are doing with the democratic party is shameful and i cannot imagine democrats are standing by and allowing it to go on. we have lost our democratic party. we no longer have a democratic party. host: shirley's thoughts in pennsylvania. many saw the headlines that paul manafort, former campaign chair for president trump was sentenced to 47 months. -- drudgevative judge report, rejects excessive mueller, manafort only gets 47 months.
7:50 am
manafort-gates less than four years in prison -- manafort gets less than four years in prison, baffling. manafort led and otherwise blameless life. papers aalso in the story about presidential pardons and the story is that house intelligence chair adam schiff proposed legislation to ensure congress gets the investigative records associated with any witnesses in the federal probe if the president pardons them. congressman schiff framed the bill to ensure if any president uses crimes to cover up--pardons to cover up crimes, congress finds out. on the mueller report, you might not know this, but according to
7:51 am
amazon, it is already a bestseller. take a look at the cover amazon has on their website. amazon's listing for the mueller report, the final report carries a bestseller label based on preorders. even though the report has not been published and we do not know when it will be, the new york times says that hasn't stopped two publishers from setting a date when people can buy book versions of the document. one online outlet is already describing it as a bona fide hit . we don't even know what the attorney general will release to the public of that report. let's go to david in washington, you agree. good morning. host: thank you for -- caller: thank you for taking my call. i agree with the premise of what
7:52 am
democrats did. twisted.e getting they should not be complaining with the american people, it is the government that may be causing the problem. host: you think people should be criticizing the israeli government. caller: yes. host: in capitol heights, maryland, you disagree with how this is all being handled. share your thoughts with us. caller: number one, she is supporting the palestinians. palestinians are somatic people. how is she going to be anti-semitic when she is supporting somatic people c people. -- semeti host: you are saying palestinians are anti-semitic? caller: no, all penta -- palestinians are semitic people.
7:53 am
a lot of people practice the jewish religion that are not semitic people. it is these people that have -- soized anti-semitic they do not have to take responsibility for their actions. host: understood the point. clarence, charlotte, north carolina, you disagree. caller: hello. can you hear me? host: yes, we can. haver: what they should dealt with his the anti-semitic this lady, omar, and the whole problem is it is palestinian and israel is the problem and it goes back to history. a lot of people, when they do not know the history of the israelites and palestinians, the muslims -- they never understood they are theecause
7:54 am
only democratic country in that region and it is a biblical story. if you don't understand the history of what is going on, your political view will make you seem ignorant of the problem. this young lady being a palestinian and muslim -- being a congresswoman, she should not make anti-semitic statements because they are the only democratic country in the region that supports the united states. they are against the united states. everything they do is against our country. host: palestine is against the united states? caller: yes. host: why? caller: because of our lifestyle. --s is why we have host: how do you know that? caller: like i said, read the
7:55 am
history. i am a minister in church. i read the history. if you go back and read the history of it, you will see a lot of this comes from history. host: clarence's opinion. front page of the wall street journal, a new push by the administration for disclosing .edicine -- medical prices mandating public disclosure of rates would upend an industry practice and put decision-making power in the hands of patients. they typically treat specific prices as closely held secrets with contracts between insurers and the hospital system generally bound by confidentiality agreements. the administration is looking at changing this and allowing patients to know what is the price hospitals, insurers have agreed to for procedures so patients could make better
7:56 am
decisions. commercial health care markets complex systems of hidden charges and discounts. policymakers, employers, and patients are unable to see which hospital practices are driving high costs. court bolsters asylum appeals. a federal appeals court rolled -- ruled migrants that fail the steps to qualify for asylum should be able to appeal the rejection in u.s. courts. migrants who do not establish a credible fear of returning to their home country at tes by immigration services officers can appeal the decision only on minor technical grounds. we are going to talk more about that coming up on the washington journal. let me go to dave, a reporter with the st. paul pioneer press joining us on the phone to talk about the reaction represented
7:57 am
of omar's comments in her district. explain her district and who she represents. guest: sure, good morning. ilhan omar represents minnesota's fifth congressional district, basically minneapolis and the western twin cities suburbs. upperludes the concentration of jews in the upper midwest and refer to themselves sometimes as the frozen chosen, senator like al franken, the cohen brothers, also minneapolis as a city that is ratio leanne ethnically -- racially and ethnically diverse. in includes a very large and , which somali population is what brought ilhan omar to minnesota. the only reason she is in
7:58 am
congress is because keith ellison decided not to run for reelection and read to our open seat in the state attorney general's office. omar prevailed in that and that is how she ends up in washington. host: what has been the reaction from her constituents to the comments she made? guest: in some ways, it has .irrored the national reaction you have many of people offended and surprised and some coming to her defense. it has definitely been notable, the reaction against her from many, not all, but many jewish herers and this includes fellow elected officials here in minnesota in the state legislature. this goes back sometime. before the primary she won that lead to her inevitable election in a very liberal district,
7:59 am
there were concerns among a number of jewish leaders that she had expressed anti-semitic remarks previously involving seeing a tweet that israel hypnotized the world and's every other-- and several remarks. they had a meeting going back a year ago, 2000 -- before she was elected and they sat down and had a lengthy conversation. that was the first in what turned into a number of meetings with local jewish leaders specifically and they have become increasingly -- in the words of one officials, -- exasperated with her. her reservoir of goodwill had been used up. they have gone through criticizing her remarks basically saying we are done with her. i should note that is not the universal reaction. many in the somali community are
8:00 am
mixed. they are happy and proud she is there to represent them. ofe agree with the thrust her comments in terms of criticizing israel and some wish she would stay off twitter and get to work representing things that matter more to their community than foreign policy, necessarily. host: the election was not long you're in the house, have to turn around and run for reelection. what are her prospects? does it hurt her in 2020? --that is aeat great -- guest: that is a great question. there has been talk of primarying for her. it has been quiet so far. there has been some whispers. i cannot say there has been problems yet at a high level.
