>> coming up an "washington journal," your calls and then stef kight talks about the asylum system. and the will discuss hse leadership gop issues with republican congressman carlos gimenez and democratic congressman adriano espaillat. >> the yay's i 359, the motion is adopted. without rejection, the motion lays on the table.

host: good morning. yesterday on the house floor, 196 republicans, along with 163 democrats voted to save the speaker mike johnson. representative ardrey taylor green and thomas massie write forward a motion to vacate the chair, immediately brought up and tabled by republicans and democrats. this morning, we would like to get your thoughts on the speaker surviving efforts to oust him. , kratz, -- democrats, (202)-748-8000. republicans, (202)-748-8001. independents, (202)-748-8002. you can also join us this morning in a text, include your first name, city and state at (202)-748-8003. post your comments on facebook.com/c-span or x with the handle @cspanwj. marjorie taylor greene product's

motion to vacate the chair on the house floor around 5:50 p.m. eastern, according to capitol hill reporters, this surprised leadership. they thought they had more time to respond to her efforts to oust the speaker. it was brought up. here is how those on the floor reacted when she came to the microphone. [video clip] >> for what purpose does the general woman from georgia seek recognition? >> i seek recognition to give notice of my intent to raise the question of the privileges of the house, the form of the resolution is as follows, declaring the office of speaker of the house of representatives to be vacant. [booing] this is the unity party for the american people watching. >> the gentlelady will suspend.

order. order. the gentlewoman from georgia is recognized. >> whereas the house republican conference elected mike johnson on october 25, 2023, after 3.5 weeks of trying to decide on a new speaker of the house. >> mr. speaker, the house is not in order. >> the house will be in order. general woman from georgia is recognized. >> whereas mike johnson sent the republican conference a letter taking promises as to what type of speaker he would be, and outlining his plans going forward. mike johnson put forth seven tenants that would guide the conference under his speakership

, restored trust by ensuring total transparency, open processes and regular order. >> the gentlewoman will suspend. [end video clip] host: marjorie taylor greene on the floor, offering her motion to vacate the speakership. she was booed by her colleagues yesterday evening. olivia beaver's, who reports for politico,nows that speaker johnsonas standing, talking to his staff 5:17 p.m. eastern time, and he is now looking over at greene, and she saw a member give him a hug. 11 republicans voted to move on vacating the speakership. 196 republicans voted to save mike johnson.

what are your thoughts on this vote? let's hear more from marjorie taylor greene with thomas massie, her colleague, sitting next to her on the floor yesterday on why she was moving forward. [video clip] >> speaker johnson has not lived up to a single one of his self-imposed tenants, whereas speaker johnson allowed the conference one day rather than 72 hours to review a 1000 plus page bill to which no amendments could be offered rather than ensure total transparency, open processes, and regular order, whereas speaker johnson worked with democrats to produce appropriations text, and other legislative items rather than with republicans to understand and emphasize each member's unique strength and engage with them, whereas speaker johnson relied on majority democrats support to pass a two part omnibus spending bill rather than advancing a policy agenda

supported by conference consensus. whereas on december 1, 2023, speaker johnson failed to protect the republican majority when he allowed multiple votes to remove another republican from the house of representatives. it was unprecedented for a member to be removed from congress by a two thirds vote prior to conviction of a crime. to this day, the republican expelled from the house under speaker johnson has not been convicted of a crime. meanwhile, a democrat male holds that seat -- male holds that seat. while speaker johnson fully supported abortion, the climate agenda, foreign wars and bidens border crisis, rather than ensuring liberty, opportunity and security for all americans, whereas speaker johnson relied on democrat votes on at least two occasions with the first

transgression on march 22, 2024, with the house passage of resolution 1102, part two of the johnson-schumer omnibus, the second transgression on april 20, 2024, with house passage of hr 35, the $61 billion ukraine funding bill. [end video clip] host: congresswoman marjorie taylor greene on the floor yesterday, reading why she wanted to remove speaker mike johnson from his leadership post. after hearing her, what is your reaction to her efforts yesterday? they failed, only 11 republicans voted, time with her, 11 total. they voted no on the motion to table her efforts. this is the scene from jake sherman, on the floor, while she

read that resolution. johnson is standing not far away next to his staff. he looks calm. meanwhile, the former speaker, nancy pelosi, was seen huddling with the current leader of the democratic party in the house, the minority leader akeem jeffries, and leader pete aguilar of california. the chamber is quite noisy, as you heard. we would like to get your reaction this morning to speaker johnson surviving an effort to oust him, the second time in this congress that one of their own moved forward, republicans, to remove their speaker. after this resolution was offered, steve scalise, the number two in leadership under the speaker offered a motion to table it, effectively killing

her privileged resolution, that is the vote that took place yesterday. listen to what happened on the floor when the haze and maze are requested -- yays and nays are requested. [video clip] >> mr. scott police of louisiana, we lay the resolution on the table. >> it is offered by the gentleman from louisiana. those in favor say i. those opposed say no. [end video clip] host: according to reporters in the chamber, although yeses you heard from the floor or bipartisan, the two knows you heard -- no' as you heard were from marjorie taylor greene and thomas massie. ron, independent. let's hear from you. caller: good morning, c-span.

i have been listening to c-span for 30 years area this is the first time i had the opportunity to go first, so thank you. this lady just wasted 10 minutes of our lives. this is a good example of why i think that before we elect these people to office, there should be some type of mental status examination or psych evaluation. it is ridiculous how much she is wasting our time. you have the speaker who is trying to meet the democratic party in the middle in order to get some things done, and here she is. i don't know who is supporting her or who is funding her, but she knows she is wasting our time. we have a lot of things we need to accomplish, and with people like that in office, we will get nowhere. and the only people laughing our putin and china. those are the only people sitting back and laughing. thank you. host: it sounds like you like

the job, you approve of the job speaker mike johnson is doing so far. caller: he is trying. listen, if you are going to be progressive and antidemocratic or antirepublican, you will get nothing done. there are a lot of things coming down the pipe that is going to hit our country, and if we remain divided, we will get nothing accomplished, and the only people sitting back and laughing. i'm telling you this now, our russians and china. host: do you lean democrat or republican? caller: i'm right down the middle. the only thing i agree with as far as republicans is our stance on illegal immigration. that has to come to an end. host: at this point, do you know who you are going to vote for for president in november? caller: [sighs]

i do not. i wish there was a third-party candidate that i could take seriously. host: i ask only because of the role the former president played yesterday or is playing in these internal republican politics in the house. this is from the former president' true social post -- afteth vote took place to kill marjorie taylors resoluon on ousting the speaker, i absolutely love marjorie taylor greene, she has spirit and fight. i believe she will be around and on ouridfor a long time to come. however, right now, the reblans need to fight the radical democrats with the majority growing, we are not in the position of voting on a moono vacate. then he writes, at some point, m very well b, but this is notime. we are leading in the presidential polls by a lot,

national, d in the swing states, we are doing well in the senate and i believe we would do well in the house, but if we showed this-unity which will be portrayeas chaos, it will negatively affect evethg. mike johnson is a good man tries hard. weill get them done together. it is my request that republicans vote for the motion to table. we will win big, and it will be soon. this took place after -- he posted this after the motion to table was successful. again, 196 republicans voted to save speaker mike johnson, along with 163 democrats. here are the 11 republicans who joined marjorie taylor greene. biggs, burlison, crane, davidson, gosar, greene, bear massey, moody, roy, and victoria spartz.

those are the 11 republicans, and this is thomas massie's tweet, it is a new paradigm in congress, nancy pelosi and most republicans voted to keep speaker mike johnson. these are the 11, including myself, who voted not to save him. gary, new york, democrat. caller: good morning. i'm not a big fan of johnson, but he has a job to do. it is a tough situation. extreme mag a right -- maga right, and the extreme left, that is the problem. as a democrat or republican, you have to work together and by being extreme on left and right, this is a war for the united states. host: so you agree with akeem jeffries' strategy to vote to save the speaker? caller: you know what, he had no

choice because what are we going to do again? have the government shut down for another few weeks to try to vote in somebody else? you have to compromise. i think he made the right choice. let's put it this way, jeffries was not going to get the bid to be the speaker. that would never happen. all the republicans would vote it down. it is a new point. he did the right thing for what he had to do at the moment. i think what is going to happen in the future, the independents and the normal republicans, and we could say this, but democrats, people have to wake up. you have to get rid of the squad. it does not help anybody. host: in north carolina, independent, steve. caller: hello. thank you for taking my call.

yes, what can i say about mcg? she is a patriot, a woman after my own heart. she knew she would take the criticisms and catcalls and boos. she reminds me of paul revere, telling us the unity party is here. you know what? when stuff starts jumping off and you see all these things happening in our country, one thing you cannot say is that mpg and other 11 patriots who stood with her do not try to warn us. i understand what president trump was saying, do not rock the boat right now because we had a slim majority in the house , and i understand the others who did not stand with marjorie because they are cowards. they are not patriots. they did not want to lose the majority. i understand because we do not want his agenda of the democrats

to continue. it is ruining our country and tearing us apart. lack, white, it doesn't matter. americans are hurting right now but it doesn't seem anybody cares. i agree with president trump that she is a fighter and we need to hold back and not to the kamikaze in the sky and kill ourselves, but let's face it, marjorie is right, do you like her or not or agree with her or not, she is a woman after my own heart. she has b-a-l-l-s. i applaud her. we need more marjorie taylor greene's.can host: -- host: can i ask you to react to washington times, democrats' vote save johnson speakership. new york times, this morning, their headline -- democrats help johnson survive big to oust him.

what do you make of those two headlines? caller: they are looking out for themselves. it is silly, stupid and an idiot . i understand why he is trying to hold onto power because he would like to continue the status quo. we have been dealing with this since the 1980's and 1970's. this has been going on a long time. it is finally coming to head when president trump became our president, and he pulled the covers back and showed everything. now we really see what is going on. in the status quo or the establishment does not want us to know these things. we call them the swamp now, but back in the day, it was the establishment, and now they would like to cover it up it is too late. our jury is letting us know like paul revere, hey, the unity party is here. wake up. host: we will leave it at that punch bowl news, t other wild

thing about the former president statement ishahe floats that he may support ousting speak johnson but not now. we are not in a position on boating on a motion to vacate. at some point, we may be, but this isn't the time. in punch bowl news a.m. addition this morning, they say that the former president is putting the speaker on a short leash. do you agree? yvonne in wisconsin, the aquatic caller -- democratic caller. caller: i'm disappointed with the caller that just called in. this is bigger than donald trump and the party. this is about our country. this is about our democracy. i commend the democrats for doing the right thing because they are thinking about our country. they are thinking about our democracy. it is time for republicans to do their job and support the

country. if they would have got rid of donald trump, they would have had two bites of the apple when it came to impeachment and mitch mcconnell just cast the should buffet the port. if they would have gotten rid of donald trump with the impeachment, we would not have this problem. republicans need to step up and do their job. why are they looking for the democrats to save the democracy? host: if there is another motion to vacate the chair by marjorie taylor greene or under the republican, what do you think your party should do? caller: i believe we should step up into the right thing, help save this man's job so we can get things done for the country. that is what it is about, not a party or personality. it is about our country and as long as the democrats step up and do the right thing, and the

end they will be rewarded, but those of you that our rhinos, you all need to step up and take your party back and do your job to help the democrats save this country. host: washington times this morning, house minority leader hakeem jeffries, refused after the vote to commit to doing the same thing again if someone else try to force another vote to oust mr. johnson. screen's nationalist green -- miss greene said after the vote, that it exposed how washington works. your reaction to those comments this morning. new york times front page story, they are the only paper that ran this on their front page, the other national newspapers this morning had it inside the newspapers, and they note that

the 11 republicans who voted against the motions to table marjorie taylor greene's resolution, it was the same number of republicans who voted in october to allow the data to remove mr. mccarthy to advance, but back then, they were joined by every democrat. so when it came to mccarthy speakership, the democrats voted with these 11 republicans to oust him. yesterday, when it came to speaker mike johnson, the majority of democrats voted with the majority of republicans to save speaker mike johnson. your thoughts on that this morning. darrell, idaho, dependent. caller: good morning. i have heard that speaker johnson and a lot of the republicans were saying he is equivalent testify because he

acted like he would go in the direction of the republicans, but when it came down to the wire, he sided with the democrats, so you have this war going on. host: on what? when did he do that? caller: i think it was sean hannity on one of his programs, he accused speaker johnson of being a spy. he is at conservative, and here we have the situation -- i'm a christian. i study the scriptures, and we have one party that does not care if men marry men or women marry women, and then on the others, speaker johnson said he was likely to give a dime for the border, but we have a bunch of cagey people. i have never voted, and the reason why is liquid we have got today from this so-called government. host: let's listen to speaker

