The story of catherine sibeliuss resignation is top of most news organizations news items. A wellregarded former governor of the state of kansas. She is leaving after months of intense criticism over the botched rollout in the fall of the insurance marketplace. Doing the firestorm, president obama made clear to his aides that he would not seek the resignation of the health secretary. Joining us to break this down is john sullivan. Thank you for being with us is morning. Guest thank you for having me. One of the things is interesting is this caught democrats on capitol hill by surprise. Obama kept within a closeknit circle. Republicans have been calling for her resignation for months waiting dating back to the troubled rollout of the healthcare law last fall, as you mentioned. It seemed like obama was going to stick with her. She has been around for just about five years. It is something that caught people outside of the immediate orbit of the white house by surprise. As we have seen from some of these reports, this is not something that happened overnight. This is something that had been planned for a few weeks. Even within the president s own party, there is a little bit of shock today at this upcoming announcement. Host as you mentioned republicans for months have been saying that catherine stability is to Kathleen Sibelius should be stepping down. Is there different storyline here . Guest i think the fact that she did resign last fall at the height of the problems highlights that this is pretty positive news from the white house. They got seven plus million enrollments that looked almost impossible a few months ago. The white house wants to view this as a turning of the page. Theyre coming off some positive news and they want to have the next chapter of the healthcare debate played out on their terms. Republicans, obviously, are going to betray it this way that this is another sign of the failure of the healthcare law the problems with the healthcare law that they have been talking about for months. Were going to see a fresh round of political debating over what this means from republicans and democrats. Host to think this means we will hear less from republicans about this law . Guest they will find a new target and they will continue to assail president obama himself for spearheading this law. They will continue to target all the democrats voted for this law. It is still seven months before the midterm. As one of the focal points if not the focal point in many of the key senate and house races that are going to decide who has control of the senate is follow. , house races each side picks up. Even though sibelius is gone the issue of health care is not going anywhere. Republicans have money of other targets to pin this law to. Host i want to ask you pick about the president s pick to replace her. She is a current head of omb. Talk about her and what she is likely to bring to this role. Guest she has not been omb director that long. Was positive about her is that she was confirmed unanimously by the senate last year. Not a single senator voted against her. Shes not a controversial pick, and democrats in the white house are hopeful that her confirmation process and democrats and the white house are hopeful that there will not be much opposition. Health care is a precontentious issue. It will be interesting to watch whether republicans now have second thoughts about her or new opposition to the idea of her becoming the age hs secretary. The hhs secretary. I was just wondering if perhaps maybe he asked for her resignation because a week ago she said she was going to stay and. Maybe ask for her resignation to clear the slate of people that have a bad that the republicans were against and out for. Maybe with this new appointee from West Virginia, that my clear little more political room for new blood and new positive thoughts on obamacare. What do you think . Host sean, do think it is a writer differ to step down . Caller i dont know. It seems like one more thing the republicans can say that is bad about obamacare. I just think that he has got other ideas of why it might be a good idea. Everything has its risks, but the good idea might be this new person from West Virginia might be a positive. A lot of people like her on both sides. I dont know. Host right now youre looking at a photo of Sylvia Matthews burwell. Jason melman writes in the the Washington Post lets go now to a comment from twitter. Our topic this morning is the resignation of health and Human Services secretary Kathleen Sibelius. It is expected later today. This topic is also getting a lot of play. That is from the opinion page of this mornings the Washington Post the wall street journal. Next this morning is in austin, texas. Aaron is on the line for independents. Caller if you want to tagged her with the face of the bad rollout, getting rid of her is a Political Campaign in getting rid of her and the bad rollout. Just get rid of it completely, but now people dont see the rollout anymore because she is not around. That is all i wanted to say. Host next up is larry hughes in hernando mississippi for democrats. Caller it doesnt matter who he puts in, because the republicans have artie decided that whoever he is for we are against. His latest bobby going to get the same thing sibelius got. Yankee and have a nice day. Host the topic this morning is the resignation of health and Human Services secretary Kathleen Sibelius who is expected to resign later today. Another tweet this morning from dana. Lets go to the New York Times next up is susan in virginia on the line for republicans. Caller i just want to say that i do know how any voting citizen in this country can really take anything seriously that is going on up in congress, at least right now, and in the administration. We elect our leaders, and they put people in positions like mrs. Lerner, to fulfill what congress has asked them to fulfill in the different agencies. When something goes awry and someone is able in the federal agency, who works for the federal government, to plead the fifth, i think that says it all. Host java comment about the resignation of Kathleen Sibelius today . Caller no, i dont. I apologize, was that the topic . Host next up, were going to go to charles who is and not the doped juice who is in not the doges, texas. In texas. Caller this resignation symbolizes the failure of the healthcare law. They pushed it down the throats of the American People and the ren studies now shows that obamacare has only covered sent 7 10 of one percent of the uninsured people. The people who have gone on obamacare have gone on with medicaid. These are people who are arty insured, who were forced out of their insurance, who had to take Something Else obamacare. These people who are in the numbers now were not people who were uninsured we still have millions of uninsured people. This bill is a failure and has been from the very start. Host it sounds like you think this resignation is a good thing. Is that right . Caller most definitely. The democrats should have enlisted the help of the republicans in formulating something that would work instead of saying we dont need your help, we will do this ourselves. Now they are begging, help us fix this thing. They shouldve asked that to start with, not now. Host another one of your tweets. Next caller is james in tampa, florida on the line for democrats. Caller give them all next caller is from oklahoma. Caller she did not resign. She was fired to president obama has no management ability or style, and he doesnt want to take responsibility for saying get out of here, because then he would lose womens votes. I were sick i would do something, stay quiet and learn how to run the country. Thank you very much, have a great day. Host eric from universal city, texas is on the line for republicans. Caller i just want to say that this sibelius thing is long overdue. Shes probably to follow along west of other people that have left this administration to become a lobbyist. If anything, we will end up with blue cross and shield which seems to be taking over in texas. They seem to have taken over our health care. Host next caller is in chicago. Karl is on the line for democrats. Caller the resignation of Kathleen Sibelius. People shouldnt think theres anything serious like that. When we were having the most trouble with the Affordable Health care republicans wanted her head. But typically, cabinet members usually leave after about four years. If theres a to term president they never serve the whole time. Just a couple of calls ago someone said that the democrats didnt want the republicans to have anything to do with health care. That is an outright lie. The democrats try to get republicans to be a part of this. The republicans chose that they did not want health care, and they were not going to do anything to get health care passed. These republicans need to remind themselves that they want partners in the process. There are always part of the process. They choose not to participate. Thank you. Host a couple comments from facebook. We are at facebook. Com cspan. The next caller is randy in long beach, california on the line for republicans. Caller hello . Hostess writing down a couple of things. There will was so much said about when the website first opened up. I went into the website in california. I arty have Anthem Blue Cross here, which is excellent. It is actually more expensive. I checked the california site. There are some a different varieties you could get based on your prescription copay and a principle. It was amazing. I found one that i liked that was close to Blue Cross Blue Shield. It is only 750. My Blue Cross Blue Shield is another 500. Ive never had a problem with that, but i sure would like to let my Blue Cross Blue Shield expire and then im going to get one of the california plans that is only 750. I was very surprised. There been so many republicans talking about how bad the system was and it was way too expensive. I found it just the opposite. Host ricardo in maryland on the line for democrats. Caller good morning. The previous caller was saying that republicans always calling and being against obama. There are plenty of times we asked them to come to the table and they refused to do so. They did not shove anything down the throats. [indiscernible] mike is on the line for independents in milford, massachusetts. Caller a resignation has nothing to do with the