8:01 am
is a one term incumbent. in this district, once you start you sort ofected, have it for life. unless you did something horrendous, something to stay in this position for a long time. be the favorite to win reelection by inertia. we will see if there is strong opposition. it may happen. e stronge also does hav support, too. guest: she does. she is a star among a lot of young voters. the district includes the university of minnesota. among extremely popular -- the somali-american community
8:02 am
can pull out the votes in the district. they have a great mobilization effort she benefited from in the primary. there are a lot of traditional white liberals who believe the united states has been too pro i ---pro-israel. for a local perspective on this story, you can follow david's reporting. thank you. guest: you bet. thank you. host: we will take a short break. we come back, two members of congress this morning with different perspectives on the president's immigration policy and the fight over the boardwalk. first, darren soto of florida. later on, tom mcclintock of california. a subcommitteeng hearing about the supreme court concerntwo expressed
8:03 am
about allowing cameras in the court. here is some of what they had to say. [video clip] people thinke most our arguments should be televised. membersmy family believe arguments should be televised. arguments should be televised. it.ted in favor of when i got to the supreme court, i saw things differently. it was not because i was indoctrinated or pressured by colleagues. believeo see and i allowing the arguments to be televised would undermine their value to us as a step in the decision-making process. lawyers would find it irresistible to put in
8:04 am
hopes -- that ofld detract from the value the argument in the decision-making process. >> i do not think that many people with grandstand. i hope my colleagues and i would not do that. we would filter ourselves in ways that would be unfortunate. the first time you see something on the evening news, which, taken out of context, suggests something you never met to suggest. --gests something you suggests some opinion you have on some issue you do not have. when i come into the courtroom, i play devil'ds advocat -- devil's advocate. i play both sides hard. i challenge people in ways that may sound as though i have views on things that i, in fact, do
8:05 am
not. that is the best way of understanding the pros and cons of a case. i worry that kind of questioning, which, i think, we all find very conducive to good , youion-making, would know, be damaged if there were cameras. >> "washington journal" continues. host: back at her table this morning, congressman darren -- act at our table this morning, connors meant aaron soto -- morning, congressman darren soto. trump'r roadblock to the s demonstration efforts -- a federal appeals court ruled authorities cannot import asylum-seekers -- cannot deport asylum-seekers." your reaction? guest: bravo. we have laws people are allowed to seek asylum weekly in the
8:06 am
united states. they cross the border and they immediately go to an immigration facility and declare asylum. that is international law. the moment we have have a country that has an administration that says no, does not hear their claims, and swiftly reports them, that violates international law. it violates our laws in the united states. has appliedjudge the law to a situation that has bothered us lately. host: howdy respond to concerns from u.s. citizens saying, why are we giving rights to undocumented workers? guest: first, it is the law. these are not on document of workers. are endangered in their home country we have laws for decades. the weaponizing of
8:07 am
immigration by president trump, he scares people. there is no factual basis for it. in central america, young people trying to escape the cartels and murder. they are seeking a new life, like generations before them. the courts will figure it out. if they do not have a valid case, they will be sent back. we have to follow the law. host: house democrats planta pickup -- land to pick up -- plan to pick up where the obama ministration left off -- the obama administration left off. when will you do it? guest: we will introduce a clean dream act. i am a cosponsor of that bill. we expect to vote on it over the next few weeks. d.c.ll be swift, maybe in terms, at least. this is a longtime priority, not only for democrats, but for the
8:08 am
hispanic community, communities of caller. we have had dozens of republicans were support -- republican support in the past. why wouldn't we? these kids are american and every sense than the law. host: any change since the 2015 bill? guest: it will be similar to the original bill. bill subject to discharge had a nomination of border security in it when we believe it was the negotiation for the last budget. this will be a clean dream act. it would ratify the program. not only the kids in daca, but d , 1.3, 1.4 million people. host: as of august, total recipients were around 700,000. estimates would be about 1.3 million. the program participation rate is the 4%.