mike johnson after the vote. he spoke to reporters and this is what he said. [video clip] >> members have voted, and now we have important work to do for the country. there are a lot of things. last week, we announce the effort to crack down on antisemitism on campus. this morning, we introduced legislation to fortify elections and ensure that only american citizens can vote. i'm glad this destruction will not inhibit this important work and all the other things on the agenda right now. hopefully, this is the end of the personality politics and frivolous character assassination that has defined the 118th congress. it is regrettable. that is not who we are as americans and we are better than this. we need to get beyond it. the speaker of the house serves the whole house, everybody, but i'm a lifelong movement conservative republican, and i intend to govern with those

court principles. we believe in the core principles, the seven core principles of american conservatism, but also of america itself, i believe in individual freedom, limited government, the rule of law, discourse responsibility, free markets, human dignity. those are the guiding principles that inform our work and that we work for every day to pursue to ensure that all americans have more liberty, opportunity and security, and those foundations are in jeopardy right now. we need steady hands at the wheel and people who understand what made america the strongest, the most our full, the most free, the most successful and benevolent nation in the world really need to fight for that every day. [end video clip] host: speaker mike johnson lives another day after two republicans were joined by nine other republicans in their effort to oust him that failed. the majority of the republican party and the house voted to

save the speaker. 11 republicans total voted to oust him. punch bowl news noted, that is 5% of the republican conference. the washington post notes this morning that marjorie taylor greene and thomas massie, the pair of hardliners, demanded that speaker mike johnson no longer send aid to ukraine and only put bills on the floor the majority republicans agreed with and moved to defund investigations into trump and past doesn't individual spending bills. this is what the two were meeting with speaker on over the past week. they had a couple of meetings and those with their demands. johnson denied negotiating with the pair after house republicans expressed fears he would be cutting deals in a manner similar to what eventually led to the ousting of kevin mccarthy

last october. greene and massey met with them tuesday in hopes the speaker would give him an answer but his response never came. sources familiar with the speak's thinking said johnson would not publicly announce his position under the circumstances. so marjorie taylor greene and thomas massie, the two republicans of congress, they came to the floor yesterday around 5:16 p.m. eastern and she offered her motion to vacate. it was tabled or effectively killed by a majority of the bipartisan group of lawmakers. john, california, republican. caller: good morning. listen, i listen to you guys every morning, and what i would like to get across is if we have a left and a right wing, nobody talks about term limits.

both parties are pathetic. they do not look after the american people. they lie to you. they do not do it they say they are going to do. we need term limits. until we get term limits, nothing is going to change. host: john's thoughts in california. in nebraska, republican. caller: good morning. 100% agree with marjorie taylor. for one, they were supposed to be some kind of deal, which mike johnson [indiscernible] our biggest problem right now is funding other countries when our

country is completely going down the drain. republicans need to stand by their party. we have a lot of rhinos in our party. host: what is your reaction to former statement on this last night? -- former president trump statement on this last night? caller: i'm voting for trump. he is correct and it. you cannot do it right now because democrats of the house and senate pretty much. host: no, republicans of the house. caller: no, some of the republicans vote with the democrats, so it is not a complete republican party. i don't know. but i'm supporting trump. i think it is a witch hunt, like he says.

host: we will hear from steve next, illinois, independent. caller: i know a lot of people are talking about democracy. [indiscernible] i have to say that we are losing our democracy slowly. by every single illegal immigrant that comes into -- host: steve, we are talking about the vote on the floor yesterday. the debate -- all right. eddie, massachusetts, republican. caller: hi. the vote is ok. you have to keep someone in order for marjorie taylor greene. she's just trying to say, it is

republican, and if you can keep it, it was estimated that we will have a $2 trillion deficit. it is said that in poor neighborhoods -- host: so you agree with marjorie taylor greene that the speaker has not done enough on this issue of spending? caller: of course you have to spend it, with the problem is you do not cut the waste. that is what she is trying to say. we have to help nato and ukraine , but it is the infrastructure and welfare structure that is failing. we are losing $1 trillion a year in imports, to pay for the huge deficit. we cannot continue this. host: understood.

from the new york times reporting, if marjorie taylor greene had been successful yesterday, ms. greene would have only prompted the second vote on the house floor in more than 100 years on whether to oust the speaker. when matt gaetz of florida instigated mr. mccarthy's removal in october, such a spectacle had not been seen in the chamber since 1910. this time, miss greene had a more difficult time finding support for removing the speaker. as republicans were wary of drawing the chamber into a period of chaos like the one that paralyzed the house for for weeks after mr. mccarthy's oust. democrats this time voted to save the speaker. this is hakeem jeffries, the leader of the democratic party in the house after the vote yesterday. [video clip] >> our decision to stop marjorie taylor greene from plunging the

house of representatives in the country into further chaos is rooted in our commitment to solve problems for everyday americans in a bipartisan manner. we need more common sense and less chaos in washington, d.c. marjorie taylor greene, an extreme mag -- an extreme maga republicans are chaos agents. house democrats are change agents. we will continue to govern in a reasonable, responsible, and results oriented fashion and put people over politics all day and every day. [end video clip] host: hakeem jeffries, democratic leader in the house, explaining why democrats voted with republicans to table or

effectively killed marjorie taylor greene's motion. 32 democrats did not agree with their leadership, and they voted no. they did not want to save speaker mike johnson, and 11 republicans, marjorie taylor greene, and 10 others, believed that he does need to be removed. however, the speaker's office is arguing that if there was an actual vote on speaker mike johnson, not all 11 of those republicans would have voted to get rid of him as a speaker. we are getting your reaction this morning. dennis in iowa, democratic caller. caller: yes, i would like to tell the republicans, it was not joe bid who spent over hundred thousand dollars trying to keep a woman's mouth shut. host: we are talking about the

caller: the speaker will, i agree. the republicans do not need to have eight people trying to throughout a speaker that a majority wanted. those eight people to me are communists because they do not believe in majority rule. host: so you agreed with your party's strategy then to help save speaker mike johnson? caller: yes. host: chris, philadelphia, independent. caller: good morning. i would like to say that i'm glad that the republicans did shoot marjorie taylor greene. it shocks me. i'm raising a child that is seven years old, and i have to constantly tell him to take off his baseball hat when he is in a

public tilting, so i would just like to comment on those little things i see publicly, like wearing a baseball hat in the house and something like that, but the only reason that she is doing this, in my opinion, is because we just all heard that the president likes to be spanked by magazines by porn stars -- host: we will go to george in new york, independent. caller: good morning. johnson -- i'm glad they voted for him because johnson did the right thing, and that lady, taylor greene, she does not know what she does, and they need to vote her out of office and get rid of her. i forgot the other lady -- they

did the right thing today. yesterday. they did the right thing. we don't need politicians like her because she is just a showboat. host: george, you are an independent. which way do you lean? which party do you vote for? caller: i'm sorry. i'm a democrat. i hit the wrong button. host: so you agreed with what your party did, the majority of your party yesterday? caller: yes, i agree. they can work together. host: george likes the bipartisanship. another george in alabama, republican. caller: hey, how are you? host: good morning. caller: can you hear me? host: yes, we can. caller: i just wanted to say, i understand why she called for

the vote. i think it was a waste of time, but, once again, what we see here, when you have a small faction of republicans, they said they were going to get border security. he needs to put forward a bill -- they have the republicans in the house, they have to pass the bill, send it to the senate and say, hey, if it doesn't get past, we are not doing another damn dating. just stick it at that. host: you think he was weak before the vote -- caller: he is certainly weak. host: you think he's weaker? caller: i don't think he's weaker because he knows that he can still go and bargain with the democrats. he also had republicans in the house who would always like to make a deal, so whether that is 60% or 70% of democrats to come to the table, they get a majority what they would like

and then they get the ukraine bill passed. to get the other bills passed. he does not get done with the majority of the republican people would like to get done.he had a chance to lobby for border security, and he could've gone and said, look, we have got the numbers. we are not doing anything. we are holding out. that is what the plan was to say we are not passing ukraine support if you don't get this border security. that should have been in the bill when they should have had a separate bill that said border security is here. pass this and then we will talk about everything else. if you don't pass this, we will go home to our offices and sit there, and call us back when this passes. host: what you think about the former president statement? caller: i mean, he's playing the game. he's going the house, whether it

is 65% or whatever, they support going forward. they want to make it look like they are compromising and working, and the majority of the american people out there will always tell you that they want to see compromise. they want to see both parties working together. that is always a blanket statement, but at the end of the day, you would like to take advantage of what you believe. host: if it was not an election cycle, if the presidential election cycle was not coming up in november, people were not going to vote in november, do you think the former president would have a different stance? caller: totally. host: you think you would have -- caller: but i also think that if it was not an election cycle, i understand the house runs every two years as opposed to the

senate, if you have guys of their racing collections every other year or whatever, but if it was an election cycle for them, too, some of those guys could have held tight and said we are not going to do anything right now, but they are so afraid that you have the majority of americans who would like to get something done for ukraine and israel, that one to get something done at any cost and say, well, let's compromise on this, at least we can get the support to them and we did not get what we wanted. host: george's thoughts, republican and mobile, alabama, speaking of aid to foreign countries. yesterday, the president on cnn in an exclusive interview made news on halting shipments of american weapons to israel. this is what he had to say. [video clip] >> i know that you have paused, mr. president, shipments of u.s. farms to israel due to concerns

that they could be used in any offensive on rafah. have those powerful 2000 pound bombs been used to kill civilians in gaza? pres. biden: civilians have been killed in gaza as a consequence of those bombs and other ways. i made it clear that if they go into rafah -- they have not yet -- if they go into rafah, i'm not supplying the weapons to deal with that problem. i will continue to make sure that they are secure and ready to respond to attacks recently, but it is just wrong. we are not going to supply the weapons and artillery shells used -- >> artillery shells, as well? >> yes. >> just understand what they're

doing right now in rafah, is that -- pres. biden: it is causing problems right now. we have to make sure we have a relationship and help, but i have made it clear that they will not get our support if they go into these population centers. we are not walking away from israel security, we are walking away from waging wars in those areas. >> so it is not over your redline yet? pres. biden: not yet. [end video clip] host: president biden in an exclusive interview with cnn last night. this debate occurred when they testified before the senate committee on the budget, and he was asked about this positive weapons. if you missed that hearing, you can find it on c-span.org.

nebraska, republican, jeff, this morning, we are talking about this vote yesterday, triggered by marjorie taylor greene, to oust speaker mike johnson. she was not successful. your thoughts. caller: i was all for her bringing it up, all for president trump, and i'm going to vote for president trump again. i'm 67, retired out of the marine corps, and i have got to tell you, this country is in trouble. give me one agency or entity in our government that is not screwed up. host: wiring for her bringing it up? -- why are you for her bringing it up? caller: you said earlier there was a 115 page bill that turned into over 1000 page bill.