impact of the Affordable Care act. I think she made a wise move. She launched a plan, a little drop at first as a change in engine medical system. I really think youre getting a lot of hatred for these policies. A lot of it has to do with a lot of lack of knowledge in the south and these republican parties just refuse to open their eyes. It is really sad to be a republican. Host mike, do think her resigning will get rid of any that the trail . That vitriol . Caller no, i dont. Bush put us in a disaster. I think people are still feeling it. You know . Host another story breaking last night. Scott brown made it official. He is running for senate in new hampshire. From the New York Times. Kerry is on the line for republicans. Caller you look really beautiful in red. Now, to the point. I am so sorry to see her go. I believe that she does a wonderful job with a very difficult, important part of our life in health care. I am a woman whose heart stopped three times in 2013. Thanks to the help of many professional people, they started my heart, saved my life and most importantly they gave it back to me better than ever. I would like to talk a little bit about that. I truly believe that as long as washington and republicans and democrats and independents keep drawing those lines in the sand which reminds me of the continents of africa and disaster relief, we will never be able to move forward crossover, which means compromise and compassion and understanding. We would loose change, hope and we would lose change, hope and for the future. I believe that is all i wanted to say. Host city is on the line for democrats from the maryland. Caller would you give me just a few minutes, please . I think Kathleen Sibelius should not have resigned have resigned, because no one can work under that pressure. I was 60 years old when i lost my job. Today i am 67, i have stage four cancer in my liver and in my lungs. The doctors told me that it has been there for a long time. I couldnt get any insurance, so i couldnt go to have the screening done that was necessary. So i am really feeling like the people who are against the health care should take another look because it is saving a lot of lives. That is all i wanted to say. Host another story. This is from the associated press. Next caller is less from detroit, michigan on the line for independents. Caller when people realize that you come into service for the president , this is only temporary. She was called into service to do a job. Her job is done, not shes going back to the private sector. It not the first time this has happened that people resigned after they have done their job. They move on. It is kind of strange that when Lyndon Johnson signed the civil rights bill, this bill came in kicking and screaming. It seems like america is not ready for chris. For progress. Everybody in the whole world has Progressive Health care except for us. We are supposed to be the progressive nation. I hope these people in america wake up, wake up, republicans wake up. This is good for america to have health care. Your family needs it. Everybody needs health care. She did an excellent job of pulling together, now she is stepping down. That is all. Host we will go back to calls in just a minute. We want to bring in another journalist to talk about this news. Joining us is bob qs act. He is managing editor of the hill newspaper. Kathleen sibelius is stepping down. So far, what are we hearing from capitol hill . Guest is a kind of interesting unified message. They are saying she had an impossible job because the Affordable Care act is just a program that can not work. No one can implement that. That is a different tone that we have seen over the last several certainly the last six months. Democrats are thanking her. Democrats behind the scenes are very frustrated with her job performance. She is going to go down as one of the most controversial hhs secretaries of all time. She had to implement one of the most controversial laws of all time. A mixed Public Statement republicans are clearly indicating that they are going to continue to hammer obamacare but democrats, at least publicly, thanking her for their service. This was a surprise because she had recently indicated that should be staying till november. Democrats want to keep the senate. If youre good to get rid of a controversial cabinet official you have to do it well before the elections, not after. Some democrats on capitol hill certainly happy that shes departing. Host Kathleen Sibelius is the former governor of kansas. Given what we have seen with her in the health care allow rollout, bob, do think she has any political future . Guest i dont. I dont think she could run for another high office. Im sure she will remain active in politics, and she is an expert on health care law. I am sure she will take time off. We will see her again. It is hard to see her running successfully for elected office. As you mentioned, she was the governor of a red state. Had the support which he came in of her home state, including pat roberts who included her at it confirmation hearing. Robertson is facing a tough primary. He called for her to step aside. An old friend in pat roberts and sibelius. That friendship has been frayed by the politics of the Affordable Care act. Host lets talk about Sylvia Matthews burwell. What we know about her and how she will be engaged particularly with republicans on capitol hill. Guest she is respected on both sides of the aisle. Sibelius came in and was controversial. She had a rocky confirmation process. Areburwell was unanimously confirmed as omb chief. She has worked well with republicans on capitol hill. She is a veteran of the clinton administration. She worked at the treasury department. As far as drag health care direct health care hhs issues, she has no backbone and glaground in that. This is a noncontroversial pick, but that does not mean this will not be a rocky public a rocky confirmation process. As far as nominating someone who is not controversial burwell was a very good pick. Host we have talked about the potency of the argument of the healthcare law. With Kathleen Sibelius stepping down, Sylvia Matthews are well coming in, what does that say . Guest theres a chance or the democrats could turn the page. They have had a lot of bad news over the last six months. The biggest one was the debacle as sibelius herself called it of the rollout of the website. The problem is that this law is unpopular. It hasnt been able to jumpstart. Democrats have been saying for years, just wait, just wait, it will get popular. We have not seen that. Not you have the good news for the white house certainly. When president obama went out on the rose garden and trumpeted the fact that over 7 Million People were enrolled, Kathleen Sibelius was there and he didnt mention her by name. That got some people talking. Some democrats are going to view this as, ok, we can turn the page. Now that that tenure is over, may be burwell can help this law. Weird but to be getting news and soon of premiums. Whether hearing from insurance executives that premiums are going to go up and in some states it could automatically. That is one to watch over the next couple of months. Host thanks for being with us this morning mr. Qscusack. Caller i think obamacare is a balloon where floating on. He is really just letting us fly. It is all a bunch of the estimate. A bunch of b. S. To me. Caller i am a registered democrat but lately voted republican. Number one they say preexisting does not count. When i tried to sign my son up they asked what was his preexisting condition and i have been in health care for 25 years. That would mean he would have a higher premium. My stepson got his girlfriend health care, obamacare, and he said it was very reasonable and was good. She got sick, went into the hospital, the hospital took the insurance, she had cancer, and out of the 30,500 bill, all the covered was 500. Base of the plan did not cover cancer. And people shop and think theyre getting a low price they need to request what they need. If they dont, in a few months when people start using these plans, it is going to blow in their faces. That is all i have to say. Thank you. Host one marquette line we have been following closely. General motors has suspended two engineers over ignition switches. Our topic this morning is the resignation of hhs secretary Kathleen Sibelius expected later today. Kelly is on the line from bloomberg, new jersey for democrats. Caller you do look nice and red. I want to Say Something about kathleen sebelius. I want to say hooray for ms. Sibelius. I dont think anyone taking any job knows exactly how to perform 100 with efficiency, even a doctor, a lawyer. Known goes right on the job and does an excellent job. We look at any job as a performance at the end. Was the outcome . Her outcome was good. Her ratings were higher than expected. I dont believe she was fired, i would say maybe the woman perhaps was tired. She did what she was supposed to do. She brought it over with a lot of problems from the beginning. As far as im concerned, she was successful at what she does. Why are we talking this other stuff about her . Look at the outcome. She did a good job. Thank you. Host lets go to east haven connecticut, where james is on our line for independents. James, are you with us . Caller go for it, you are on washington journal. The woman was only there to answer the computer glitches. The people wouldnt know a good thing if it fell on their front porch. The health care on the long run for the country is going to be beneficial. Yet independent Insurance Companies that have been people off for years. When they get really sick, they get canceled. There is a real issue there. What you need . People need to wake up and realize that Insurance Companies if you get preexisting condition, they will charge you. When you really need the help from a doctor, they will kick you to the curb. Obamacare is going to prevent that. Host Marion Slidell in louisiana on the line for republicans. Caller i think she just took the fall for the administration as usually happens in any job. I also think that it is a failure, an absolute failure because we have 40 Million People that are uninsured. Even though 7 Million People have also, what about the other millions that do not have insurance that cannot import russia cannot afford insurance. Even if you can get insurance a detectable we be so high