8:09 am
do you see the participation rate going up? guest: absolutely. many of these people were scared to give their information to a federal government that could turn around and deport them. with a law passed, this could them at opportunity and a safe harbor for folks to participate in the program. i spoke directly with representative allard. she told me these kids have values. moral, economic imperative. what a loss to the country if these kids were deported. i have many meetings with dreamers. these are kids who may not speak the language of the country they are originally from. the may have left as a toddler. they are working hard, like we see so many different populations. they are pursuing higher doctors, lawyers, accountants, doing all of these different, amazing because they are striving to make it here in the united states.
8:10 am
this is a talented group, given my experience. host: i invite. theers to participate in conversation. democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. we will get your calls in a minute. start dialing in. a reminder of what is daca. it started on june 15, 2012. and people who came to the u.s. as children or met several guidelines are subject to renewal. they are eligible for work authorization and does not provide lawful status. where does it stand in the courts? host: we saw injunctions to stop the program from being eliminated, but no one can enroll in the program right now. it is static at the number you 0,ntion, seven 800,000 -- 78 000. long-term, it does not mean the program will be upheld.
8:11 am
there are principles that would say they relied on this program. there should be an orderly termination of it. there is also the idea the trump administration botched the termination of it by not saying any other than we want to get rid of it, which also was problematic leading to court challenges. host: where do you see the port challenge going -- the core challenge going? the republicans -- the court challenge going? the republicans ruled the senate. guest: it would be a year away from finality. the court would -- if they declared the rule and program unconstitutional, would give some grace period for people to vacate. there is an argument it is constitutional. the president has an ability to prioritize who is supporting and
8:12 am
what order. that is the decision of the trump administration by watching .t -- by botching it host: as we listen to our first phone call, let's take a look at the guidelines. status,equest the daca here are the requirements you have to meet. floyd in tennessee, republican. morning. -- good morning. the senatorlong has been in office? host: the congers men? -- the congressman? guest: this is my second term. i served in the florida legislator before. caller: -- guest: i share your concerns. the democrats took charge and they should have done it then. i was not there at the time. i did not have a choice in the
8:13 am
matter. we have an opportunity -- there is bipartisan support for this in the house and the senate. to do thisur hope is now while i am here and have the ability to help at this done. host: where do the vote stand in the senate? guest: there has been an over 50% majority, given the immigration vote in the past. there will be some up in the air, guessing on it. the petition to end national emergency is anywhere but loose in the senate right now. we are in play. bill,we will go to ohio, on our line for democrats. caller: yeah, i know that they want daca kids to stay. they came here illegally. their parents came here illegally. they have no right to be here. here in mye people
8:14 am
party -- used to be my party -- i am a blue dog democrat. i am a moderate. there is no nomore. stay.t these people why do you eastern europe and have -- 11 million people stay here. embassy and say hey, i want to go to america. it is economic deal or i will stay here where i am afraid somebody will kill me. you come here, you say hey, i am afraid somebody will kill me. you will let me in. if you're going to do that, you have to be fair about it. you need to go to europe and offer those people over there who are economically advantaged or in the same deal, freight for their lives, and tell them to go
8:15 am
to the american msa and apply for reggie -- american embassy and apply for refugee status. host: these kids are caller: -- these kids are here -- caller: these kids -- guest: these kids are here by no choice of their own. this is treating them differently based upon lack of ability -- of culpability. they are americans in every sense of the fact aside from the law. eastern europe can still apply for refugee status and political asylum. they can do so in their home countries at the u.s. embassies. if they made it over here, they would have to go directly to an immigration facility and declare their political asylum status. they can do that today under current law. certainly, that is where the courts took umbrage with the trump administration denial of most of these without getting to the facts. folksaw still allows them
8:16 am
in eastern europe who want to apply. host: new york, republican. caller: good morning. i have a couple of questions. live is -- has and on flux -- has an i nflux of daca. they are draining our tax dollars. weare paying, we the people, the people that live in the states these people who came here illegally -- nothing against their children -- we are paying for it. our schools are full. you can go to our local schools. you can go to any of our towns and it is all people of that type. we cannot afford it anymore. host: let's take the point for the congers men. guest: come down to florida,
8:17 am
where we do not have a state income tax. we have much lower taxes, by the way. in general, these are decisions you should be contacting your state legislators about. we do not want children in this country to not go to school. that ends up being a blow to our economy. also, can contribute to crime. some of these issues you are talking about our state legislative. the dreamers i have met in florida have been ambitious types. the rn universities. they are -- they are in universities. laws -- i passed laws to allow dreamers to be part of the florida bar. there was push from these kids who wanted to practice law and you immigration law. -- and do immigration law. i have not seen them as a drain. i have seen them as a boost in our economy in floor to. if you are tired of new york taxes, come to florida.