i bet you dollars to donut that three quarters of the people, democrats and republicans did not even read that bill. that says something about us. the people. host: i think you are referring to marjorie taylor greene when she was on the floor. she mentioned that, correct? caller: i don't know. i did not even hear the speech. host: tell me why you are for her bringing up the motion to vacate. caller: because i want people to read the bill. if they're going to take my money and send it overseas, we want people to keep tabs on what they are spending it on. the last deal that went over there, the 130 billion or 120 or whatever it was, they were pain people unemployment there. host: so who should be speaker

of the house if you agree with marjorie taylor greene? caller: no, i want johnson there. she can do whatever she would like to. it is her right to bring it up but also to get voted down. we have to have our representatives to be able to read the bills. and vote responsibly. host: this speaker controls the legislation that comes to the floor, and you disagree with bringing bills that are 1000 pages long but have not been read to the floor. he did that. caller: greta, how many bills were sent down that we did not see about the border? the people, the people, us. host: and who do you blame for that? caller: i blame the press. i blame you because c-span and all these other networks, the only one who covered it was fox. for 2.5 years, they had a guy

there every day. telling everybody, watch out, we are getting overrun. nobody, nobody covered it but fox. and here we are today with 10 million people here, and we don't even know what their intent is to do to our country, and everybody acts like it did not even happen. host: so who bears responsibility in the house and senate for not passing legislation to deal with the border? caller: the president of the united states. he changed it when he come in. that is what everybody voted for him. he said during the debate, i'm going to change what we are doing on the border. that is what he said. host: five right, coming up in 10 minutes, we will talk about the biden administration's border policies. stef kight, who writes for

axios, a politics reporter, will be here to talk about plans to change u.s. asylum. that conversation at 8:00 a.m. eastern time. bill, maryland, democrat. 163, cuts voted to save speaker johnson. what do you think? -- hundred 63 democrats voted to save speaker johnson. what do you think? caller: i'm in concert without coming of that. i will make it as brief as possible. first and foremost, we are americans and this is a country that god has given us for a reason, and we have the ultimate responsibilities for maintaining morals, not only for us here in america but for the world. and, democrat, but the fact of the matter is, we have great

people, intelligent people on both sides of the aisle, and when we stop to remember that we are americans with democrats and republicans, we will stop labeling each other in a derogatory way. host: is that what you think happened on the house floor last night, that it was a vote for our country? caller: i think that every person in congress should have the option of voicing their opinion concerning anything that comes up and using their best intelligence and speaking for the people and bring it to whatever route so they can have a discussion over it. host: did you agree or disagree with the motion to vacate? caller: i agree. host: larry in georgia, democrat. caller: yes, i want to talk to

the millenniums and gen z's about the speaker of the house and what he stands for for the american people. johnson did the right thing by voting for the policy to help move this nation forward and not shut down the government, number one. number two, the american people got to realize that the speaker of the house, he is neutral. he is free democrats -- he is for democrats and independent, he is neutral, and johnson did the right thing when he made that decision. marjorie taylor greene does not have any power, any power. president trump has a lot of power with his mouth, but he has no power at the senate and in

congress because of the fact that people allow him to rule them and tell him what to do. as far as the speaker is concerned, he is neutral, and last year, four years ago, the republicans said they are not working with democrats. now, they have a speaker that is for all american citizens that is neutral and that is working on both sides of the aisle for the american people, and marjorie taylor greene has got no power, and president biden is doing a daily job, just like we would go to work every day, president biden is out there working for all america. host: all right, larry, so when marjorie taylor greene accuses mike johnson of leading a unity

party -- uni-party, democrats and republicans, you say that is a good thing? caller: no. it is a good thing that she did that, but it was wrong for her to try to out the speaker because the speaker made the right decision for the people for the united states. host: robert, texas, independent. caller: good morning. [indiscernible] i have got a lot to say. i am sure i'm not the first to say this, but maybe there should be no majority in the house or senate. what we want to see is where we can actually abolish political parties by states.

political parties was the worst mistake we ever made. [indiscernible] as for greene, maybe she should realize when the whole house started booing her that she did not have a chance. host: she was well aware of where the votes would land. she wanted to expose that. caller: yes. she is not the first person to call it a uni-party. what would the house do if there

was equal representation between the parties? i would tell my fellow americans to call for action. it is the nature of political parties that they seek domination or totality. as for the -- host: i'm going to move on to another call, joe in massachusetts. caller: good morning. thank you for taking the call and your great work. i appreciate it. listening to all this, i think that speaker johnson is not getting quite an of these calls for pulling 350 something votes to table that motion. in today's climate, where so

many people are relying on so few independent sources for information and developing these opinions, it is somewhat remarkable to have a politician in washington suddenly get that much bipartisan support. host: 359. caller: 359. i think that is the story of the day and that something about mike johnson, who is conservative bona fide, would be difficult to challenge. at least proven to the great group of the house that he has the capacity to serve as a leader. that is the story of the day. host: political observers, though, joe, and republicans say when you have headlines in the papers that say democrats saved speaker mike johnson that he is

now weaker. what do you say to that? caller: i say that that is probably true to those people who forget that democracy relies on collaborative working. that it is majority rule. it is not the loudest voice of the minority, and majority requires collaborative leadership. it requires that people listen to the voices of everyone in the room and then finds a path where no one gets everything but everyone can accept what they got. and it is simply the structure that we have, and i never knew mike johnson when he was first elected to speaker. however, he has at least shown

in this one event that he was able to pull in hundred 63 democratic votes and 200 plus republican votes. that is a significant event, so i disagree with that. host: from reporting inside the chamber, they noted that after the vote, the speaker stuck around, shaking hands, getting clapped on the back by his colleagues who supported him, and that he did also have a conversation with marjorie taylor greene after the vote took place. pat, new jersey, republican. caller: hi, greta. i opposed marjorie taylor greene this time, just as i opposed matt gaetz last year when he pulled the same stunt. these people just do not understand -- one caller called johnson week. well, he has a tiny majority. he does not have room to maneuver, and not all republicans think the same way.

you are going to have people who oppose you on some issues. people like ardrey taylor gray need to grow in realize that they cannot get everything -- marjorie taylor greene need to grow up and realize they cannot get anything they want. you still have to deal with the senate where the democrats are in control and they can -- and i wish they could get with the program and realize they cannot get everything your own way. host: if the republicans keep the majority in the next congress, should mike johnson service speaker? caller: i think that is a decision for the next congress to make. for them to make that decision should be after the election. if they find themselves with the majority, at that time, they can have people lobby and say, i would be better at speaker, and they can rally support. and when they come into congress in january, they should all be agreed on who they would like to be the speaker. if they have the majority. this is not the time or the place for this kind of fight.

host: and the speaker in a news conference earlier this week before last night's voting said that he intends to lead this party in the future. jean, detroit, democrat. caller: hi. i agree with the vote last night, and i think it is about time that we realize that it takes democrats and republicans working together for the country. the republicans have put their party above the country, and that is wrong. but i think donald trump has been a terrible leader. i think he likes -- lacks character. he is the one who killed the border bill because he wanted to run on the fact that there was a problem at the border. how crass. plus, i mean, he is an enemy of the word of god and an enemy of this country.

host: we will be talking about the border here coming up in the washington journal. after this break, axios politics reporter stef kight discusses plan changes to the immigration system by the biden administration, and then carlos gimenez discusses the israel-gaza conflict, campus protest, immigration, and that vote on capitol hill to save speaker mike johnson. we will be right back. ♪ american history tv saturday on c-span 2, exploring the people and events that tell the american story. at 2:00 p.m. eastern, lauren thompson with her book talk about how display prohibitions against it, union and

confederate soldiers often fraternize, sharing coffee, tobacco and newspapers. remembering the korean war. the late colonel ralph puckett jr. lake in honor of the u.s. capitol in washington, d.c. next, a symposium on the korean war in fort worth. and at 7:00 p.m. eastern, the american history tv series congress investigates looks at historic congressional investigations that led to changes in policy and law. this week, the 1987 hearings on the iran contra, examining selling missiles to iran with the exchange of the release of hostages with proceeds going to rebels in nicaragua. and watch online anytime at

c-span.org/history. friday nights, watch c-span's 2024 campaign trail, a weekly roundup of c-span campaign coverage providing a one-stop shop to discover what the candidates across the country are saying to voters. first-hand accounts from political reporters, updated poll numbers, fundraising data and campaign ads. watch 2024 campaign trail friday night at 7:30 p.m. eastern on c-span, online at c-span.org, or download with comcast on c-span now, our free mobile app or wherever you get your podcasts. c-span, your unfiltered view of politics. washington journal continues. post: -- host: stef kite is

joining us this morning. what have you learned? guest: what we are expecting first is a relatively narrow change. right now it can take a very long time for certain bans on asylum to actually be applied to people across the border. they will go through a lengthy process. even if we have concerns about safety or national security, we still take a little bit of time before we can ban those people from asylum and remove them from the country. so what the biden administration is doing right now, they are going to move that time line up which will enable officials to very quickly determine whether they are a public safety threat, a national security threat, based on existing u.s. rules, we are going to deport you quicker. what this really means is it is

going to mean border officials more quickly removed people and give them less time to fight these accusations. this is something we expect immigration advocates to maybe push back on. for a long time they have wanted more time for people to get counsel, bring in attorneys to help them fight any bans or bars on the asylum application at this and give less time to certain immigrants. host: what do they do now that takes so long, and what with these changes do to allow them to deport quicker? guest: one of the things right now is that this has to go to an immigration judge. the asylum system is backlog so things take longer than they are supposed to because there are just so many asylum cases already in the u.s. system right now. there are limited immigration judges and every case is going to take time. it can take years for someone to get their final decision on their asylum case, even if it is

pretty clear that they are not going to get asylum early on. so what this does is this move the process up, and i know we are getting a little bit into the weeds here, but credit -- credible fear is just the very first part of the asylum process. it is the first interview and it happens very quickly, within a few hours or a couple days of that system crossing the border. at this point they will make that determination for particular migrants if they are banned from asylum because they are a public safety threat or a national security threat. it cuts out having to wait for immigration judge in these specific cases. host: what is credible fear that this immigration official would then concede and say ok, you can be put into the system, or no, you don't meet the criteria, you're going back home? guest: the credible fear stage

is a very simple interview. all that a migrant has to do to establish a credible fear of returning to their home country, credible fear of persecution, it is a very low bar. most migrants very easily path his first step. it is very easy to get past this. host: why is it easy? guest: they just say that they are afraid to go home because they had victims of crime or because of their political beliefs. there is a host of things that they can say that will give them approval of that step. of course, the asylum is much higher than that. most people will pass a credible fear standard but not actually obtain asylum. even if they can say the right thing to get past that stage, it may not show up on any tools that border officials used to see if they have any history or connection to criminal organizations or terrorist groups in other countries, anything flagged during that

process will automatically be applied and they will be more quickly barred and deported. host: when they are deported, who does the deportation, and where are they sent to? guest: right now immigration customs enforcement, ice is responsible for the deportations. they work with border patrol along the border in these cases, they work very closely together especially recently because of a large number of migrants coming across the border. migrants are typically returned back to the country of origin. there are some unique cases where they may be returned to other places, but by and large we return them to their host country. we coordinate with countries around the world to enable those deportations to take place. there are a handful of nations that make it very difficult for the u.s. to deport, for example, venezuela has made it very difficult for the u.s. to deport its own citizens. venezuela essentially says we don't really take back

venezuelans when the u.s. tries to deport them. this is obviously a very complicated process, but any time the administration can expedite the process, that would be a win for them. it is important, this is a relatively small rule compared to what we know the biden administration is considering on the border right now. and you have to put this in the context of the election year. democrats are taking the border issue seriously after years of republicans really pummeling them politically. host: so this is a smaller change than what they are contemplating, and given that, had the administration said with this change would accomplish? do they know that deportation will go up? by how much? guest: it's unclear exactly what impact this would have. we know that this will allow some people to be deported quickly. it will have some impact.

people who are familiar tell me this will definitely increase deportations early on. by how much is still a question. how the bars are enforced, how people on the ground decide to use this tool. people i've spoken to have said sure, we know the biden administration wants this to be focused on, but they have doubts that it will be limited to that. so a lot of this is going to come down to it and when this goes into effect. this is a proposed rule, we are going to have some time before this would even go into effect at the border so it is unclear just yet how much of an impact it would have. host: how does it compare to what was negotiated in the senate between that bipartisan group of senators? guest: this is not the tactic that that bipartisan piece of legislation took. the biden administration has specific orders, but biden is

very seriously considering using broader powers to more forcefully prevent people from illegally crossing the border and seeking asylum. that would be more similar to some of the measurements included in the bipartisan border deal then what we are seeing coming out this week. this is definitely an early taste of the kind of tactics the biden administration would like to take, and this rule that we are expecting to drop today or earlier this week, it also goes to show that the biden administration, it is the kind of expedited rule that the biden administration came into office taking down. said to have the administration at all considering moving faster, cutting the time the people may have to talk to counsel certainly signals a change in strategy and i think we are going to see more on this from the administration going forward. host: we are talking about

asylum border policies this morning. join the conversation this morning. democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. text as well. include your first name, city and state. (202) 748-8003. brenda in indiana, democratic caller. you are a first. caller: good morning. i have two points to make and then i have a question. first of all, for years republicans have been saying president biden isn't the real president and they have been shouting to the world that the border is wide open, so i believe republicans are responsible for more people coming to the border. second, i think it is quite a coincidence that gimenez is going to be on your show next, because he was on the show january 18. republik and representative gimenez, he sits on the

department of homeland security committee and on january 18, he said that 2 million immigrants have come across the border during the biden administration. he said 2 million. now, i would like if you would explain the title 42 policy that trump put in place at the border during the pandemic. i would like you to explain, if you can, what that title 42 policy was and when president biden revoked title 42. i believe that president biden revoked title 42 in april of 2023. i believe that is what held down the immigration policy, but could you please explain to everybody what title 42 is and when did president biden pull

back? host: brenda doing her homework. guest: that is an excellent question as someone who studied immigration policy very closely. title 42 did come down last year. i was actually on the border in el paso when that came down and kind of saw the impact of that. essentially what this policy did, it was tied to the covid-19 pandemic and allowed officials to very quickly turn any migrate back to mexico and sometimes to their home country without the chance to seek asylum. and this is the kind of tool that is being considered. it would maybe not look exactly as blunt of a tool as title 42 was but they are considering policies that would more quickly enable border officials to turn people back even if they are seeking asylum when border numbers retired numbers. so that is what title 42 did but it was always intended to be a

public health rule. so when the pandemic ended, there were reasons to kind of wind down even as some officials felt like the tool was helpful. host: redfield, massachusetts, republican. caller: hi, how you doing? number one, i am considered an illegal immigrant, 66 years later. when i went to get myself medicare, they found i was born in canada and i went to a hospital, i got a bill like six or eight weeks later saying i owed $9,800. they gave me a medicare card, but in an illegal immigrant because i was born in canada. so that is the first point. number two, my brother was in the military, he gets $900 a month from social security, and

i hear that the illegal immigrants are getting $2200 a month. i don't know how that is constitutionally allowed. host: we will take your point. what benefits if any to illegal immigrants get guest: guest: in this country? very, very little. it is very difficult for undocumented immigrants in the u.s. to obtain cash benefits from the u.s. government. if they have spouses and children that can sometimes open a pathway for their children to be eligible for some benefits. if they have a child born in the u.s., that child is considered a u.s. citizen, that opens up pathways. you are going through legal processes, so you have access to some benefits at times, whether it is food stamps, etc. it really depends on the situation but by and large it is very difficult for someone who is here without any paperwork who is undocumented to have access to really any federal benefits.