that you will never be able to pay it , even though you can pay the premiums. Also, i would like to tell the caller from the north that there are people in the south who are educated. The callers call in are mistaken that are not educated. Most of them are democrats. Get your facts straight. Host anthony is on the line for democrats in ohio. Caller im educated and im back in to insult anybody, but i do find it interesting that we do have callers from two of the Worst Health Care states in texas and louisiana that continue their complaining. This is a win on three fronts. First, for Kathleen Sibelius. She is a model of decency and honor. I the privilege of meeting her at a democrat legacy dinner six years ago when she was being touted the possible Vice President ial running mate for mr. Obama, or mrs. Clinton at the time. She worked as a healthcare commissioner in kansas before she became a democratic governor in the red state and worked was is a perfect situation in washington . Absolutely not. But shes going out on top, on a high note. Or than 7 Million People have signed up. She is going out on her own terms. That is a win for her. Secondly it is a win for the country. This is something that has been long in coming. If we get away from the rants and raves of some of these incredible sources that dont give us news. If we look at sources like your program, and you reduce newspapers, and you decide on your own, we know that this is something that this country has sorely needed for years, health care for everyone. It is not going to be always easy, but it is a work in progress. You look at the third tier of this, it is a win for democrats because she is going to go out now. It is not going to matter to me whether she went out our own terms or whether she was forced out. Theyre going to get somebody else in that is not controversial. The matter what the folks are saying, and i think you looking great looked good in red, too, by the way it is working. I think on all those three fronts, for Kathleen Sibelius for the country and for the democrats, it is a way. You have a great day. The country should have a great day as well. Thank you. Host the last call for the segment comes from rockville, North Carolina. Cindy is on the line for republicans. Caller i am one of the ones that got knocked off my insurance at work. I cant go through the exchange and get a subsidy because i make too much money. I cant get on medicaid, which i dont want to get on. I dont qualify for that. I am with no insurance at all. As farce Kathleen Sibelius, i think she should have gone a long time ago. The company that implemented this healthcare law was in canada. She to have had an American Company do it. It wouldve rolled out a lot that are. I am still in the undecided mode is for is whether it was good or bad. Host we will examine the gender pay gap and see how the issue is playing out as a 2014 election season gets underway. On newsmakers this week, Bob Goodlatte of virginia talking about the surveillance program. I think it is damaged it ministration and the trust in the administration and this is reallys edward snowden, a lowlevel employee who essentially stole the crown jewels of american foreignpolicy. As a result if the administration it couldve been a previous administration, but it ministration set this is how were going to do this. It couldve been a Great National debate about whether it is appropriate or not. Never going to have that great debate anyway, but it is done in an environment of great mistrust. That bill seems to go in a direction that a majority of the members of your own Judiciary Committee are not comfortable with. Politico did a tally of 2439 numbers on your committee who voted to do away with this 215 program last year. Are you going to insist that any legislation on this subject come through the Judiciary Committee . Absolutely. This is the jurisdiction of the committee. Obviously, the Intelligence Committee has an interest in how intelligence is gathered. Because of the Civil Liberties entails, that must be protected under our bill of rights. This is very clearly the jurisdiction of our committee. Underlying legislation that is in question was the product of the Judiciary Committee. We are hard at work on that. We will surely take into consideration the work of the Intelligence Committee. We are also very interested in the work that was done thus far by the president who outlined some approaches to this. We were like more specifics there, but we think that is important as well. We are working in a bipartisan fashion in the Judiciary Committee to fashion legislation that will go much more strongly toward protecting the Civil Liberties of americans, while still ensuring that intelligence can be gathered that is necessary to keep our country safe. Washington journal continues. Host our guest on this segment is john malcolm. Explain to us what contempt of congress means. Guest i believe it is 2412. Ms. Lerner who was at the iris for a number of years in charge of the Tax Exempt Organization section of the irs, she is in the middle of the scandal involving the targeting of conservative organizations who had applied for tax exempt status. She has appeared a couple of times in front of congress. Once she asserted her fifth amendment right in suffer termination in self incrimination. She gave information on her background and vociferously proclaimed her innocence of any wrongdoing, and then she asserted her fifth amendment right. The house has taken the position that by asserting her innocence and by making certain statements, that she had waived her right to refuse to answer questions. Another thing that has happened, which is of some significance, is that her own attorney, who is a seasoned counsel has made statement said lerner has given extensive statements to the u. S. Government in connection with this investigation. It is the house majorities opinion that by making the statements to the government, at least with respect to statements she has made to the government she has waived the privilege of has to answer questions about that. Explain how we got to this point. Theres an investigation going on. It is an oversight investigation into an alleged wrongdoing at the irs. Allegations are essentially that a number of conservative organizations applied for tax exempt status, either under section 501 c 3 of the irs code for charitable organizations, or 501 c four of the iris code which is for soso social welfare organizations. They were singled out because of things like containing the words tea party, or 9 11 project. The applications were delayed. Information of an incredibly intrusive nature was required to be produced by these organizations to the idea of delaying or denying their applications. Another thing is that it is known, it is beyond doubt that confidential Tax Information from conservative organizations was leaked to certain liberal organizations that then publicize that information. With respect to this, ms. Lerner , who is at the center of the storm of being in charge of the organization and a section of the irs that was doing all this, obviously, they would like to get questions answered from her. Host darrell issa talks about this action. He says it is not one he takes lightly. The sticker look at what he had to say. And id like to hear what you have to say. A resolution recommending contempt of congress are former irs executive lois lerner. This is not an action i take lightly. For almost a year, ms. Lois lerner leaked information from inspector generals report. The committee has been trying to get to the bottom of irs targeting. We need ms. Lerners testimony to complete our oversight work, to bring the truth to the American People. Why did she do certain things, and who else was involved echo it is important to view to review how we are at this resolution today. Ms. Lerner appeared before this Committee Last may and made an entirely voluntary Opening Statement in which she professed her innocence. She said she did nothing wrong broke no laws, and did not violate any irs rules. After her under oath wideranging claims of innocence, ms. Lerner answered some additional questions, then refused ms. Lerner asserted her fifth amendment rights, and then answered some additional questions after asserting the fifth. Host john will what john malcolm, tell us what we heard there. Caller guest invoking of the fifth amendment. If youre in a criminal trial or similar or civil trial and youre on the witness stand and you told me your side of the story, and then in order to subject the rest of the statement to the crucible of crossexamination, somebody got to ask you questions and said no, i have told my side of the story, the court would say you cant do that. Whether she made enough statements here to waive the privilege is something that a court will determine. Again, she has also provided statements to the department of justice. That plays into it because of certain laws that apply to the federal courts here in d. C. Host john malcolm is a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation. The first, for this segment comes from houston, texas. Pat is on the line for independents. Caller i would like to say that i looked at all of the coverage on cspan yesterday. It is a shame the way the republicans i wont say senators, but congressman, treat the witnesses. I dont blame ms. Lerner. I would not appear before them at all. Her appearance with the Justice Department is something entirely different. If she chose to go to the Justice Department and make her case, that is one thing. To appear before all those congressman, who have already decided that she is guilty, and to assert her fifth amendment right, that is right. All she said was she had not broken any laws. I saw that portion. I do not think that that in itself was her fifth amendment right. Guest i certainly respect the opinion of the caller. Unfortunately, she really did not have much choice about appearing before congress. She had been subpoenaed. You cannot refuse to appear before congress because you think youre going to be treated rudely. It is surely true that congressmen sometimes to treat witnesses rudely on both sides of the aisle. Theres a longstanding history behind that. The committee is entitled to ask you questions. You are entitled to invoke your right against selfincrimination if you tend to believe that the statements are going to make might incriminate