8:18 am
host: a democratic caller, good morning. caller: thanked for taking my call. i used to live in florida. i can confirm that is the case. maryland has much higher taxes. i wanted to say a comet -- i am finally -- a comment -- i am finally proud of something i am hearing in the news. this -- from the judge in the federal courts -- it is more aligned with the american values that most of us know. some of us i feel have lost -- some of us, i feel, have lost asir way because of the -- and world war ii, the president demonized germans coming from germany. it is a strategy they know works. there's not a lot of support behind all of this. dreamers specifically, who would
8:19 am
not want more educated people in our country? who would not want them on our side? as far as i am concerned, i have more of a problem with people coming in and leaving because they do not contribute to the economy all the time. they help their own countries. i want them in. host: congressman? guest: you make a great argument of the economic road. europe has low birth rates. that is why they are struggling to have canonic growth. in the united states, many americans still have a low birthrate, but because of our immigration, we continue to have publishing growth. you cannot have a growing economy if you have a declining population. think about opening a small business. there is no one buying your product than 10 years ago. we have to discuss your other point. unless you are a native american, your immigrant.
8:20 am
for because you may be here 2, 3, five generations, somewhere along the line, united states -- or when we were counties in the day, admitting your families and you are able to prosper. what kind of country are we going to have if we shut the doors on one of the things that make us fundamentally what we are? a fund -- boost growth in our country. host: john in louisiana, republican. caller: good morning. how are you? host: good morning. caller: resented if, you say americans people are -- representative, you say these asideeople are americans, from the law. the dream act was introduced in 2001, which includes daca and has not been passed by both houses of congress and signed
8:21 am
into law by the president of the united states. it is not the law. you know that. i know that. what you are doing is saying, well, i am not the law, but we like it, so we will do it anyways. .hat is exactly what obama did he said, it is not the law, but we will follow it as if it was the law. i wish, since he swore a note to uphold the constitution, you would abide by it. if it is not a law, do not tell me you are doing it and it is a law. i would like to see -- tell me what portion of the united states' code contains the law that was part of the dream act 18 years ago -- act. 18 years ago, it was introduced. host: ok. guest: on the constitutionality
8:22 am
of daca, the president has discretion under the executive power to prioritize who they are going to deport. this differs a deportation or a one to two yeawr period -- two year period. yes, there is not a law yet it is why we are here today -- yet. it is why we are here today. the dream act is being refiled. it had bipartisan support in the house, bipartisan support in the senate. we hope to ratify the program. unconstitutional if we have a law on it. louisiana's history with the are theans coming over -- with diansias coming -- arca coming over. they are called cajuns now. have change the culture
8:23 am
of louisiana. every state has this immigrant story in its backdrop that has made it what it is today. we cannot forget that. michigan, roger is watching and is a republican. hello. caller: hello. host: go ahead. caller: i am calling about the immigration policy. we see a future for the people of the united states? my mother is 92 years old. my parents immigrated from the ussr and canada, who have dual citizenship to michigan. we live in michigan. we have two borders here. actually, three. tunnel anddetroit the other is a bridge. one in michigan.