host: while you're going through the asylum process are you getting cash on a monthly basis? guest: know, that is not part of the asylum process whatsoever. host: the new york times this morning, 360,000 forced to flee homes. the united nations is calling this a cataclysmic crisis. fleeing their homes because of gangs. guest: if some of them tried to come into the united states, could they claim asylum under this situation? guest: if they made it to the u.s., they made it to florida, they would be able to claim asylum. the way the u.s. works, when that happens, there really is no chance for migrants to actually make it to the u.s. based on u.s. policy. if people expressed a fear of returning to their home country we will sometimes look for other countries where we can send them

somewhere in the region where we can send them. it is very, very rare for a haitian migrant to ultimately make it to the u.s. and it is one of the reasons why we have seen an increase in the number of haitian migrants coming to the u.s. through the u.s.-mexico border. they will get to mexico first and take that last trip to the u.s. border to provide more opportunity to actually apply for asylum there. host: massachusetts, republican. caller: yes, who do you think ended up with all of the migrants? martha's vineyard? they ended up here. one more thing, president biden. you can't hide migrants committing homicide. host: we will go to deborah in yorktown heights, new york, democratic caller. caller: hi.

i'm the daughter of a man who immigrated here through legal means. he was in a camp in europe serving as a translator for many months before he was able to come to the u.s.. the fraternity had -- 1956. and i'm wondering -- one question i had is why we are not using more camp systems, not any punitive way, but especially with the language barrier, my fear is that when immigrants come to find a better life, they are going to be met with so much resentment by people who do not feel like there needs are being sufficiently met at the present time and they've been here for much longer. it is sort of like we are

setting up immigrants to fail here. so i'm wondering i guess, one is about camps. two, are this should programs that exist a solution to help manage the complicated needs of those immigrants as well as the current citizens in our country who are struggling? host: got it. guest: when it comes to groups that are trying to help migrants and asylum-seekers, they kind of take those first steps when they come to the u.s. there are many nonprofits that do this work. the u.s. government relies extensively on the network of nonprofits. many of them are religious states along the border. i've been on the border and visited some of these nonprofit groups. some of them are specifically migrant shelters. you used the term camps, we call

them shelters along the border. some of them allow migrants to catch a breath, get some of the necessities they need before they go on their way. if you are interested in looking at what that part of the process works -- looks like, you can look at the role in our border system. the biden administration has been moving toward more private authorship of refugees which is a relatively new thing. they have been setting up plays, there was a program intended to help u.s. citizens and help sponsor and bring in afghans who had helped the u.s. military and

were trying to get out, so the administration has been kind of moving toward that which is obviously kind of complicated to do as well. host: new york, republican. caller: yes, first of all i'd like to ask you, is brian land still associated with c-span? host: yes, he is. caller: you with the last really unbiased moderator that you had. getting to the border situation, that biden administration has allowed approximately 10 illegal in this country. this is just a bunch of crap. as far as i'm concerned, c-span has lost a lot of credibility by not having people on that actually tell the story.

this person you have now, stef, is very biased. this is a mess. biden's -- host: how many times have you been to the border? guest: i think i thinned about four times or so in under both the trump administration and the biden administration. i've covered this issue and it is a very hotly contested and very political issue. i understand that people have a very strong views on this and it is hard to understand what is actually happening when you hear both sides of the political party going so hard in their particular view on immigration, who should be allowed in the country and who shouldn't be. one thing the caller mentioned, immigrants voting in u.s. elections and i just want to be very clear that it is against the law for any person who is not a u.s. citizen, so illegal immigrant aside, even immigrants who are not sponsored through

the citizenship process, is not allowed to vote in federal elections and face serious consequences if they do. have there been occasional consequent is documented where someone has voted? absolutely, we have a handful of those cases, but those are by and large done on accident. there are cases where there was a dmv whereas immigrants were coming to get a driver's license or other documents, they were being told to sign up to register to vote, being told they were able to even though they weren't. but still, most of those people never ended up trying to vote anyways. this is something we hear a lot from republicans, a lot of attention drawn to this idea of there being immigrants or undocumented immigrants coming to the country in order to manipulate the u.s. elections, and there is just no evidence that that has ever been the case. there are a handful of localities that enable noncitizens to vote only in local elections, but that

process is very different from the federal process. host: what is the punishment if you do vote? guest: for one, you're going to be removed from the country. you would face deportation pretty quickly if you attempted to vote illegally. you also could face jail time, you could face significant fines. this is a felony for someone to try to improperly vote in a u.s. election, even if someone was here legally and intended to become a citizen down the road. if they were found voting in a u.s. election, they would lose all chance of being able to stay in the country and i would add just one more level to this, that voter registration and voting, those are in the public record. it is very easy to find out if someone has voted and it is very easy to track them down, so it is not as if they could do this secretly and no one would find out. host: you reported yesterday on

that bipartisan senate border agreement that it could come back up for a vote. guest: yes, i've heard from several sources that majority leader chuck schumer told democrats in a luncheon yesterday that he is very seriously considering bringing the bipartisan border deal back to the floor for a vote later this month. this comes as we are seeing but, kratz in the biden administration tried to go on the offense on the border issue. it has been their most vulnerable issue for the past few years. they are trying to find space ahead of the election to forward on this. the goal here would be to force republican to have been calling for changes at the border to once again vote down a bipartisan deal that does have support. there have been support for more conservative voices as well

pretty harshly back when it was being negotiated a couple months ago. it will be interesting to see whether we see any republicans want to vote for this package this time around for if they think this is a political move. host: in the meantime president biden is considering more executive action. remind viewers what else is on the table. guest: as soon as today we can see the first smaller rules dropped which would move up the timeline for uncertain migrants and asylum-seekers could be barred from asylum. if there are national security threats, this essentially will enable border officials to more quickly deport some migrants without waiting potentially years to go through a process only to find that they should be barred from asylum. but then there are several other executive actions, executive orders that we know the president biden is considering.

one of them would be to use a vote which would enable biden to block from entering people who illegally cross the border and not give them a chance of asylum. discussions of this could be something that could be triggered once border crossings reach a certain number, to have a bipartisan border deal kind of work. we are not sure exactly what we are going to see from the biden administration but we do know that they are very seriously considering moving forward. host: when with a drug these executive orders? guest: that is the big question. the timing really has been in flux. at one point we were hearing that they were going to be moving on some of this in april, then it pushed to may. now we are hearing potentially june. i think we are going to see more action in the white house this month on the border issue. we know the white house administration officials met with chuck schumer and

democratic leaders of the house where they kind of laid out their plans on the border. they are strategizing on this. host: will there be legal challenges to what the president is trying to do? guest: one of the biggest concerns the white house has, they will say that many executive orders being pushed by republicans or being considered would be susceptible to litigation. pretty much everything former president trump did, it is very difficult to navigate immigration laws in the u.s., so that is something we know the white house is having to deal with as they are considering these. host: fort lauderdale, florida, democratic caller. caller: good morning. i want to ask you guys, what is

the official policy toward the country of haiti? over the years, they've helped us a lot to become the size we are. 350,000 people are leaving their country. bill clinton, are former president, admitted he did everything in his power to destabilize what they had going on. so what is our official policy? guest: we had a very calm gated history with haiti. on one hand, we do offer temporary protected status for patients who has been in the u.s., but there are many patient immigrants -- haitisn immigrants who would otherwise be undocumented and we are allowing them to stay because we recognize what the situation is in haiti. on the other hand, we do make it very difficult for haitians to

actually end up in the u.s., we very quickly deport them. haiti has been a partner to the u.s. and have enable the u.s. to quickly deport citizens back to haiti. we have pretty forcefully and aggressively force deportations especially during the biden administration. there was a haitian migrant who arrived in texas and we very rapidly deported almost all of them, and that included some who actually had been living in south america for a long time. so it's very complicated. on one hand we do offer protections. on the other, we do have a history of pretty harsh enforcement and deportation. host: nelson in hollywood, florida, republican. caller: good morning, can you hear me ok? host: we can. caller: i would like your opinion regarding the issue of potential terrorists that have already gotten into the country.

it's my opinion that we will probably have a terrorist attack sometime after the election. i believe that the terrorists are hoping that joe biden will win the election, and a lot has been done to hurt the united states on the part of the current administration. the biggest one being the border crisis, which can and should be controlled immediately by the president. he doesn't need congress. he created the mess and he could fix it if he so desired. host: we will have her jump in. guest: we do know that there are people who are on suspected terrorist watch lists who have crossed the border and we actually keep track of that. i just want to note that first of all, that list is pretty broad and does not necessarily mean that that person is a terrorist, there are situations

sometimes were just depending on where they are from originally, that is a thing that the u.s. is tracking and keeping. there have been cases where the process may be did not catch people that it should have. but the reality is that the u.s. government does take vetting very seriously, and people across the border there are processes to make sure the u.s. knows exactly who has entered our country. and i would also add that this rule that we are expecting the biden administration to move forward on today or in the coming days would actually address this problem and make sure that when there are people who are problematic, have problematic histories but the u.s., we can more quickly make sure they are deported. host: you can follow her reporting at axios.com or on x. thanks for the conversations. guest: appreciate it.

host: we will continue talking about immigration as well as that vote attempt yesterday to oust speaker mike johnson. we will be joined by republican congressman carlos gimenez, a member of the committee. after that we will be joined by congressman dash, a member of the house democratic caucus leadership. immigration, all of that coming up on washington journal. ♪ announcer: book tv features leading authors discussing their

latest nonfiction books. 9:15 p.m. eastern, mike gonzalez and -- say the american left has embraced a form of radical marxism that threatens the future of the united states. then at 10:00 p.m. eastern, journalist -- talked about the success and concerns surrounding new weight ls drugs as well as his personal experience taking owes mpeg -- ozempic. watch book tv every sunday on c-span 2 and find the full schedule on your program guide. host: c-span has been delivering unfiltered congressional coverage for 45 years. here's a highlight from a key moment. >> something else i saw firsthand wasn't a surprise to me, the outpouring of love for

you, my colleagues, both republican and democrat. right after the shooting. we were practicing and the democrats were practicing and my colleague and friend and sometimes arch rival in baseball from back home in new orleans, unfortunately the star of the game too many times, cedric richmond somehow figured out which hospital i was sent to end got there, probably the first person on scene in his baseball uniform to check on me. so many others of you, both republican and democrat reached out in ways that i can't express the gratitude and how much it means to me, jennifer and our whole family. it really does show the warm side of congress that very few people get to see. washington journal continues. host: joining us from capitol hill this morning's condiment

carlos gimenez who is a member of the armed services committee, homeland security committee as well, republican of florida. let's begin with that vote yesterday to table marjorie taylor greene's efforts to oust the speaker. how did you vote and why? guest: i voted yes to table. i thought that the entire motion to vacate was ridiculous. it was unnecessary and childish. i voted with the vast majority of the republicans to table the notion. marjorie taylor greene had other republicans join her and 32 other democrats join her in her effort, but it failed miserably. host: 5% of your conference voted to oust the speaker or move on that effort. why do you think that it was childish? guest: it was childish because it was unnecessary.