you. However, what you are not entitled to do is to give your side of the story and then refused to answer questions that would test the veracity of your side of the story. With respect to going to the department of justice, here is why that is significant. You can assert your fifth amendment privilege if you think that it might incriminate you with respect to criminal wrongdoing. It is the department of justice that actually prosecutes people for criminal wrongdoing. If youre going to assert your fifth amendment right, doing it before the department of justice is the place primarily, where you would do that. If, on the other hand, she has been granted immunity of some sort so that her statements cannot be used against her or she has waived her fifth amendment privilege to providing voluntary statements do department of justice, under d c law any case called alex versus United States, she has waived the privilege with respect to the breadth of the statements that the government already knows that came out of her mouth. She would only be able to assert the privilege if any additional statements would further incriminate her. It would go beyond anything that she has told the government. In this case she has admitted that she has spoken to the government and she has refused to provide any information to the committee, including information that she has artie voluntarily or otherwise provided to the government, and which could conceivably be used as a basis for prosecuting her. Host malcolm, what could her punishment be . Guest what is happened at the moment is there is a voting of this committee. The contempt citation will the decided by the full house. If the full house votes to hold her in contempt, then a referral will be made to the department of justice seeking to have her tried for criminal intent by refusing to answer these questions. That has happened. It has happened, but it is rare. If shes is convicted it is a misdemeanor offense, and she could conceivably go to prison for up to a year. If the department of justice refuses to do that, then the house could hire its own attorneys and try to go to court and get her help in civil contempt. If shes held in civil contempt, then a judge could conceivably put her in jail until she purges herself of the contempt by agreeing to testify. Host also on thursday, we heard from the Ranking Member of the House Oversight committee. Lets take a look into that. I would like to be clear. I really would love to hear testimony. I would love to hear even some of the answers to the things that my good friend mr. Gaudi presented area they are legitimate questions, questions that will allow this committee to do its work most effectively and efficiently. I think we all deserve to hear those answers. There comes a point in time when certain things trump other things. In this instance, the idea that there are rights that one can research not to incriminate oneself, i think we have to deal with that first. As i said in my Opening Statement, it is not about is bigger than us. It is bigger than this moment it is bigger than ms. Lerner. Host john malcolm, your thoughts. Guest we do have constitutional rights. The are therefore very Important Reasons. However, as with all of our constitutional rights, one can wave them. So the question becomes whether ms. Lerner, either by purchasing her innocence before the House Committee or to the statements that she gave to the department of justice, whether she has waived them or not, that is a legal question. There is a genuine disagreement, it seems, assuming the person politics we will see what a court of law has to say about it. I dont think that cognition cummings art it comments are frivolous. Host zach is online for republicans. Caller i have a couple of quick questions and comments. I was a democrat back in the 1980s and then i became a republican. What really concerns me is i am of the moderate side of the Republican Party. I am kind of horrified at what the Republican Party is doing and it is absolutely making me rethink where i stand. Im thinking of becoming independent. The actual polarization in this action. You are talking constitutional rights. We are talking about this issue with lois lerner. Honestly, i understand that everybody has a right to free speech. But as to the actual law that was written, the Supreme Court altered the verbiage of the law. The rules have been broken with the republicans and the democrats using outside groups. We are wasting time and wasting many that should be working towards real problems in this country, concerning unemployment concerning the major issues that face our country today. Host your take. Guest the irs is a very powerful organization that has the potential to be very intrusive into our lives. Clearly through its actions or inactions chose freedom of association, freedom of speech, some chose the irs for good reasons. I worked at a law form law firm with randolph thrower who was commissioner of the iris from 1969 to 1971. When the Nixon White House contacted the irs and said, look, we want the tax returns of people who are our enemies people we want to look at, randolph thrower has the fortitude to say no, i am not going to give you that information. It is being done for political purposes. He got fired by John Ehrlichman for that. And when articles of impeachment were drawn up against president nixon, one of the articles was that he attempted to get information to go against political and thats political enemies at the irs. That is what we are talking about here. So the allegations are that after the Citizens United of 2010, the democrats were very upset. Corporations could now spend in Political Campaigns and they could contribute 2501 c 4 organizations that participate in political activity. And this was a partisan attempt to stop conservative social welfare organizations from engaging in this activity because they view them as a threat politically and to the president s reelection efforts. That imposes on our right of freedom to association, freedom of speech, administering very powerful laws in a partisan fashion. That is at least the allegations that this commission to investigate. The nsa and Unemployment Rate are very important issues. This is as well. Host next caller is romney for democrats. Caller first let me make a statement. From what i understand these the party groups who were just formed in 2008, why were these groups not supposed to be investigated by the irs . Why are they just supposed to be automatically be given the 501 c 4 or that any investigation . That seems hypocritical. You can investigate democratic heart is but not these . I would like to hear your answer on that. Guest 501 c 4 organizations are social organizations that are allowed to participate in Political Activities along is that is not there main purpose. There is the sierra club and the a. C. L. U. And organizations on the left that are 501 c 4 organizations. That means that the money they receive is not considered income by the organizations that receive them. Indeed, these organizations showed should be scrutinized when it is appropriate to do so. The allegations is that the irs was pushing through all of the applications by the leftleaning social welfare organizations but was putting the stoplight asking all kinds of intrusive questions about training material membership lists issues that they espouse and were denying applications in an improper in an improper partisan manner. Host lets go to email now. Guest the answer to that is may be. If you think that the answers you are going to give might incriminate you and involve you in an investigation of criminal wrongdoing it is your right and it is an absolute right and it is yours to assert your fifth amendment privilege. That is a constitutional right that we all enjoyed and it is a chair strike and should be upheld. If on the other hand you desire decide to assert a frivolously or if you have waived that privilege, then it would be an improper invocation. Our next caller comes from mesquite in michigan. Caller i am all for this lois lerner as far as her getting investigated. She shouldnt have to take the fifth and the millions of dollars that it will cost should go back to taxpayers. If you go back to the previous when you guys are talking about syllabus having retired over obamacare and everything, i want i watched cspan yesterday and they are asking for 21. 2 billion to help other countries we have a lot of organizations in the United States that have to go through, Like Salvation Army host do you have a question about lois lerner this morning . Caller right, i think she should be prosecuted. Guest i was a prosecutor for 10 years in my career. I have a lot of respect for federal prosecutors, for the department of justice and i certainly hope the facts do come out. And if people have broken the law, the people are prosecuted to the full extent of those laws. Host max is on the line for republicans. Caller he was asked by constituents to investigate true to the vote for some reason. He denied the chairman any knowledge of its investigation of his investigation. We find out yesterday that there is emails that stated that he was investigating information from irs and he came back and stated that he was only looking for public information. But a lot of the documents that were redacted. He also wanted to bring out all the documentation on interviews. I wonder if he included the information he received from the irs to see if it was public or if there was private information he wasnt privy to. Also we got to make the investigation open, all the information, all of peoples testimonies. That gives a heads up to everybody that they are investigating. There are still a lot more witnesses that they still have to question. Guest i am delighted to see congressman cummings said that he is interested in these questions. Earlier in these proceedings, he had called it case closed. The true to Vote Organization is an organization founded by Catherine Engelbrecht who was very upset at voter fraud. So her organization has been involved in trying to protect voter integrity, purging rolls of people were convicted felons or moved onto other states, who have been deceased, and is also advocating for voter id laws. Voter id laws are somewhat controversial. Some people view them as necessary to voter integrity and others believe voter id laws are an attempt to suppress the votes of minority organizations. So