8:24 am
the other day, 100 pounds of cocaine came over from canada through the bridge to united states. host: what you want done? caller: we need our borders secure. our new governor is not doing that. she wants to tax you, tax grandma, tax grandpa for everything there is. we are never not going to get anything done with the democratic party. it is not going to happen. host: ok. let's talk about border security. guest: thank you for making the greatest art made of why we do not need a medieval water wall -- medieval border wall. most drugs come through drugs, airports. fought exactly why we not to have the mortar well-funded. it would not be affected -- the border wall funded. it would not be effective. security at our borders
8:25 am
and ports. all of the most advanced technology to stop drugs from coming in to the country. a static, giant, cement wall will be expensive and not do that. what would help, in michigan, in california, in florida, and any other state near the southern border -- more technology. i agree with you. the problems and with the tunnels and ports and other -- the problems are with the tunnels and ports and other parts of the country. we are committed to enhance funding to stop criminals and drugs from getting into the company. host: martin, independent, from mexico. caller: thank you, c-span. shame on you, congressman for facility the human trafficking of hundreds of thousands of inldren and women coming
8:26 am
from mexico and china. what we are seeing in san francisco -- kids in the corner, selling fruit for their coyotes. what we are seeing in the countries left behind, hundreds of thousands of people murdered by the cartels. what we are seeing here is the increase in drug trafficking and cheap labor and unfair labor standards. host: why do you say it is congressman who is contributi ng? guest: he has had the issue on the table for decades. he refused to act and apply the law or change the law. host: let's get a response. caller: this is my second term -- guest: this is the second -- this is my second term. i support copperheads of immigration reform. we need to do this in steps -- support comprehensive
8:27 am
immigration reform. we need to do this in steps. you do not know anything about me or my policies. you would know i deeply care about this. sex trafficking panels. had a high-profile prosecution bust. we are cracking down on this stuff. penalties were stricter than in the federal government, so we can stop even trafficking, sex trafficking. not only in florida, but the united states. the key is to have safe places for those who cannot speak the language to be able to report they are victims of human trafficking. in addition, passing a comprehensive immigration reform. it would create an environment for people with feel free to
8:28 am
come forward or have more confidence. we all need to stick together to stop human trafficking. not only in our nation, but across the world. host: our next caller is in indiana, republican. caller: good morning. it soundstell you like this conquers men does not know about how the law of immigration office -- immigration comes through the country. guest: it costs you $2000 for the application. you have to get a lawyer. $5,000,talking about $6,000. all of the illegals, free. i do not -- illegals come free. they do not do anything. guest: first, many folks seeks asylum. it costs so much to immigrate to
8:29 am
this country is because we have a zero-tolerance policy by the trump administration, who is rejecting applications and have put in place immigration judges who have applied what they have gotten from the white house as guidance to reject. i am a lawyer. i know the law on immigration. i know the struggles will go through every day. it should not be that much money. when you have policies that shut the door and encourage immigration judges to decline these cases, it is going to boost up costs. you need to know the truth about who to blame and why the situation is where it is today. host: connor in maryland, a democrat. congressman, my question is about the number of people coming to america to seek
8:30 am
asylum. s a number of reasons of why they are doing that. what can americans do to improve the conditions of these countries to remove this reason to leave? are there any democratic policies democrats favor to do this? what are the republican ideas to do this? is the bipartisan support? if these countries are facing corruption and drug trafficking and all this thing that makes the countries -- you need to leave. shouldn't america be trying to improve these places rather than leaving it down open space for russia or china to gain a major amount of influence? host: ok, connor.
8:31 am
we have to leave it there. that excellentor question. i have been in the immigration detention centers in miami, in the homestead area. we had a lot of asylum-seekers, many young children, in their teens. they came from primarily three countries -- el salvador, guatemala, and honduras. we refer to them as the central american triangle. you have major drug cartels that are trying to recruit particularly young boys as old as 10 to 13 years old. death.y face certain so many families have literally either gone with their teenage sons or daughters, or have sent them to try to get out of the country. otherwise, they face certain death in fighting these drug wars. there are things we can do. there is bipartisan support for humanitarian aid. there is some put in the last budget.
8:32 am
concerns about making sure we have free and fair elections in places like nicaragua. we have had issues with folks who stayed in power for way too long in other countries we are getting some folks coming in from. there are things we can do, making sure we have a free society, economic development, and there is bipartisan support. obviously, it is not enough, because the draw is still happening, and taking on the drug cartels directly. the dream act -- when will it get voted on, next week? guest: i suspect the next couple of weeks. it could be next week. we want to move strictly because there is consensus among the new to passmocrats majority this legislation. certainly, we believe there is more than 50 votes in the senate, potentially 60. so this will be an interesting next couple weeks on this issue. host: congressman, thanks for the conversation. we are going to take a break.
8:33 am
only we come back, continue talking about immigration with republican congressman tom mcclintock of california. >> the only thing we have to fear is fear itself. kennedy: ask not what your country can do for you. ask what you can do for your country. the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon. c-span's newest book -- the presidents. andanks america's best worst chief executives and provides insights into the lives of the 44 american presidents -- true stories gathered by interviews with noted presidential historians. explore the life events that shaped our leaders, challenges they faced, and the legacies they have left behind.