for me, it is attention grabbing. marjorie taylor greene likes the attention. there's no reason to oust a speaker who does a really good job. he got dealt the same cards that kevin mccarthy got dealt. he does what he thinks is right for this country and i will stand by him. he is a good, honorable person and i think he has turned out to be a really good speaker of the house. host: what grade would you give him? guest: i'm going to give him an "a." he's gotten a lot accomplished. some members will be happy with the final results. remember, because we have some members that do not support certain legislation, we end up having to do some work that actually forced this legislation to go somewhere to the left which is something that they don't want us to do, but which

kind of forced us to do that. i think the speaker has done the best under the circumstances. i'm happy with his performance and i'm happy to support him. host: it took 163 democrats to see the speaker. that headline on the conservative washington times newspaper this morning, democrats vote to give johnson speakership. is he stronger or weaker after yesterday's vote? >> stronger, but it didn't take 163 to save him. remember that marjorie taylor greene actually has three times the number of democrats supporting her as republicans. so marjorie taylor greene saying that somehow he is constantly for democrats, in order for her to be successful, she needed the democrats and she was not successful.

they say the democrats save kevin mccarthy. yeah they did, but really can let them republicans voted not to table, 32 democrats voted not to table. i'm happy that we got a number of democrats to say yes to table a motion along with a vast majority of republicans, and we need to move on. doesn't make him stronger? i think in a sense, it does. it signals to a small group on the republican side that you really can't threaten him. he is going to do what he thinks is right, which is what he should do. the speaker needs to work in a way that guides his conference,

and you can't have this leg being removed every single day. host: we were just talking before you came on this morning about a possible new rules of the five and administration could drop as early as today that would speed up the asylum process. instead of waiting for immigration judge that sometimes takes months, officials could decide early whether or not an asylum claim is credible. guest: like everything the biden administration does, i will have to take that with a grain of salt. they made a lot to do about re-imposing sanctions on venezuelan oil. you will see that venezuela has a 45 day extension and then after that, the treasury department as a way to extend not the sanctions, but the

moratorium on the sanctions. the actual effect is to not look at the sanctions, but the headlines, we are going to impose the sanctions again. it could be just as easy not only that the judges say yes, you could be deported right away, also that no, you could stay in the state much faster. only about 10% of asylum-seekers in the past the judge actually said yes, you have a viable claim. the other 90% who are being deported, i don't trust the biden administration to apply that law the way it should be. host: we also learned that chuck schumer plans to bring up again that bipartisan border agreement that was struck in recent months over in that chamber. if it were to come to the house, how would he vote on that?

guest: the president of the united states has the ability right now today to close the border. he's given over 60 executive decisions that have actually caused the chaos that is our southern border today. he doesn't need congress to do that. he doesn't need us to do a thing in order to secure the border. he just doesn't want to. he reversed a lot of trump era policies that were actually working, and then when his own people said you need to reinstitute these policies, he's refused to do so. he needs to take the steps first. how about restoring some of these policies that were working and then show good faith? if you need additional help, we will help you, but right now you are not taking the next step. i don't trust this administration to do what is

right. i've been listening to your previous desk talk about the border and the terrorist that they have caught at the border. my concern isn't so much the ones they have caught and identified trying to cross the order. my concern is the 2 million that nobody knows who they are. we don't know who they are, where they came from, where they are in the united states or why they are here. 2 million. it only took 19 terrorists to perpetrate 9/11. we have 2 million people in the united states we don't know who they are or why they are here. that is concerning to me and a reflection on biden administration policy. host: and what would be your position on this senate bipartisan bill? guest: the devil is in the details. i haven't seen those on it is not really been dissolved the problem.

the president of the united states must have the will to control the border. the president of the united states today doesn't have the will to control the border. his actions speak heck of a lot louder than his words. host: we will go to kevin first in san antonio, texas. independent. caller: greetings. i'd like to ask this representative a simple yes or no. does he support accused war criminal vladimir putin and number two question, his own fa scist propaganda says the republicans don't want to fix the border, they make too much money either campaigning on it just like federal criminal defendant donnie which i can see

people support him. but a simple yes or no on if he support the war criminal putin and why republicans haven't fixed the problems. republicans have been in charge of the government here in texas for 20 years and accomplish nothing for the citizens of texas, and fixing the border. host: all right, kevin. guest: i'll tell you this. i am no friend of vladimir putin. so no, i do not support vladimir putin. as a matter of fact, i support our assistance to ukraine and i think we should be helping ukraine fight against the aggression of russia. it is not a simple yes or no, but i think i answered your question. the border is a federal responsibility, not a state responsibility.

they had actually tried to take some measures, so i applaud the efforts of governor abbott in texas to try to protect his citizens when the federal government has failed so miserably under this administration. host: d.c., independent. caller: thank you for taking my call. i just wanted to called in and tell the congressman that like ben franklin before you, you're carrying on the tradition of hating immigrants. ben franklin said the same kinds of things that you are saying about people from the southern border, about germans, actually. so not only of the congressman a racist, he is just wrong. guest: thank, especially since i'm hispanic, that is laughable. i don't hate immigrants, i am an immigrant myself. what i don't like, i don't like illegal immigration or immigration that poses a threat to the security of the united states. a lot of people say you're a

racist. i racist? i'm hispanic. most people coming from the southern border happened to be hispanic. what you're are saying is laughable. host: tell era viewers who may not know your story of coming to the united states. guest: i came to the united states of my parents when i was about seven years old. i'd be a word of english when i got here. this country has given me everything. i am unbelievably grateful to this great country. i love the united states of america. i want to protect the united states of america, and i want to make sure that i children and grandchildren don't go through the same thing that my parents and i had to do, which was leave the country because of a communist regime. so i am a staunch anti-communist. that's why i am no friend of the vladimir putin. the russian government has had a boot on the neck of the russian people for 60 years along with the castro regime.

that kind of cleans my thoughts. so for somebody to say i'm a racist because i want legal immigration in the u.s., that is just an attack because they can't debate me on the subject, so they have to call names. host: what was the immigration process like for you and your family? yes: in those days, when my parents came here, they actually had to leave the country and go on a trip to toronto. go to the office there and then come back united states. we've got permanent legal status. my parents became citizens and when i turned 18 i fought to become a citizen and i became a citizen when i was 20 years old that is the process that was repeated hundreds of thousands of times for all the cuban immigrants, political refugees that came over from cuba in the

60's and 70's and the 80's. host: congressman carlos gimenez, republican of florida represents the 28th district, all of monroe county in the southwest portion of miami-dade county. john, capitol heights maryland, independent. caller: good morning, how are you guys doing this morning? host: go ahead. caller: i have a comment. so it seems like we have this issue trying to solve this border problem when it is pretty common sense. first, they serviced millions of people a day. why is it that we can't have a system like that at the border where individual comes across the border and we can't id this person, give this person a number and then take this person into america to a location that

america has and have those people processed? once those individuals are processed, i don't see why we are making such a big deal. we know there are immigrants, we always had immigrants. just until we process the ones that are here. after we do that, we export whoever we need to export and then the ones that are here that migrated to america, host: we do it all over again. let's have the congressman respond to you. guest: one, you're coming to the united states seeking asylum. one of two things is a problem. you stay in a third country and you don't stay in united state you're given a hearing, and then at the hearing, the judge will

determine whether you're playing on a silent valid. if it is valid you are allowed in, if it is not, you're not allowed in. the other thing that could happen is you are allowed into the united states that you are detained. the biden administration doesn't do that. there are exceptions and you can parole people on a case-by-case basis. the biden administration is allowing people to come into the united states and we are parole in them on a mass basis, and giving them a date, a court date. a lot of people we have coming into the united states, it could be eight to 10 years down the road. that is the big difference between the impeach trump administration. the trump administration, most migrants were to remain in mexico until their court dates. what was the practical effect of that? migrants coming into the united states, their friends and family

would say hey look, there is really a small chance of us getting into the united states, 90% of the people who were actually crossing into the states, that created this flood because now you have a 90% chance of getting into the united states and staying in the united states. that is what caused the problem and what continues to cause the problem. the president biden on his first day in office reversed the remain in mexico policy, so that is why we have this problem. the gentleman who was asking says somehow we bring in a bunch of people, we detain them somewhere, and then we close the border. the biden administration can't close the border. but actually, the numbers of people that we have, it is

impossible to detain. we just don't have the facilities. you are talking about 10 million people. host: the president sat down with cnn yesterday for an interview, and he said for the first time that the united states is having some weapons shipments of american weapons to israel, which he acknowledged in the interview have been used to kill civilians in gaza. prime minister benjamin netanyahu ordered a major invasion of the city of rafah. your reaction? guest: i think israel needs to protect itself. we know there are a number of battalions in rafah and the objective of the israeli military is the destruction of hamas. remember, they went to israel until over 1000 citizens. took hostages. hamas is the problem here and they have to be eliminated for the president of united states,

especially position -- position-guided munitions, they hit their target and they cause a minimum of collateral damage which is beyond the pale. again, he's giving the wrong signal to the terrorist organizations in the middle east and against every ally, which is israel. the fastest way to avoid any more casualties is to get it over with. go in and defeat them and then you can start the process of reconstructing gaza and helping the people in gaza. again, the president's policy is misguided and will have the opposite effect. it will actually cause more pain and suffering as we drive ukraine out longer and longer because israel have munitions. to give people what they want, which is the hamas fighters.

host: nelson in colorado springs, democratic caller. caller: good morning, congressman. i have a point on the border. now, when the last congress passed a bill, they signed that portion. let's target the border. still not one program to target the border. now, when we actually vote, they refused to sign to get the money wasn't included for the border. so why not quit all of this going on and just target the border?

guest: we signed hr to a long time ago. it is the main thing that came out of the house, the border bill. it is sitting in the senate. this whole narrative that somehow we can't help our allies overseas because the border is not under control, well, because joe biden doesn't take care of the bordering doesn't secure the border doesn't mean that vladimir putin should have access to ukraine. that doesn't make sense. so yeah, i voted to help our friends in ukraine, israel and taiwan, help them against aggression, from the new axis of evil which is china, russia, north korea and iran. you need to step up and help our friends. the fact that joe biden doesn't stop what is going on at the border, that has nothing to do with what is going on around the world. joe biden has the authority to

do that and we sent over to the senate hrt which is the strongest border protection built i think ever in existence. maybe you need to ask chuck schumer why he didn't pick that bill up and pass it to the senate? host: lauren burger, north carolina, democratic caller. caller: thank you for taking my call. and to our representative there, a few months ago, senator langford sent a bill to the house to the past. it was not perfect, but it was a solution at the time. the republicans failed to pass it. so again, we ask you to do your job. we are paying these people in congress to do a job and they are just complaining and throwing balls back and forth.

host: we will get a response. guest: we sent hr to to the senate, and that is sitting there. that is a much stronger bill than whatever is being put in the senate. i'm not sure the bill you talked about even made it to the house. i think it is still in the senate. yeah, maybe your ire should be directed senator chuck schumer because he is sitting on a bill right now, the strongest border protection bill ever. let me also say this. it is a really strong border protection bill, but if you don't have the will, the president of the u.s. doesn't have the will to execute it, it means nothing. i've been saying over and over the president of the united states today has the capacity to control what is going on at the border. he does not have the will to do it. simple as that. what is going on at the border, you may not like what i'm saying to you, but it is the truth.