missing albrecht apply for 501 c 4 status for true the vote and received a whole slew of letters from the irs asking for incredibly detailed and intrusive information that no 501 c 4 organization in the past had ever been asked to disclose. What is involved with Huntsman Cummings are two things. With congressman cummings are two things. In 2012, ms. Engelbrecht received a series of letters from the irs asking for increasingly more and more and more information. And fairly closely on the heels of those letters which asked for the on information on the software they use, the training that they get to people the vendors that they use, ms. Engelbrecht also received three letters on different occasions from congressman cummings asking for very, very similar, if not identical information. Cueto mitchell, an attorney that represents true the vote had a hearing this past february who said that it seems more than coincidence up to her and she would get to the bottom of this. And ms. Engelbrecht has filed ethics charges against congressman cummings. The similarity between the request being made by the irs and being made by congressman connies congressman cummings and said, gee, maybe there is some improper coordination going on between the irs and congressman cummings staff. In january 2013, congressman cummings did contact the irs and it request publicly available information from true the vote. That information was provided by lois loder lois lerner who is now on administrative leave. Perhaps it did not involve with criminality and has nothing to do with the letter that cummings sent to a albrecht in 2012. Host we have a question here caller there is obviously some bad blood between congressman issa of california and congressman cummings. That is unfortunate. I view it as an unfortunate sideshow. I dont want to get into whether congressman cummings committed ethical issues. If facts come out that warned that he is somehow engaged in improper conduct, i will change my mind at that point. But for now, the committee continue its investigations, try to get the truth, and the issue whether or not ms. Lerner should be prosecutors and should be settled in a court of law. Caller three trick things three quick things. I was under the impression that this socalled scandal was debunked. That both parties were investigating and no one lost their status. Also, why isnt darrell issa held in contempt for spending taxpayers moneys holding these hearings when he knows theres nothing there to see . Also, why isnt his party and him held in contempt for shutting this government down for 24 billion . They said they couldnt help the veterans of this country, 60 million, they didnt have that many but the republicans can shut the government down and said, oh, we just wanted respect. Guest i appreciate your question in the commentary. I respect your opinion but i also respectfully disagree with it. I do not believe that this matter has been debunked. Quite the contrary. It is clear that laws have been broken and confidential information was disclosed by the irs in clear violation of federal law of conservative organizations to liberal organizations. There is a number of incidents of that. As far as your statement that this applied to both sides of the political ledger, i disagree with that. Dozens, if not hundreds of conservative organizations that apply for 501 c 4 status were delayed, denied, and in some cases approved but only after two or three years and a myriad of incredibly intrusive information asked of them. With respect to progressive organizations, the evidence so far show that there were seven organizations compared to dozens if not hundreds of organizations that were tagged for further review because of they contained the word progressive. Irs agents provided information to the committee that all seven of those organizations were granted their status in short order and that they were scrutinized for reasons having nothing to do with partisan Political Considerations and there are many of these organizations that have their taxexempt status pending for years. Host next caller is jonathan in michigan on the line for the independents. Caller i am kind of a libertarian i am center to the left. I do like the tea party but i think they are big babies because the irs i am in the process of doing a 501 c 43. Irs is your partner and they are the boss over you. And they can scrutinize any activities of any group. If they found out that anyone did anything illegal, that is one thing, but the irs you have to tell them what entities youre doing. I have to fill out all my forms to be completely exempt and i have to fill out the activities that i tell them that i am doing and keep to that or i am in trouble. If theyre doing anything illegal, think the tea party is a big baby. They have to do that with every group. With a 501 c 43, i can get a lot of benefits, but guest i have never heard anybody referred to the irs as a harner a harner. It a partner. Yes, they do have to scrutinize and look for any indication of wrongdoing and have the right to scrutinize that activity and investigated, however, they are supposed to do so in a nonpartisan, apolitical manner. And that clearly did not refer here. With respect to your designation, it is incredibly important. If you are a 501 c 43, people can donate funds to your organization. They can take Tax Deductions for those contributions. And the organizations that receive them can use those funds. They dont have to disclose who their donors are. They dont have to pay taxes on those donations. If you are a 501 c 4 organization the people who donate money to you cannot take that cannot take Tax Deductions but you do not report those donations as taxable income and you do not have to disclose who your donors are. If you are not a 501 c 43 or 501 c 4 organization, if you are a political organization, then either the information that you receive im sorry, the donations you receive our taxable income to you or you have to disclose all of your donors, which of course, for some causes, maybe politically unpopular in some circles to subject those donors to harassment and that has happened. Host fran in pennsylvania for republicans. Caller thank you very much. First of all, i want to make a quick comment. I am amazed at how people are not insulted by this. The First Amendment, freedom of expression, this is an attempt to shut down freedom of expression. I simply go by the time one that has been offered to the public. All the evidence shows that this started after the Citizens United case. When you. All the isaac, across all the tees, put it all together, if it walks like a duck, sounds like a duck, well then, it is a duck. Im appalled that people dont see this as a total attempt for shutting down the freedom of expression. Guest thank you. The timeline is indeed very important. On january 1 2010 is when the Supreme Court issued its Citizens United case where corporations could not contribute to campaigns and could also contribute to 501 c 4. Organizations a number of Media Outlets immediately pointed out that the democrats felt threatened by this because of the involvement of these organizations in elections. Less than a week later, during the state of the union address, president obama, in front of a number of the Supreme Court justices, decried the Citizens United case and said what an awful decision it was. From that point on, there was a steady drumbeat from the white house in radio addresses from various people like David Axelrod decrying the Citizens United case, calling for investigations, calling for the disclose act that would require donor lists be publicly available for 501 c 4 organizations. By october of that year, lois lerner gave a speech at Duke Law School in which she said everybody is screaming at us right now. Fix it now before the election. Cant you see how much these people are spending. That steady drumbeat continued and what happened happened. Which is that leftleaning 501 c 4 applications were pushed through while those of conservative organizations were denied and harassed. Host doug is on the line for democrats. Caller good morning. Im listening to your responses to a lot of these questions and you like to tend to agree to disagree. And i pull that card, too. I disagree with you. The American Heritage foundation , that is pretty well anyway i dont want to go that route. These dog and pony shows that they are putting on with these committees, they know full well that these are not going to go anywhere. They are going to be spoken. They will be yelled at. They will be put in the frying pan and they will be when you are being interrogated like that from the congressman, you are bound to Say Something. Your pride gets a little hurt so you are going to respond. It is almost like they are trying to get these little soundbites from the responsys from the respondees to use in their campaigns and use against them in the fox newscast or whatever. It just seems to me like they just keep regurgitating this old stuff over and over again and they will keep it out there in the focus to drum up the responses from their base. I guess that is a comment. I really dont have a question for you. Keep up the good work. Guest thank you. I certainly appreciate that comment. Theres is no question that there is a political theater. At times entertaining and at times frustrating. That has time that has happened time immemorial. It has been exacerbated ever since there has been cameras in congress. This is an oversight in Government Reform Committee and they do have important work to do. They do need to shine a light into government dealings to see if laws are being enforced with integrity and with an equal hand or whether wrongdoing or impropriety is taking place. They need to shine a light in order to see whether there needs to be reforms to laws or people need to be investigated and that is important work of the committee. And i dont consider this committees were to be a waste of time. I think it is an important issue. Hopefully, the political theater acts will not overwhelm the functions of this committee of although i realize at times it does. Host our next call comes from montgomery texas. Are you with us . One more try. All right, we are going to move onto cameron, North Carolina where gary is on the line for democrats. Gary, are you there . Caller yes maam. I would like to know where in the constitution says that you are