8:34 am
"the president's" will be on shelves april 23, but you can order your hardcopy or e-book today. >> saturday night on booktv, the andemont institute dismantling the administrative state. thatbody understood at time that in accepting the legitimacy of the administrative state, you had abandoned the of establishing separation of powers as a viable way of working our national government. >> saturday at 11:00 eastern, it is the 20th annual red rick douglas book prize, awarded by the lehrman institute of
8:35 am
american history. sunday night at 9:00, on ," doug jones recounts his prosecution of former kkk members involved in the 1963 birmingham church bombing that killed four black girls. his book is called "bending toward justice." >> the motive was to stop the desegregation? sen. jones: absolutely. >> that gives you the whole theme of the trial with the children. year ofes: it was the the child. fire hoses and dogs in april and may of that year in birmingham, which started the whole process. the school integration -- hope was alive in many corners. werepeople in birmingham seeing their segregated way of life sliding away, and they had to take matters into their own hands. >> watch this weekend on c-span
8:36 am
2. >> "washington journal" continues. back withre congressman tom mcclintock, republican of california. you support the president's national emergency declaration. why? guest: the president has the legal authority to declare an to reprogramd unobligated military construction funds for purposes necessary to meet that emergency. that act was passed in 1976. it has been used 58 other times since then. there are 31 national emergencies currently in effect, including to address civil unrest in sierra leone and vermont-- and burma. i would think the collapse of our southern border is a higher priority than civil unrest in burma. i think president is on sound legal ground. i was urging him to do this for
8:37 am
months leading up to his decision, and support it. guest: the house -- host: the house disagreed. it looks like the senate, there will be republicans -- guest: i was shocked that nancy pelosi's house -- host: are you shocked republican colleagues in the senate will also vote against the resolution? guest: there are some who object to the law itself, that the law gives too much authority to the president area that is a separate question, an entirely separate issue. the central question is, is that law in place? it is. does the president have the responsibility to defend our borders? he does. remiss in thee charging those responsibilities if he failed to use it. host: republican senator rand paul, from kentucky, says that congress clearly expressed its will not just bend more than $1.3 billion, and to restrict how much of that could go to barriers. therefore, president trump's emergency order is clearly in
8:38 am
opposition to the will of congress. furthermore, the principle of separation of powers delegates the power of the purse to congress. the congress appropriates funds but cannot spend them. the president spends funds with jim and appropriate them. when the president spends funds, you must do that under the conditions set by the congress. extent thatt to the congress has appropriated over $1 million -- $1 billion for that purpose. where he is dead wrong is to ignore the fact that congress also many years ago delegated to the president broad discretion to reprogram unobligated , which isonstruction what the president is doing. host: i want to invite our viewers to join in on the conversation.
8:39 am
what do you think -- if the senate looks like they will vote against the resolution, should the president veto it? guest: without question. host: what do you think happens? guest: i think it will come back to the congress, the congress will fail to override the veto, and the president will move on to discharge his responsibilities. host: what will he do? guest: he could reprogram these funds to make sure we have a wall that will defend our a massive surge of illegal immigration. over the lastthat few months and it promises to get worse from here. host: california governor knew newsomd 15 -- governor and 15 others have sued over the law, calling it unconstitutional. the governor of california says it would harm state efforts to fight drug trafficking. guest: it is interesting. they are saying the law is
8:40 am
unconstitutional. it has been used 58 times. they have never raised an objection to that law in the 40 years and it was passed and the 58 times the previous presidents have invoked it. why now? the reason isf because it is finally being used to actually defend our southern objectived that is an that a lot of these politicians do not share. what about the argument you are diverting money to pay for the wall when they need that money for fighting drugs? thet: first of all, president also has authority outside of the national emergencies act to reprogram that willprojects allow us to better interdict drugs. there is no better way to interdict the drugs that are coming across our border than a border wall. we know that because israel tostructed a 140 mile wall protect its southern border from illegal immigration coming up from egypt, and it is about 97% effective.
8:41 am
that thing becomes a huge force multiplier for our drug enforcement and border patrol to actually concentrate our resources to interdict the drugs coming in through legal ports. host: we have calls. eric in seattle, independent. caller: how are you doing? i would like to say this. you brought up israel. israel are also allowed to abort. when democrats are in office does you say you are a constitutionalist. let me ask you this about the constitution review said the separation of powers, you believe in. all the times when the emergency declaration has been declared, congress agrees with it. this time, they do not agree with it. also, do you agree if a -- wouldc president
8:42 am
you vote for gun control? people are actually dying. host: let's take your question. guest: the answer to the question is if i agree with their judgment, i would support it. if i disagree with it, i would oppose it area so that is a separate question from the constitutionality of the law itself. should congress have granted that much authority to the president? maybe not. i don't think i would've supported that bill if it had been brought when i was a member of congress. but the law is in place. to my knowledge, it has never been constitutionally challenged, even though it has been used 58 times in the past. the president has that legal authority. and again, he has a clear, fundamental responsibility to our constitution and to our country to defend our borders. or willy that cannot not defend its borders simply ceases to be a country, and history warns us of many
8:43 am
countries that have fallen because of that neglect of their borders. host: it has democrats were to put legislation on the floor that would take back his power on this 1976 act, would you vote yes? guest: as long as it included a provision that allowed him to move forward with the current declaration. host: because? guest: because it is absolutely essential to defense of our country. host: we will go to maryland. portland, oregon, republican. caller: i do agree with what the and ientative is saying, do believe that a national emergency was called for because it is, when you look at the -- it of people amassing do take a little bit of umbrage with the congressman from florida who refused to differentiate in immigration between illegal and legal. that is where most of us conservatives have a stick import.