i've talked to border and customs and border protection agents up and down that border and they say the same thing. we are mistaken. these are the things that we have to do in order to control the border. secretary mayorkas knows that. he refuses to do it. so my conclusion is if what you are doing is not working can don't change it, at means that what you are doing is actually what you want to do, which is what i've been saying for a long time. it is all on purpose. i don't know why they are doing it, but it is on purpose. host: west virginia, independent. caller: yes, i want to begin by thanking the congressman for his service and being an immigrant in his own right, but i have a question which is why isn't the house looking into why the

border wall or parts of the border wall -- because biden has no desire to secure the border. he had mayorkas selloff part of the border wall, and people don't realize. this was sold on government.com. guest: it is actually worse than that. when i first became a congressman, we went down to the border and we saw the material that was there in order to construct part of the wall because the trump administration had funded and had the construction of the wall going on. the biden administration, the first thing they did is they stopped construction of the wall. it was worse than that, they paid the contractors who were supposed to build the wall not to build it. the contractors were getting paid not to build the wall and the materials were there. it doesn't surprise me. i don't know if it's true or

not. it wouldn't surprised me if i saw that same material, that steel, etc., is being sold as surplus by the u.s. government. that's why i'm telling you this was done on purpose. the customs and border protection people tell us they need three things. one, they wanted the construction of the wall. why? because it funneled illegal immigrants, migrants coming into the united states, into areas where they could be controlled. that's why the -- they wanted the wall. they wanted technology. technology so that they can detect people crossing the border not at ports of entry but the ones that i just told you about, the two million got aways, they wanted to detect those better. and they wanted some additional personnel. that's what they wanted and asking for. the biden administration right off the bat stopped construction of that wall. right off the bat reversed a bunch of the policies that were working at the time.

so, yes, it's not like, hey, let's try this. it's not working. try something else. no. let's try this. it's not working. good. that's exactly what we wanted because it's on purpose. host: congressman carlos gimenez, thank you very much for the conversation this morning. we appreciate your time. we'll take a short break. when we come back we'll be joined by congressman espaillat, a member of the democratic caucus leadership. we'll talk about immigration, campus protests, and other news of the day. stay with us. >> do you solemnly swear that in the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help you god. >> saturdays, watch american history tv's congress

investigates. as we explore major investigations in our country's history by the u.s. house and senate. each week authors and historians will tell the stories, historic footage, and examine the impact and legacy of key congressional hearings. this week the 1987 hearings on the iran-contra affair. we'll hear about the clandestine sale of weapons to iran with the release of hostages in hreb tphapb. congress investigates saturdays at 7 p.m. eastern on c-span2. >> explore the wonderful array of mother's day gifts waiting for you at c-span shop.org. books, apparel, home decor, there is something for every c-span mom. every purchase you make goes towards supporting our nonprofit operations. start shopping now by scanning the road on the right or visiting us online at

c-spanshop.org. >> c-span now, is a free mobile app featuring your unfiltered view of what's happening in washington. live and on demand. keep up with the day's biggest events with live streams of floor proceedings and hearings from the u.s. congress, white house events, the courts, campaigns, and more from the world of politics. all at your fingertips. you can also stay current with the latest episodes of "washington journal" and find scheduling information for c-span's tv networks, and c-span radio. a variety of compelling podcasts. available at the apple store and google play, scan the q.r. code to download it free. or visit our website at c-span.org/c-span now. your front row seat to washington any time. anywhere. >> if you ever miss any of c-span's coverage, find it any time online at c-span.org.

videos of key hearings, debates, and other events feature markers that guide you to interesting and newsworthy highlights. these points of interest markers appear on the right-hand side of your screen when you hit play on select videos this. timeline tool makes it easy to quickly get an idea what was debated and decided in washington. scroll through and spend a few minutes on c-span's points of interest. >> "washington journal" continues. host: at our table this morning, new york democrat adriano espaillat, a member of the appropriations and budget committees and member of leadership. start with that vote yesterday. leadership, the democratic party, decided to vote to table a motion to vacate the speakership. why? guest: i think the american people are really upset at the dysfunction coming from the majority of the republican party. we see how time and time again

they drag the entire congress into a stand still and dysfunction. so it was important that we told the american people that we are looking to have bipartisan work. we are looking to have normality. we are looking to have stability in congress and get things done. this has been one of the most ineffective congress in the history of the united states. not much has been done. that has been the case because the maga conservative republicans have continuously dragged us into disarray. we chose not do that yesterday. host: why mike johnson? because democrats voted in october against kevin mccarthy when one of their own republicans brought forward a motion to vacate the chair. why mike johnson? guest: i would like to see hakeem jeffries as speaker, obviously. but at this juncture we all thought it was prudent to put

people over politics to ensure that the american people gain confidence in what we are doing in congress. that they continue to have a positive outlook at what we may be able to accomplish, which has not been the case. enough is enough. host: if congresswoman marjorie taylor greene or another republican offers another motion to vacate the chair, what will democrats do then? guest: we'll cross that bridge when we get there. certainly during these uncertain times in the world and in our country, it is not a good thing to have dysfunction at the house of representatives. again, the maga republicans continue to drag not just democrats, but also a good chunk of republicans off that cliff. so we got to stop that. host: we were speaking earlier this morning with an axios reporter, she reported self

kight, a new rul from the biden administration would drop today to make it harder for people to claim asylum. speed up the process rather than waiting for an immigration judge, it would be an immigration official who decides whether or not a claim is credible. what do you know about it? do you agree with it? guest: the devil is in the deal tails. i haven't read the rule. so i'll hold my judgment on the rule until i read it and see the details of it. but every person that's fleeing persecution, violence, food insecurity, a mom that travels with her two kids because a gang is trying to recruit her 13-year-old and threatens to kill her should have a day in court to establish why she's an asylum seeker. that's a fundamental tentet of america. it -- tenet of america. it has been like that for all of our history. there is no reason why we should

change. i'll wait to see what the details are before i cast judgment on it. host: the house also renewed a push yesterday on the equal representation act. what would it do? guest: well the equal representation act i strongly oppose that, obviously, it's h.r. 7109. this legislation would mandate the inclusion of questions regarding a person's citizenship on the decennial census beginning in 2030. that would discourage. a census is a document, a tool, to accurately document our population, our demographics. and anything that discourages that accurate count should not be included. host: why not? guest: because the census drives funding to cities, municipalities, to states, our school systems, our health systems. it's really the demographics

that drive funding during the budget process. to have a document out there that's inaccurate is a disservice to the american people that deserve to have funding for elementary schools, school lunches, and the likes. host: yesterday speaker mike johnson and others held a news conference on the steps of the capitol talking about this safeguard american voter eligibility act, the safe act, the bill requires proof of citizenship to vote in federal elections. listen to what he said. mr. johnson: we are here this morning for a very important reason as you all know. there is currently an unprecedented and clear and present danger to the integrity of our election system. that is the threat of noncitizens and illegal aliens voting in our elections. the last 5 1/2 months or so i have been to over 101 cities doing events around the country in more than half the states.

the first or second question that i am asked in every public forum is about election security. americans are deeply concerned about this. it doesn't matter where you live and whether you are in a blue state or red state. everyone is concerned. due to the wide open border that the biden administration has renewed to close, in fact they engineered to open, we now have so many noncitizens in the country that if only one out of 100 of those voted, they would cast hundreds of thousands of votes. since our elections are so razor thin these days that we are in, and just a few precincts and a few states, decide to make up a congress and who is elected to the white house, this is a dangerously high number. it is a great concern to millions and millions of americans. it could obviously change the outcome of our elections. this is not an empty threat or concern. host: congressman, your reaction. guest: this is a lot more of the same. election deniers, folks that in

the past we heard this before from former president trump who allege that millions of undocumented people voted in the past election. all proven to be absolutely false. justice department, research was done on it by think tanks. no proof whatsoever that that was the case. so again this is pushing the alarm button for something that is really not there. i don't know of any undocumented person that will go and try to vote and try to get themselves arrested and deported. this is absolutely false. the states, they like to have it both ways where they say that the states have the rights to establish election law, as is currently the case, but now they want to implement a nationwide piece of legislation. totally forced, their premise is not there.

made up. another form of election denying. it's really, i believe, preempting what could be a defeat in the next presidential election. host: john in tefrpl hills, maryland, independent, hi. caller: good morning. we heard a lot about the black and brown coalition. i would like to ask the representative, do you support a black american agenda which includes cash reparations for black americans, foundational black americans, and qualified immunity for government officials specifically police officers, and passage of an anti-hate crime bill similar to the ones passed for asians and anti-semitism bill. it can be answered yes or no. either you support a black agenda or you don't. thank you. guest: i do. i have supported commission for reparations to take a look at reparations. that is a legislation that was

put forward by congresswoman sheila jackson lee. i also believe that there should be anti-hate laws that cover the entire rate of bigotry and hate. not just anti-semitism but xenophobia, islamophobia, and racism in general. host: bennett in a vernea park, maryland, republican, you are up next. caller: good morning. thank you so much for taking my call. i don't get many opportunities to ask questions to u.s. representatives i would like to ask this one question, that is do you believe that the trajectory of our spending and the u.s. national debt is a national security concern, something that threatens the quality of life for u.s. citizens? what is the timeline for such a concern as far as its impacts on

our quality of life? guest: i believe that our national debt is a problem. unfortunately since the reagan years we have seen a dramatic reduction in our ability to capture revenue. the tax codes have been structured in a way where a multibillionaire pays less than taxes than a nurse, police officer, or a teacher. as a result we have not been able to capture the revenues that we need to continue to have government move forward. i think that we need to restructure our ability to capture revenue to ensure that those that make more pay just a little bit more and should not be paying absolutely not be paying less than a teacher, firefighter, a nurse, or a police officer. i think that that's a disparity in america that cuts right

through the credibility of government. that's why many americans distrust government because a teacher is trying to make ends meet while a multimillionaire is paying a very small percentage of taxes in comparison to his or her income. host: connecticut, willington, gregry, democratic caller. caller: good morning. congressman, the u.s. foreign policy is my biggest concern. trillions of dollars we spent on the wars all over the world. almost my entire life. my biggest point right now, my biggest concern is ukraine. over 600,000 dead. they are in the last throws there -- throws -- throws throes there. i am no fan of putin. lifelong democrat. i think our foreign policy is

causing us to be less safe around the world rather than more safe. and this continued military industrial cop phrebgs -- complex in relationship with aipac and netanyahu and the 40,000 that he's killed over there, never mind all the injuries, this is my biggest concern. i cannot believe that the group think in d.c., the d.c. bubble, would go against the american population on these conflicts. host: gregory thanks. get a response. guest: regarding the ukraine, that is a serious matter. i am not by no way, shape, or form a hawk. but i understand clearly the importance of bringing help to the ukraine. a vladimir putin victory in ukraine will result in major economic consequences not just for the european union and its economy, but for the world's economy, including our economy

right here at home. so we cannot ignore that. the ukrainian people are heroic people. they have pushed back on a vicious thug in putin, and we should be there to assist them. i think that is not just about ukraine. it is about europe, their. it is about ult -- think economy. it's about ultimately our world economy. host: tom, gibsonburg, ohio, republican. hi. caller: hi. i listened to the guy just before you and he said it all these people coming over here are going to be voting. this is really wrong if that's the truth. why you people as a democrat, i was a democrat for a lot of years, i have been in the military two times. you need to do exactly what that woman told the other guy. you need to get off your butt and go to work and do things

right. guest: as i said earlier, speaker johnson's assertion that there is massive election fraud committed by undocumented has been proven time and time again to be fraud. to be an ill-advised and ill-conceived notion of what's happening in the electoral process in the united states of america. for that reason i think that he -- that it is false. host: here's a question from mike in rockford, illinois, related. ask your guest if migrants get work permits does that give them the status to quote? guest: absolutely not. you have to be a u.s. citizen to vote. i believe in work permits. i think that the economy needs labor. migrants are here. other folks that are here in the country for some time now, no one should skip the line. they should come first. but they will pay taxes and they will make our economy stronger. host: your reaction to the front page of the "new york times"

this morning about what's happening in haiti. here is the headline, haitian gangs force 360,000 to flee homes. the united nations calling this a cataclysmic crisis. guest: the kenyan government has agreed to send troops to haiti after a call from the united nations. other countries have agreed to assist in bringing stability to haiti. that begins by training the national police there and pushing back to defeat these violent gangs. it is important that the funding that's being held up in congress right now by the republican leadership is released so that the kenyan forces and other forces that will be going to haiti to bring about stability are able to do so. the haitian people have suffered far too long. they deserve to have piece and tranquility. i'm originally from the

dominican republic. we are concerned that those gangs may cross the border into our territory as well. and we will do anything that's necessary to ensure that there's peace both in the dominican republic and haiti. host: tell us your story coming to the united states. guest: i came as a young boy on a visitors' visa. we overstayed our visas back in the 1960's. got a green card, became a u.s. citizen, and now a member of congress. what a great nation. host: brian in albuquerque, new mexico, independent. caller: good morning. pleasure to speak with you. i'm a retired union construction worker. in the chicagoland area. i dealt with the illegal immigrant problem my entire working life. i want to point out that democrats always claim to care about the little guy, the average working man in the united states. but why is it that the democratic party doesn't go after all the illegal employers, all the employers of illegal immigrants, their silence.