entitled to taxfree exemptions. Guest it doesnt say that you are entitled to a taxfree exemption. It does say you have First Amendment right to freedom of association, freedom of speech and the ability to petition your money for a redress of events is. There are social welfare organizations of all kinds that engage in all sorts of activities and you are right to a taxfree exemption that it may not come from a constitution but it does come from the Internal Revenue code and that is supposed to be applied in an evenhanded nonpartisan manner by the irs which it did not do in this case. Host john malcolm of the Heritage Foundation, thank you so much for being with us. Caller i appreciate being asked. Host next, we will have a discussion on the gender pay act. It is the anniversary of the Civil Rights Act which was signed into law by president johnson in 1964. We will look at what changes and challenges the law has faced since it was first enacted. We will be right back. Assembled today in federal hall, we are reminded of the ones who served before a senate those who served first. It is a humbling experience to stand on the site where the First Congress met, where the first president was sworn, where the bill of rights was introduced. Every member of the house and senate and every citizen of this country can draw a Straight Line from the events in federal hall the life we all know today. When congress convened here, america was 4 million souls. The tallest structure in the country was trinity church. The roll call of the First Congress included signers of the declaration of independence and men who had marched in George Washingtons army. Two gentleman from virginia still in their 30s served in that county, madison and monroe. Paul knew that great responsibilities had come to them. As Vice President john adams observed, a trust of great magnitude is committed to this legislature and the eyes of the world are upon you. In their actions, the members of the First Congress met that test. And although the city was the Nations Capital for only a short time, from those early days, the eyes of the world have continued to be on new york. One year ago, this great center of history enterprise and creativity suffered the greatest of cruelties and showed itself to be a place of valor and generosity and grace. Here, where so many innocent lives were taken, the world saw acts of kindness and heroism that will be remembered forever. When president bush introduced mayor giuliani and governor pataki at the joint session last september, it was, said one new yorker, as if the members of congress had recognized these two men had come directly off the battlefield. Today, congress gathers near that battlefield to honor the character shone and the courage shown in new york these last 360 days and to remember every innocent life taken in the attacks of september 11. Find more highlights from 35 years of for a floor covered on our facebook page. Cspan, created by americas Cable Companies 35 years ago and brought to you today as a Public Service by your local cable or satellite provider. Washington journal continues. Our guest this segment is jocelyn frye. She is a senior fellow for the center for American Progress. Guest thank you for having me. Host explain to our very worst to our viewers what the president did this week. Guest he did two important things to combat gender discrimination pay. He issued an executive order making clear that federal contractors, folks who get money from the federal government, cannot retaliate against people who discuss their pay. This is a very important measure to make sure that folks who want to figure out what is going on in their workplace are not retaliated against. Pay secrecy is a big challenge for many folks in the workplace. The second piece that he did was that he directed the department of labor to issue regulations to collect pay data from federal contractors. It sounds fairly technical but it is one of the most important things he could do. Many federal enforcement agencies do not have access to pay data. The very information you need to figure out if discrimination is happening. This will enable mostly the department of labor to get that information and use that information when they are trying to figure out which contractors they need to review. Host has the administration signaled that they intend to introduce more proposals that have to do with pay equity . Guest the president has made clear that this is a priority. He established an equal Pay Task Force that brings together all of the relevant agencies to talk about their enforcement efforts to work together, to collaborate. He has directed the office of Personnel Management to look within the federal government at the federal pay gap. I think he has made it clear that this is a top priority from really almost the first day in office having signed the Lilly Ledbetter pay act. Host our guest is jocelyn frye, a fellow from the center for American Progress. You can call senator Lisa Murkowski of alaskas vote on the senate floor and said that she believes that the democrat efforts was flawed. Perhaps you can explain to our viewers exactly what that bill is. Host guest the paycheck fairness act is an important piece of legislation to make it easier for folks to bring equal pay cases. Right now, there are challenges with the current law and the paychecks fairness act would make it clear that employers cant use just any reason for justifying a pay difference but make sure that it is related to the business necessities of the business. It would make sure that the federal government can collect pay data from employers. It would make sure that employers cant retaliate. It checks very similarly to what the president was able to do with federal contractors. So it was a very important measure. It is important that it has been bogged down through partisan lines. [video clip] when you have an initial presumption that the umpire has unlawfully discriminated against an employee, if there is a difference in play, if you start off with the presumption of discrimination, it is pretty hard for an employer, particularly a hard employer, to deal with that, to defend that, to present the case, to really work through this issue. The solution should not be more litigation. The solution really needs to be more allencompassing because we have laws on the books that already say it is illegal to discriminate. But if we are still seeing instances of discrimination and again, lets figure out where and why and how then lets honestly try to address that rather than through messaging efforts that are designed to elevate the issue which is fair, but then not be pragmatic of how we approach the solution. Host jocelyn frye, your take . Guest i appreciate the fact that the senator acknowledges the significance of pay this rumination. I disagree with her analysis of the paycheck fairness act. Its and this is that employers, when they have a a difference and they offer a rationale for it, there has to be some reason for it that is related to the business. It cant just be any factor. Right now, the law is so loose that really any sort of rationale, as long as it is not genderbased, is justified. This simply tightens it. It doesnt create a presumption. It simply says you have to explain what youre doing and explain why this difference gender difference makes sense. I do think that you know these are issues that republicans and democrats should be able to agree on. There ought to be a robust conversation about the paycheck fairness act. It is unfortunate that they were not allowed to do that. I welcome the critique and i think there is an ample opportunity to really discuss it on the floor and push back on misperceptions about the law. Host another critique we have heard from republicans in congress is that there are already laws on the books that the german nation that prohibit discrimination by gender. Guest part of the reason that the president took action this week is that those laws, in order to make them work for my you have to have good information. They do not enforce themselves. You have to make sure that the agencies who are charged with the responsibility of enforcement have all the tools that they need at their disposal. But it is also true that sometimes the law doesnt work as intended and that is part of the reason that there is an interest in moving the paycheck fairness act. The equal pay act itself has limitations. People have struggled to bring cases under the equal pay act. If you look at the equal Employment Opportunity commission, the majority of waste discrimination cases is not brought under the equal implement opportunity but under other laws. There is also more that we can do. Host kevin in stafford virginia is. On the line for republicans. Caller good morning. As far as this paycheck fairness act come i want to make two points really quick. If you want this act to pass harry needs to let the republicans participate. He did not let any republican fight any amendments onto this piece of legislation. My second point is i know the center for American Progress through different avenues does receive federal money as do a lot of think tanks. What is your salary . If you want to be fair, tell everybody how much you make, what your pay packages, because if you want, everybody should know what everybody makes. Guest first of all i think the democrats are more than willing to have a conversation about the paycheck fairness act. It is very clear that the republicans unfortunately did not want to allow the bill to go to the floor. And that is unfortunate. I completely agree with you that we ought to have a robust conversation that both the republicans and the democrats ought to participate in that conversation because i dont think this has to be a republican or democrat issue. I think that a lot of people in this country across all party lines actually believe in fairness and believe that people ought to be paid fairly for their work. In terms of Pay Transparency actually my salary has been public for years because they white house salaries are pat our public and now the center for mac in progress, i have a different salary. I dont have to tell you it and the actions of the president took this we do not require anybody to tell their salary unless they want to. The whole point is that if people want to talk about their pay, it shouldnt the retaliated against. They should be fired and demoted. We