8:44 am
there is legal immigration, and we are very generous as a country with it. and there is illegal immigration. it is the one person that called him from -- i think it was indiana, but i am not sure -- he came here legally and he paid a lot of money to do so. all these people just come to the border, and according to the congress, they should just be let in. and that is just wrong. host: i could not agree more. our country was built on immigration. unless we are full-blooded native americans going back to the very beginning -- we are all either immigrants ourselves are the sons and daughters of immigrants. but there is only one way to create one great nation from all the nations of the world. is through the process of assimilation. people come to our country. they come with a genuine desire to become americans, with a devotion to american principles.
8:45 am
they want their children to become americans. they adopt a common language, a common culture, and a common appreciation of american traditions and governing principles. our immigration laws were not written to keep people out. the written to assure that people come to our country, assimilate into it, and become americans. illegal immigration undermines the entire process of legal immigration that makes our country possible in the first place. that is why it is so dangerous. not just because of the enormous cost to support the illegal population, but most of all because it undermines the very foundation of a nation of immigrants. host: congressman, do you agree with the right to seek asylum from a country? what is your reaction to the saying --alifornia giving more protections to asylum-seekers.
8:46 am
guest: let's be clear on this. these are not asylum-seekers. our are making a mockery of asylum laws. asylum is reserved for those who have been specifically singled forby their own government persecution because they belong to a specific race, religion, social group. there are seven and a half billion people on this planet. most live in countries afflicted by violence and poverty. just because you are living in a country that has a problem with violence or property does not give you a right to come here. and when you cross an international border and attach yourself from the government that has singled you out from persecution, you have achieved that objective. you do not have a right to cross five countries to come to this one. what is going on at the border right now is making a complete mockery of our asylum laws. host: diane from north carolina, democrat. caller: i have been a democrat
8:47 am
democratse, and the are making a mockery of our border laws. is, they are say just pushing more and more democrats to vote for trump. that is what is going to happen, want seems that all they is for all these illegals coming over here, voting democrat. i think that is the only way they are going to stay in office, because they are so far left with oac and everything going on with them, but our senior citizens who are suffering that cannot even by their medicine -- all the democrats are doing is sitting up there in washington, wasting all the time that they can be doing the country's business, and they are doing it trying to help all these illegals, and they are not representing us
8:48 am
american citizens. i tend to agree. i do not think you can say you are against illegal immigration when you are constantly withting policies everything from free legal services and health care to free education. and then when you look at these movements from the left wing of the democratic party on issues such as sanctuary cities, that are actually releasing dangerous illegal alien criminals back into our communities rather than deporting them as the law requires -- i agree. i think that the extreme left has now taken control of the democratic party. you see that in so many of the measures they are now passing out of the house of representatives. and basically all it stands in their way is a presidential election in 2020. host: the february job numbers are out. government, ine
8:49 am
february, the unemployment rate was at 3.8%, and 20,000 jobs added. your reaction? guest: i have not seen the numbers for this morning yet, but it has been pretty clear that the same policies ronald reagan used to revive our economy, donald trump used with the same results. massive expansion of the economy. this is not complicated. you reduce the regulatory burdens on an economy, the economy will blossom. you impose additional burdens on the economy, the economy will shrink. disappointing for a month, but if you look at the broad spam of the term economic expansion, it is impressive. job growth slows to 20,000, there is a possibility of a broader cooldown in the economy? major headwinds.
8:50 am
one is the federal reserve's constantly increasing interest rates. i am glad they have slacked off now, that they have done significant damage to the progress we made. we have isssue self-inflicted. that is the tariff issue. tariffs, we have had many experiences with them, going back centuries. they can harm the economy of any country that practices them. free trade has been effective expanding the economy of any country that would upset policy. we have headwinds of federal reserve policy and the demonstration's policy. host: you have farmers and ranchers hurt by this? guest: everybody is for by this. every producer is a consumer. no producer has ever been helped by scarcer materials. has ever been helped by higher prices. and yet those are the outcomes
8:51 am
that trade tariffs always impose on a society. column in the wall street journal last year made a good point. you would not want to do harm -- if you want to do harm to a country without attacking them, you impose economic sanctions. those are headwinds against the ability to impact -- import products. what are tariffs? our own country's ability to import products. why would we do to ourselves what we do to our own worst enemy? tariffs will always harm a country that practices them. that is an area where i disagree with the president. objective, he says, is free trade, and he is using the tariffs as a lever to try to get more free trade agreements. certainly, he has done that with the usmca trade bill.