why not prosecute the people that break the law, hire the illegal immigrants, and become the magnet that draws them here? they are obviously breaking the law. and it's also -- this also serves to drive down wages for average indigenous american people. why don't you square that circle for me. tell me why democrats don't prosecute illegal employers? guest: right now the jobs that are available, all indicators show that the economy needs lots more workers than we have. and the jobs that are available are primarily jobs americans are not willing to take up. so we have folks that want to take up those jobs. whether it is picking crops to put food on our table or whether it is in the service industry washing dishes or serving our food in a restaurant, cutting

our lawns, or the likes. so there is enough jobs out there where if we were to allow undocumented folks that abide by the law, obviously, that will play within the parameters within the law, will not go beyond that, to get a work permit, they will contribute tremendously to the strength of our economy. it will not weaken the economy, we see this argument that the gentleman just brought up play out time and time again in the chapters of our history. whether it was against irish immigrants or italian immigrants or jewish immigrants or even during the migration of blacks from the south to northern cities. we have seen this play time and time again. again no chapter or history has seen the economy of our nation uplifted without the presence of immigrant labor. and we have them here now.

the economy needs them. let's use them. host: talking this morning with congressman adriano espaillat, democrat of new york. appropriations budget committee member. also a member of the democratic senior -- caucus seen wror whip. your leadership title. marshall in brooksville, florida, republican. caller: yes. good morning. my question is, to the congressman, was you in the military? guest: no, i never served in the military. i was part of the draft during the vietnam war. but i was never drafted into the u.s. army. caller: i was in the military. i fought for this country. i did not fight for this country to have illegal immigrants come over here and take over this country. and that's what you're saying. you're saying it's ok. you're also saying they pay taxes if they work. how many taxes -- how many are

working that is not -- is getting paid cash? you're saying it's ok to break the law. go ahead and pay them cash. you don't know how many's getting paid. what really upsets me more is what you're saying is about these illegal immigrants. this border should be closed. i didn't go to war. i didn't go get wounded and combat to this con-- come back to this country to see a bunch of illegal immigrants and chinese and everybody else come over here to take this country over. and the democrats are letting that happen. host: all right, marshall. congressman. guest: undocumented residents already pay taxes. host: in what way? guest: when they go to a grocery store, they pay sales tax. if they are given the work permit they will formally pay taxes. that's an important thing that they add and contribute to the fiscal stability of our nation. and at the same time there are

industries like the agricultural industry that is asking for labor to come in so they could do their work. the construction industry, the home building industry is saying they have a lack of workers. we see how time and time again our economy all indicators show that we lack workers. they are here. let's give them the opportunity to become -- to have a work permit. they won't be a load on government. government would not have to issue any help to them. they will fence off on their own. just like everybody else has done. host: how long were you an your family untkoeuplted? guest: over a year -- undocumented. guest: over a year. just slightly over. it wasn't a long time. we came here on a visitors' visa and got our green card and i became a u.s. citizen now a member of congress. host: what was the process like for your family for that year?

guest: it was difficult because as you know anybody that wakes up in the morning not knowing whether they are going to be there again the next day is under a lot of stress, obviously, and traumatic experience to anybody. but this is a nation that has a huge heart. and allows people to move forward. and i'm happy and proud and grateful that it allowed me to move forward. host: naples, florida, robert, independent. caller: how you doing. i have a solution for this illegal immigration. since hiring illegal immigrants, or people here getting hired, use the rico statutes against those who would harm them. a continuation of a crime of illegal immigration. and also the gangs and stuff. if we use the rico statutes and went out to those people that hired them, it would stop real quick. host: robert. guest: law enforcement has the

ability to crack down on gangs. i believe strongly that gangs present a clear and present danger. not just to my neighborhoods that i represent here in congress, but to the entire nation. we should work with law enforcement to ensure that the gangs are eradicated from our street corners and our neighborhoods in the city of new york and in other states, other urban settings, as well as the rest of the nation. host: larry in burnsville, minnesota. democratic caller. caller: hello. the question i have is why won't the democratic party recognize vladimir putin as the communist he is and has been since he was with the k.g.b.? what that means is that putin's communist attack on ukraine is actually an attack on the democracy of the ukraine.

i don't know why the democratic party won't acknowledge the fact that putin is a communist, always has been and always will be. host: we'll take that, larry. guest: i think that the democratic party has been outspoken in calling out putin for what he is. i present presented a resolution calling him a war criminal for the kinds of actions that he has taken militarily in the ukraine. and our leadership has continuously stood up to support and defend the ukraine against the russian incursion. of course to protect nato and the european union as well. host: tim in indiana, republican. hi, jim. caller: good morning. and i'd like to make a statement and a question. hopefully i get it in. first of all i want to know why

is increasing from 3.4 to 3.6 because of biden's excessive spending. my question is, how can you sit back there and look and be fancy when biden was told by the supreme court not to be given this -- giving this money away which he's using to buy boats. he's using taxpayers' money. how can you sit back there and say that guys -- guy's doing such a fantastic job? this takes two people. just like the boston marathon, to do a lot of destruction. he's let 10 million go through. my question is how can you sit there and -- nice office looking so nice and good and let him take that money from us hardworking taxpayers. how can you do it? host: ok, jim. guest: president biden has done

a tremendous job at creating jobs. just a couple days ago he went to a part of the country, region of the country to announce 345eu7b8gor in-- major investment for job creation and training in the artificial intelligence industry. we have the lowest unemployment in decades upon decades. yes, we have a very stubborn inflation rate that we are looking -- trying to address. and i believe that we will bring it down. but right now the economy continues to be strong. unemployment continues to be down. and people are working. and so we are looking to bring down inflation to ensure that pocketbook issues are addressed for the american family. host: one more fall. rudy, chula vista, california, democratic caller. caller: hello. can you hear me? host: we can. question or comment.

caller: my comment is the people have to open their eyes about -- the democrats are doing a good job. biden is doing the best he can. they forget about the coronavirus. they forget about trump hiring illegals for his golf courses. they don't see that. then they criticize the people who are illegal, but they put food on our tables. are they going to go out there and put -- work in the fields? they won't do that. host: congressman, your final thoughts. guest: i agree with the caller. biden did a tremendous job during the pandemic. the american rescue act. we also saw how he brought down the prices of prescription drugs. insulin, which was so high that people had to ration the prescription drug or decide whether they had to pay rent or purchase the prescription drug. the bipartisan infrastructure

bill has created great amount of opportunities in my district. it brought in $7.7 billion for the second phase of the second avenue subways. it's not just a transportation project that will create jobs, the chips act. we have seen how that will make the u.s. competitive again across the world. biden has done the -- the inflation reduction act, an investment, and unprecedented investment in the environment to save mother earth. biden has done an unprecedented job. i think that as we move forward we should not forget what did he during the pandemic. the crisis of our lifetime. he took us by the hand and ushered us right through that crisis. host: congressman espaillat, thank you very much, sir. we appreciate your time. guest: thank you so much. host: we'll take a short break. when we come back, open forum. any public policy or political issue that's on your mind. you can call in and share with us. there are the lines on your

screen. start dialing in. we'll be right back. ♪ >> american history tv. saturdays on c-span2. exploring the people and events that tell the american story. at 2 p.m. eastern, mckendry university professor with the book friendly enemies. union and confederate soldiers often fraternized. at 2 p.m., remembering the korean war, a korean war veteran

and medal of honor recipient laid in honor at the u.s. capitol in washington, d.c. a symposium on the korean war from texas christian university in fort worth. at 7 p.m. eastern, the american history tv series, congress investigates. looks at historic investigation that is led to changes in policy and law. this week, the 1987 hearings on the iran-contra affair. examining the can tkes tine operation of selling missiles to iran in exchange for the release of hostages in lebanon, with proceeds going to contra rebels in nicaragua. exploring the american story, watch american history tv saturdays on c-span2. and find a full schedule on your program guide, or online any time at c-span.org/history. >> book tv, every sunday on c-span2 features leading authors

discussion their latest nonfiction books. at 9:15 p.m. eastern, mike gonzalez and katherine argue that the american left has embrace add formf radical marxism that threatens the future of the united states in their book, "next gen marxism." at 10 p.m. on afterwards, journalist hari talks about the success and concerns sur rounding new weight loss drugs. as well as his personal experience taking ozempic. he's interviewed by bloomberg news health reporter madison muller. watch book tv every sunday on c-span2, and find the full schedule on your program guide or watch online any time at book tv.org. >> explore the wonderful array of mother's day gifts waiting for you at c-span shop.org. discover books, apparel, home decor, and aessories. something for every c-span mom, plus every purchase you make

goes towards supporting our nonprofit on prohibitions. start shopping now by scanning the code on the right or visiting us online at c-span shop.org. >> the house will be in order. >> this year c-span celebrates had a years of covering congresg congress like no other. since 1979 we have been your primary source for chillically. providing balanced, unfiltered views of government. taking you where policy is debated and decided with the support of america's cable companies. c-span, 45 years and counting. powered by cable. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are back in open forum this morning. any public policy or political issue on your mind. let's begin with the news yesterday from cnn's interview with president biden. he acknowledged that there -- there is a pause in weapons.

he does not want to send bombs and artrillionry shells to israel if they launch this major invasion of rafah. here's what he said. p. >> i know that you have paused, mr. president, shipments of 2,000 pound u.s. bombs to israel due to concern that they could be used in any offensive on rafah. have those bombs, those powerful 2,000-pound bombs be been used to kill civilians in gaza? president biden: civilians have been killed in gaza as a consequence of those bombs and other ways in which they go after population centers. i made it clear that if they go into rafah, they haven't gone in yet, if they go into rafah, i'm not supplying the weapons that have been used historically to deal with rafah, to deal with the cities, that problem. we'll continue to make sure israel is secure in terms of iron dome and their ability to respond to attacks like came out

of the middle east recently. but it's just wrong. we are not going to supply the weapons and artillery shells used -- >> artillery shells as well. president biden: yeah. >> just to understand what they are doing right now in rafah. is that not going into rafah as you -- president biden: they haven't gone into population centers. what they did was right on the border and it's causing problems with right now in terms of egypt, which worked very hard to make sure we have a relationship, and help. but i have made it clear to beebe and the war cabinet, they are not going to get our support if they go into the population centers. we are not walking away from israel's security, but ability to wage war in those areas. >> it's not over your redline yet? president biden: not yet. host: president biden on the israel-hamas conflict. this came up yesterday on

capitol hill before a senate committee when the defense secretary was testifying about the pentagon's budget. we covered it here on c-span. take a look at this exchange between the defense secretary, lloyd austin, and south carolina republican lindsey graham. senator graham: was israel interested in? do you believe iran wants to kill all the jews if they could? the iranian regime? do you believe hamas is serious when they say we'll keep doing it over and over again? do you agree that they will if they can? secretary austin: i do. senator graham: do you believe hezbollah is a terrorist organization also bent on the destruction of jewish state. secretary austin: it is. senator graham: israel has been hit by iran, hezbollah, and hamas, and you're telling me you're going to tell them how to fight the war and what they can and can't use when everybody

around them wants to kill all the jews and you're telling me that if we withhold weapons in this fight the existential fight for the life of the jewish state it won't send the wrong signal? host: senator lindsey graham in that hearing yesterday with the defense secretary. if you missed it go to our website c-span.org. we covered the entire hearing. can you watch it there. we also covered yesterday's officials from public schools k through 12 on capitol hill testifying about anti-semitism in k through 12 education. it made the front page of the "new york times" this morning. public school chiefs perry anti-semitism claims the hearing was the third by house republicans to exphroez what they say as a pro-palestinian agenda gripping schools and college campuses since the start of the israel-hamas war. david banks, the new york city schools chancellor, said the repeatedly hostile questions from the panel suggested it was

trying to illicit gotcha moments rather than solve the problem of anti-semitism. quote, he said, we cannot simply discipline our way out of this problem. the true antidote to ignorance and bias is to teach. you can find that hearing as well on our website c-span.org, or download our free mobile video app, c-span now. you can watch what these officials had to tell lawmakers yesterday. anthony in staten island, new york, a republican. open forum. caller: i was going to talk about the voting law which it should be. talk about lateral and gaza how president biden is an empty shoot on this issue because all he cares about is getting votes. i'm sick and tired -- why don't they give the correct information. when they talk about how many civilians did they say have been killed in gaza, do you have that number? host: over 30,000. caller: ok. do you realize they also include hamas soldiers in that count? if there's 13,000 soldiers

killed they count that with the civilians. it's all inflated to make israel look bad. they are surrounded by 22 muslim countries f these people, these palestinians, why don't the other muslim countries take them in. egypt doesn't want them. host: what about the 70 -- people say 70% of those killed are women and children. not hamas. caller: how do you know that? that's hamas telling you that. do you know that for sure? they count their soldiers into their civilian count of dead. host: you don't believe that. caller: you trust the count? host: ok. joseph in tampa, florida, republican. caller: hello. host: good morning, joseph. caller: yes, how are you? the last caller i agree with sneaky joe biden's tricks. i don't understand why he's even getting involved in that. he's been there so long. doesn't need to supply artillery shells. the australian tanks take over.