should have policies in the workplace that says that you cannot talk about your paying you cannot figure out if there is a problem. I completely agree with the idea Pay Transparency and make sure that there is better information about the Pay Practices going on in an organization. It doesnt necessarily mean you have to publish everybody salary. It does mean you have to be clear about what youre doing. And if you look at many of the cases that have been out there most of those cases have happened when there was a secrecy policy or there was just a great deal of deception about what people were being paid. I share some of the points that you have raised and i do think that there is a great opportunity for both republicans and democrats to really discuss these issues in a clear and coherent way. Host lets go to senator Barbara Boxer california who talks about the efforts immigrants will have going forward. [video clip] yes, we are obsessed with this because we democrats are leaving justice and fairness and equality, not just in words and speeches and reading great quotes from our founders, but in reality. That means in reality, we want women in the workplace to be able to find out if shes getting paid fairly. So i am disappointed but i am also excited that harry reid will bring this back again and again and again in the hopes that our republicans in the senate relents and understand this is about fairness and justice and equality and the right thing for women of this country. And not only women in this country, but for their families, their children. Two thirds of women are either the cell supporter of their families or cosupporters of their families. Host jocelyn frye, your take . Guest i agree with a great deal of what the senator had to say. This issue is really about fairness in the work waste and making sure workplace and making sure that people are being paid fairly for their work. I think we all have an interest in that. This really goes to the heart of our ideals as a country about equality and fairness. I also agree that this is simply not a womens issue. It is often framed in that way but women are increasingly the breadwinners and their families. Six out of 10 women are now either the primary or sole are cobreadwinner and their families. So but what they earn matters. Their families depend on it. So it is a family issue, an economic issue. It is also an issue for men. There is a significant issue number of waste issues brought up by men. We have a collective interest in making sure that people are paid fairly for their work. Host anne in upper merle girl, maryland. Caller this is something that, as an elderly lady and a southerner, that perhaps we should stress. I hear the republicans saying portraying us as lazy or not really good thinkers. We cant think. We dont know our history or whatever. I have to look at them with all their money getting free labor two dollars or three dollars a day from sunup to sundown chopping cotton or picking tobacco, and tenant farmers, how did they make their money . Did they really pull it out . Did they pay it to Social Security . Did they allow you believe in and washington, d. C. To buy homes . If you were black or in certain neighborhoods . Look back and say what did i do to earn all of this money. And now they dont even want pay equity for women or four black men. Just put them in jail. Guest i certainly understand the points that you are raising. On a couple of fronts. You are absolutely right that for years, the work that women did and often the work that many people of color did was undervalued and disrespected. I think that we can be very happy that we have made enormous progress. But we also have a great deal of work to do. I think there is an opportunity really as we look forward into the 21st century to really think hard about how do we make sure that everybody is treated fairly for the work that they do. And that we are upfront about the fact that unfortunately we still have some situations where people do experience discrimination. I think you raise a very important point. As i said earlier, we often look at this issue is simply a womens issue. But there are also other layers to it. There are people of color who experienced pay disparities. If you look at women of color, African American women and latinas, they earn even lower wages than white women. It is not simply a gender equation, but also has an impact as well. As you point out africanamerican men, latino men also experience wage disparities. We have an opportunity to really work with the information we have before us, all of the data, figure out what is going on and see what steps we can take to make sure that everybody who comes into the workplace has a fair chance to succeed in that workplace. It is not impeded by unfair barriers that may be there possibly because of serotypes and that the equality of the and not the quality of the work. Host some people say that the disparity on pay is 77 . What is the correct figure . Guest there have been doing pay numbers all week. . 77 is the, number people that people use that represent the annual earnings of men and women and shows a gap between the earnings of men and women. However, what is really important to understand is what that pay gap represents. I think that is where there is a lot of confusion. The . 23 is due to a numbers factor. It can be differences in experience, education, hours worked. It can be the fact that men disproportionately have caregiving responsibilities sometimes have work and family conflicts more so than their counterparts. The estimates are that there is some piece of it, some portion of it that is unexplained by all of those factors. And that is typically the portion that people referred to as the part that they attribute to discrimination. It varies from 5 to 12 . I have seen dead as high as 40 . And it varies by occupation. If that is a starting point . 77, and it is an opportunity to dig deeper and figure out what is really going on here. Host as someone who formerly worked in the white house, a piece headlines they are referring to figures by the American Enterprise institute. What are your thoughts . Guest there are a couple of things. The first thing, as i said earlier, i think the president has been out in front of this because last year there has always been a federal wage gap but it is smaller than the wage gap in the private sector. He actually directed the office of Personnel Management to work with federal agencies to make sure that agencies were doing all that they could to close that gap. As i said, the pay gap is simply a starting point. It tells you hear is the gap so lets dig deeper and figure out what is going on. Unlike most workplaces, the white house salaries are public so you can actually look at it. You can see, for example, that many of the senior level employees, male and female, earn the same wages. The deputy chief of staff, male and female, and the same thing. The heads of the departments they all are in the same thing. You can see that there are a member of exterior externalities senior members. When you look beneath it, you actually find that a lot of the problems that you think might be occurring actually arent occurring. There is a great deal of equity. That being said, a gap is a gap and i think it is important for any employer to look at it and try to figure out what is going on. Host richard is on the line for independence. Caller i listen to this women stuff and it is getting me i debated. I was a firefighter for 34 years and the first women who on new the end of my carrier, they couldnt even do the job. They couldnt hop airline. They couldnt take the person out. They dont have the upper strength. They took the swim away because the black people couldnt swim. I am sick and tired of listening to the racist calls on this phone. If they want to call me racist i will be a racist. Host we will go ahead and move on to our next caller. Caller host are you with us . All right, we are going to move onto faultless to for lauderdale florida. Caller the biggest problem for the democrats is they have a messaging problem. They do not get the essence of the message out. It is so simple to explain this thing. Everybody gets paid the same when they come in. If they are coming in the ground floor as gs one, in a position where it is the third level or whatever, everybodys paid the same. If you look through everybodys office, they will not all be paid the same. Some have tenure and some have promotions. The whole thing about equal pay is that you all start at the same level and you get the same amount of experience. That is what it is and then you can deal with the rest. It is based on time and experience. So when you come on, everybody starts at the same amount if you have the same credentials and the same amount of experience. Its that simple. People said that everybody is supposed to get the same amount of money. Host guest i appreciate the comment. The data is sort of interesting. When people come in at entrylevel jobs, the caller is certainly right. That is where the pay gap is the smallest. It is not always exactly the same. He mentioned the gs1 levels. If you are in government or look sector job where the salaries are set by a certain scale pretty much people may come in at the same level. But it is certainly true that, when people are starting out in their careers, often the pay gap is either nonexistent or very small. And it is certainly true that, as people gain more experience more tenure, gain more skills, their salaries go up. As i said earlier, that does sometimes explain a difference in pay. And i dont think people expect actually that everybody in the workplace will get paid the same thing. I think the issue is when people see somebody sitting next to them doing the exact the the exact same work and there is a pay disparity and brings up discomfort or somebody who has been there longer, has more seniority, has more experience and they train people and then those people end up getting higher salaries. That is when the problems occur. I think it is absolutely the case that people should be rewarded for their experience, for their skills, their educational level, and all the pay differences that are worth that. I think they are perfectly justified. But what we dont want to have happen is people get paid differently to the because of stereotypes. They think that women dont work as well or because they are a person