8:52 am
more free us toward trade with both canada and mexico. it is a big improvement over nafta. so i am willing to cut him some on the tactics as long as his objective is free trade. but in the meantime, it is hurting our economy. there is no question of that. me of aic does remind bank robber who puts a gun to his head and says "don't move or i shoot the hostage." caller: good morning. really an issue that made me leave the democratic party. as a black american, i have never heard one democrat explain richer ands me better off by importing all of these people into the country. people continue to push this. i was out of work for many, many years.
8:53 am
i got a masters degree in electrical technology. and a lot of the work that i do was taken over by illegal immigrants. i am a union member. and i am a person that actually lives up with what should be a lifelong democrat. but not anymore. not when they are pushing this. it has gotten ridiculous. it is hurting america. it is hurting our inner cities. we have homeless americans sleeping on the street. host: i am late to jump him. congressman? asst: what you will hear is the population goes, the economy goes. that is true on a macroeconomic scale. but when you bring in large, large numbers of unskilled workers, the people who are hurt the most are those who are just trying to start out on the ladder of success here in our country. and again, that is why it is so
8:54 am
important countries control their borders. it is not we want to keep immigration out. we want to ensure that people who come to our country are going to be computing to it and -- the taxpayer supported programs is over a hundred billion dollars a year. that is a significant strain on our economy. it is undermining the foundation of illegal immigration. let's never forget there are millions and millions of legal immigrants who have obeyed all of our laws, who have waited patiently in line, who have done everything our country has asked them to do. and while they are doing that, they are watching millions of people try to cut the line in front of them. that is just not right. host: jeff is in mississippi, a republican. you are on the air. caller: good morning.
8:55 am
i am going to make a suggestion. the southern countries that are coming across, up through the the refugees,r -- they should have stayed there. we should pass the law we used against cuba when they touched the ground in the united states. it used to be allowed to stay. they changed the law. you touched the border of the united states from cuba, you get sent back automatic. host: the policy has changed? guest: i am not familiar with that law. but you are right on the question of sound policy. if an individual in guatemala actually is being persecuted by their government because they belong to a specific group, and they cross into mexico, they have now achieved asylum. they have separated themselves from the government that has been oppressing them. to apply for is
8:56 am
asylum in mexico. it is not to go country shopping to find the one they most want to go to. as i said, just because you live in a country that is suffering poverty and violence does not give you a right to enter hours. that is the paradox of immigration. every country develops unique principles, unique governing institutions that create certain conditions. the more successful those countries are, the more desirable they are to move to. that is what drives immigration patterns. but here is the paradox. up destroying the unique principles that drove immigration in the first place. examples ofrs many countries that could not or would not enforce their borders. they simply were not around very long. i certainly hope that is not the epitaph of what abraham lincoln called the last, best hope of
8:57 am
mankind on this earth. host: we have a few more moments with congressman tom mcclintock. we got to rose in chicago, a democrat. caller: all the stomach cuts that call on the democrats line and then say they were lifetime democrats but they are not anymore -- we should not be allowed to. host: the house is going to come in early, so what is your question or comment? caller: you support legal immigration. well, you have been in politics since you have been 23 years old, mr. mcclintock. regardless, legal immigration, the h-1b visa back in the 1990's, importing nurses from the philippines, shutting down nursing schools in the united states -- you imported the filipinos who are nursing. host: your point is what? caller: jobs. the point is people,
8:58 am
republicans, liking immigration when it suits industry's needs, but not when people are coming to seek a better life. guest: immigration should be regulated in a manner that improves our country. immigrants, for generations, improved our country. the reason we have immigration laws and borders is to assure that they are coming here with a sincere desire to be americans, with something we can contribute to our country. and they are coming in such rather than becoming isolated, balkanized communities that do not assimilate. create one country from all the countries in the world -- we a country built from all the countries in the world. that is what our laws are designed to serve. host: the has coming in early,
8:59 am
9:00 a.m. the vote you are taking today deals with ethics in voting. it is a broader bill. how will you vote? why? guest: absolutely not. i spoke against it on the floor the other day. this is a frightening bill. consent of the governed is a bedrock principle, and we apply that through our elections. it is essential those elections be nonpartisan and free and fair. what this bill does is muzzle free speech. it has the opposition of the american civil liberties union as a result. it expert rick's taxpayer money for support of candidates those taxpayers might a poor. and it breaks down the laws that the integrity of the ballots being cast. to go.e have thank you for your time. the house coming in in just a minute. we bring you to the house floor. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2019] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsib f

52 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on