he's warned them people to get out of rafah. get out of town. or we are going to blow you up. get out of town, folks. host: where would they go? caller: where they supposed to go. back north where gaza's already cleaned up. host: mary beth, pittsburgh, pennsylvania, democratic caller. caller: hi. i don't want to talk about the war. i want to talk about president biden. he has done an incredible job. he has done so much more for this country than any president i have seen in the last 50 years. we got jobs. he brought us out of this pandemic. like nothing before. and americans really need to make up and stop listening to fox and all those other lying conservatives. president biden is doing a better job than trump could even think of. thank you. host: all right, mary beth. headline to share with you anti-"washington post."

r.f.k. jr. said he had a parasitic brain worm and undisclosed memory loss. this was more than 10 years ago. and according to his campaign staff, the issue was resolved then. and he is in robust physical and mental health. questioning mr. kennedy's health is a hilarious suggestion given his competition is what the campaign said. michael in mount vernon, new york. democratic caller. hello. caller: good morning. i wanted to talk about the guest you had on this espaillat kaeurbg tefrplt he is such a liar. i'm telling you, democratic party here in new york are a bunch of liers. they don't tell you the truth. it's all coming from washington, d.c. from this joe biden and his administration. all this stuff about gaza and all this. they are all inflating it. telling you lies.

you can't believe nothing. you cannot believe anything that is coming out of the democratic party right now because all they care about is their purses. all right. i believe that when this election comes up that donald trump is going to be the man. all right. and i believe that. all these people talking about how the economy is doing all great and everything. that's a bunch of bull. the economy is not doing good. people are out here struggling. all right. if you drive around on any street during the weekend or late at night, nobody is there. it's dead. because people can't afford to go out. people can't afford to have a social life. everything is based on economic thing they have going on in d.c. they are not doing a good job. they are doing -- they are the worst. host: all right. michael's thoughts there in mount vernon, new york. happening on capitol hill today

the senate banking committee holds a hearing to examine the impact of hidden fees in financial services and rental housing that adds extra cost to consumer's monthly bills. watch that live right here on c-span at 10 a.m. eastern time. also on c-span now, our free video mobile app or online at c-span.org. also at 10 a.m. eastern time, confirmation hearings for several state department nominees, including the ambassador at large for global health security and diplomacy, as well as assistant secretary of state for oceans and international environmental and scientific affairs. we'll cover that over on c-span2 today. as well as c-span now. and online at c-span.org. then on c-span3 a senate hearing on worker overtime protections. the acting labor secretary will testify about this issue. and also return to office plans

and her agency's budget request for 2025. watch that on c-span three. c-span now. or on c-span.org. we are in open forum. we can talk about any public policy issue or politics. and also yesterday's vote on the house floor to table a motion that would have triggered a vote on vacating the speakership. mike johnson's job. he spoke to reporters after democrats and republicans voted to save him. mr. johnson: members have just voted. they made their voices heard on the motion to vacation the matter. now we have very important work to do for the country. there are a lot of things to fix. last week we announced a house wide effort to crack down on anti-semitism on campus. this morning, we introduced legislation to fortify american elections. and ensure that only american citizens can vote. i'm glad that this distraction is not going to inhibit that important work and all the other things that are on the table and

on the agenda for us right now. hopefully this is the end of the personality politics and the frivolous character assassination that has defined the 118th congress. it's regrettable. it's not who we are as americans and we are bert than this. we need to get beyond it. the speaker of the house serves the whole house. that's the job. everybody. but i am a lifelong movement conservative republican. and i intend to continue to govern in accordance with those core principles. we believe in the core principles. i call them the seven core principles of american conservatism. they are also the core principles of america itself. i believe in the individual freedom. limited government. the rule of law. peace through strength. fiscal responsibility. free markets and human dignity. those are the guiding principles that inform our work. that we work for every day here to pursue. to ensure that all americans have more liberty and opportunity and security. and those foundations are in

jeopardy right now. we need steady hands at the wheel. we need people who understand what made america. the strongest, most power free, successful, benevolent nation in the history of the world. we have to fight for that every day. host: speaker johnson, republican of louisiana, will continue in that role after an effort to oust him failed on the house floor yesterday. raymond in florida. democratic caller. raymond. caller: how you doing. host: morning. caller: i just have a couple of things to say. first of all, it would be really nice if you have live speakers on there, people could be more respectful. don't know what we are doing in our society that you don't have to agree with -- disagree with them, just try to be more civil. sometimes i watch, goodness, gracious. that's all i wanted to say. and just one other thing. two other quick things. one, all we ask for is people to

be honest. yesterday on cnn when biden got on there, be honest. if inflation is high, it's high. don't say it was 9% when i took -- when i took office. it was a year and a half later. let's just have some honesty. it's ridiculous. my last point on the bombs. i agree with biden that we shouldn't be sending over those 2,000-pound bombs. all those people in there. not saying cease-fire. host: raymond, you're muffled at times. it's difficult to hear you. richard in srer roana, missouri, democratic caller. caller: yeah. calling about the students. doing for the arabs. wearing their clothes and saying how they support them. there's an airplane flies over there. go over there and join them f you want to join them. or join the jews. help kill palestinians.

i thought we was americans. what can joe do about it? he can send them to the army? no. this deal about the border down there, france had a good idea back after world war i. they built a big barrier between france and germany to keep the germans from coming in there. hell, it didn't work a bit, did it? they went around it and went in. that's a fence we are talking about. host: shelly in elkton, maryland, republican. shelly, open forum. caller: good morning. how are you this morning? host: good morning. caller: i just wanted to make a comment on biden's little speech the other night on how the economy's doing so great. yeah, a lot of people aren't telling you, wages have been raised. i'm making more money on my job. now they cut hours for people. basically the people that are making more money aren't getting the hours that they are getting. we are struggling.

we are now living paycheck to paycheck. i don't think it's right. and as far as the border, that's a whole other thing. but they are letting people come in the border. they want to give all these people jobs. what about the people here that need to work? because they want to pay the people coming across with less money and not pay the people here what they deserve to be paid. host: shelly, what's it like to try to get a second job? or is that even possible? caller: no, not for me right now. it's impossible for me to get a second job right now. because of transportation issues, gas. our gas has gone back up again. it goes up, down, up, down. grocery store, i'm paying $500 more a month to shop for a family of more. $500 more a month. the economy is not bet getting better. they want to play it off like it is but it's not. host: for groceries, $500 more a month for groceries. caller: yes, ma'am.

i could produce bills. $500 more o month for groceries. it's ridiculous. host: shelly, what do you do for a living? caller: i work in a restaurant. host: shelly in elkton, maryland. republican caller. tom in omaha, nebraska. republican. tom. caller: good morning. i want to ask a question i don't seem to be -- evidently the pref again is not kicking in. i have a question concerning how did israel begin when they started in 1947, why did they choose the land they have when they knew all the arabs in the world were going to be around them? host: what's your point? caller: i'd like to know why they chose that particular portion of the land. host: all right. sally ann, florence, alabama. independent. caller: yeah, hi, greta. i would like to make an

observation based upon the two congressmen you just had on. the first one, a republican, who was not on very long, but the difference between the two, the first one was a legal alien. he came here legally. and he went through the legal process. and the second one who -- the first one believes in legal immigration. the second one who admitted to being the overstayed visa, visitor visa. so basically he broke the law. but yet someone called and asked what he thought on prosecuting those who hire illegal immigrants. which he did not respond to.

basically said it was ok. it's ok to break the law. it's ok for businesses to break the law. and hire illegal. i'm against that. i just wanted to point the differences between the two. that's my observation. i also wanted to let people know they may not be aware of. we just spent $170 billion to ukraine. i'm not sure most people are aware that the 650,000 young men that absconded from ukraine -- from ukraine into other european country, poland being one, not sure, some of the others, but because they want to avoid fighting. and there is a shortage in ukraine of fighting men. and the average age of fighting men in ukraine from 45. a lot of those are now ailing. host: understand.

rory, next, a republican. caller: yes. a couple of items. taiwan and israel. 15 years ago i remember they got tactical nuclear weapons and nobody ever said they got rid of them. if iran ever attacks israel or china, what's to stop them from using tactical nuclear weapons they got 15 years ago on ships and aircraft and destroying them? that's my deal. goodbye. host: ed edna, chicago. democratic caller. caller: good morning, everybody. i can't understand people calling in complaining about the economy. i remember when you could get a bot of coke for -- bottle of coke for 5 cents, a loaf of bread for 20 cents. nothing stays the same. if you live another year everything will go up again.

host: las vegas, a republican. hi nikia. open forum. caller: i don't agree with the previous caller. she says that things go up. they do go up. but they go up in moderation. i pay $4 more for my sham pew and conditioner apiece because things are so high. simple things that i used to get for $40, $50 is now costing me $150. my other point is, i don't understand why we are protecting a border in israel, why we are protecting a border in ukraine, but we cannot protect our own border. i'm a republican but i see wrong on both sides because the american people are being put last. and it's not right. they are using our tax dollars. sending them everywhere. what do we get out of it? we can't even get a secure border. we have people on the streets that are struggling. it's just wrong. the government needs a whole redo. it's horrible.

host: you said you see republicans doing wrong. where do you disagree with republicans? caller: i disagree with them -- the biggest thing right now is the way that they have agreed to fund, to give more funding. also with the anti-semitism legislation that they are passing for speech. i believe it's a violation of our first amendment rights. and there is no other ethnic group that has it. it opens up a whole new can of worms for a lot to go wrong. i feel like it's just a way to take more freedoms away from us, honestly. host: we'll go to detroit, tony. democratic caller. caller: hi. good morning. i just wanted to say the last caller talking about inflation. inflation is happening like this because we just came out of the pandemic covid. how many people called in and act like they don't remember

that. this is not joe biden's fault. and then to hear people complain when at the beginning of covid donald trump knew that it was going to come. it was going to be a catastrophic thing. event. and he said nothing. all of that blood on his hands. and then with the inflation, act like that's joe biden's fault. those are two farces. we need to wake up and really stop taking talking points from fox news and stuff and really listen to c-span. listen to you guys. because you guys are the only ones airing balance. caller: hello.i have a major is. i live in long island in suffolk county, new york. i have lost two houses have been

stolen from me because process services have said they'd serve me, of houses i don't live in, that people that -- the judges will not give you what they call hearings which you're able to prove one direction or not. so i have lost over $1.5 million in two houses and i can't get justice in new york at all. i have never been served and i've lost two houses. you take it to judge spinner or sunny fornetti and they just say very nicely, sorry, we're not giving you a hearing. you take it to the appellate court, they say, sorry, there's no reason for that. according to the united states constitution, you have a legal right to face your accuser. the problem is you're not given

that right. host: all right. patrick in athens, tennessee. republican. patrick. we are in open forum this morning. what's on your mind? caller: i just wanted talk to about the road rules. i'm a big driver and i think the speed limits in the area where i'm from are way too low in tennessee. some of these roads, you go 35 miles per hour and it feels like you could go easily 50. host: brand -p, columbia, tennessee. democratic caller. hi, brandon. caller: hello. i have two quick subjects. very easy. one, inflation. there's no such thing as inflation. it is corporate agreed. it is economic agreed. plain and simple. think about this. no, rather that, why don't everyone just take a look at the quarterly profit reports from all the corporations at the end of the year. just look at how much profit they're making from what you

call inflation. and there's no administration, there's never been any administration that can fight inflation, there's no tools, there's nothing that you can do to lower the cost of products in the united states because the united states government does not make them. corporations do. and also, everyone needs to take a look at one thing. look this up. the suez canal right now is being managed and owned by foreign interests. they do not want the west to travel, to make their goods go through the suez canal. the proposed canal to be the opposite of suez canal, it goes right through rafah. host: all right. i'm going to leave it there at that point because happening on capitol hill, senate banking hearing to kp-t impact of hidden fees in financial services, as well as rental housing tt