of color or whatever the attitude is. You want to make sure that those impermissible factors are not used to deny people equal pay. And that is really what this is all about. Host carol in massachusetts is on the line for republicans. Caller i never thought i would agree with democrats, but the caller who just called was absolutely right. I would like to point out that we already have plenty of laws about discrimination. This places an extraordinary burden on every single employer because they will have to define every single job down to the last dot on the i and cross of a t. It will make a difference on who succeeds and who doesnt. Also, you are employed at will. If you dont like the policy of the company, they go someplace where you do. We have enough laws. Get the government out of this guest i certainly understand the point that we have laws in place and i think whats important is to make sure that, once those laws get on the books, that they actually get enforced. But one of the most important things that the president did this week is give the federal government the tools to actually do that. It is not Rocket Science that if you want to determine if discrimination is going on that you need to you work with pay data. He made it clear that the department of labor could go and collect that data. So i completely agree that it is important to enforce the laws on the books. But we also want to make sure that the laws actually work. And if they are not working then we need to think about how do we make sure that we can improve the situation. And there are steps that we can take to do that to make sure that everybody is being treated fairly in the workplace. I think we are always very cognizant of any burdens that we put on employers. But employers have an interest too. In making sure that everything in their workplace is conforming with the law. What they dont want to have happen is to have somebody implementing the law incorrectly or making bad judgments about employees in terms of how they are paid or how they are treated. I think most of lawyers want to do the right thing. And actually, the actions the president took will help them do that because they will have the Information Available and it will be incumbent upon them to look at what they are doing and look at their Pay Practices to make sure they are treating People Fairly. It is not about parsing every job to every nth degree but it is about looking at what you are doing and seeing if people who are doing the same thing are actually being paid the same. Host we have two questions from our twitter users. Guest i will start with the first question. There is not a precise number. What we have to go on is a couple of things. First of all, if you look at all the data i have seen out there there are an extra near a number of women who believe they have either seen or have experienced pay discrimination. The last polling that i saw, 70 of women say that they believe that this is a problem and 50 think it is a major problem. So you have that sort of statistic that has been out there for a while. In terms of the actual charges that you see the eagle Employment Commission received waste discrimination charges. If you look at all wage discrimination cases, there is over 5000 a year that covers all laws. But not all those cases move forward. It is a little bit difficult to see how many of those cases are really reflective of actual disparities. We certainly know that it is out there. We have some very prominent cases. The Lily Ledbetter case where Lily Ledbetter was being unpaid unfairly for years was being paid unfairly for years. Unfortunate, there is not a perfect answer that to that question but there are cases out there that show unfair pay for equal work. In terms of coverage for transgender people, that is not an equal pay act. The equal pay act is now 50 years old. It was enacted in 1963 and uses terminology that was consistent with that time. So it speaks about gender discrimination but it does not go beyond that. Host next caller, detroit, michigan on the line for democrats. Caller i am calling because four or five calls before, she said that she had worked in the con fields. She has to be from the south because i am from mississippi and we work in the cotton fields. It was 2. 50 per 100 pounds we picked. If we chopped cotton in the morning, we got a lot of gas and you get three dollars per day. Not per hour, per day. So we were working i left mississippi in the 1970s and it was still going on. In my employment, you can see it is out there. You dont even have the comfort ability factor because management becomes upset with you and then it is too hard to work. So yes, there is a problem between gender pay gapp in this society. Anybody who is worth 30 million they can pay off a wage to somebody putting food on the table. Guest i think there are a number of points there. What is most important is we all have an interest in fair pay. I think that this does not have to be a partisan issue. I think there is a core value of fairness and equality and the caller is absolutely right. We should do everything it we can to make sure that people are paid fairly for their work. A lot of employers try to do the right thing and are doing the right thing. It is clear that there are situations where problems occur. We should do everything at our disposal to make sure that when those problems occur, people have the ability to vindicate their rights. It is in everybodys best interest to root out discrimination and make sure that it is not occurring. It the president s actions this week will help with that. He will create an incentive for employers to look at their Pay Practices and make sure they are doing the right thing. It allows employees to talk about their pay and not be retaliated against. It is also something that everybody can do. Employers can do something. Employees can do something. We should be supportive of any effort to make sure that people are being treated fairly in the workplace. Host lets talk about the politics of this for one second. No republicans stepped over the line to vote with democrats. Do you think this becomes an issue for republicans in the midterm elections . Guest i am not a politician. It seems to be an issue that both democrats are focused on and the republicans. They will continue to talk about it. That is why i think it does not have to be a partisan issue. It should not be a partisan issue. There should be Common Ground because we have a shared interest in making sure people are paid fairly for their work. There ought to be a way to come together and reach a resolution people agree with. I hope that is not the case. The reality is that what happened this week is similar to what has happened over the last few years. The bill has been stuck. We have seen sharp rhetoric on both sides. It is unfortunate. The broader public expects members of congress to be able to come together. The democrats have moved forward with the paycheck fairness act. There should be a conversation about it. The issue is too important. What the caller said, people are struggling and paycheck to paycheck trying to make ends meet. Those paychecks dont have ours and ds in front of them. We want to do whatever it takes to make sure that they are being paid fairly. Host lakeland florida, armand is on the line. Caller i am calling to find out , i am curious, how can you have an honest debate about wages . You are not addressing the oppression of wages and the illegal immigration problem. I have been in construction all my life. I have trained brazilians up north to see their wages come up in mind come down. I dont understand how you can have an honest debate over this issue without discussing the depressed wages from illegal immigration. I would like to hear your response. Thank you. Guest i appreciate the point. It is fair to say that we should have an honest conversation about wages. The caller is right, there are a lot of things going on with wages. Would you look at the pay gap and how it has changed over time, part of that is due to wages going up and down. There are long historic issues about lowwage jobs and they tend to not go up. The president has offered a minimum wage increase in an attempt to raise wages. Immigration issues are a factor. It is perfectly fine to have that be a conversation as well. However, what is most important is we have the honest conversation and we acknowledge that there is discrimination going on. What we ought not do is talk at each other. We come up with our best gadget statistics on the pay gap. Then we go to our separate corners and nothing ever gets accomplished. The public does not deserve that. Working families dont deserve that. People are looking to congress and policymakers to look at the problems people are facing and try to figure out what we can do to make things better. One of the things we can do is make sure that discrimination is not occurring. We can make sure that our laws are enforced well. Having an honest conversation about the various factors that go into differences in the wages is something that is valid to do. We have not talked about the fact that women are paid differently because they have caregiver responsibilities. Theyre more likely to have to provide care in their families. Theyre about policies to balance working and family. That unfairly penalizes women. When you look at the wage issue, it is true. We should look at all the factors. We should be honest. We should not shy away from tackling the thorniest issues that have been there for a long time. Host jacksonville, florida is on the line. Guest good morning. Thank you for being there. If you give me just a minute before you cut me off, i have been hearing this all over the place all of the time. People lump the African American and the latino together in every conversation and every sentence. We are not the same balance. Hispanics come over and they might be legal or they might have been here forever. To my observation they get better jobs or overtake the jobs and we have been here all the time. They were brought over here. These systemic hispanic people start businesses. We have been here forever. We should not be lumped in like we are all twins. I hear that all of the time. Why is that . They get advantages over the people of color. We stand out. We try to do the best that we can. As far as discrimination as far as women are concerned, let me tell you one quick story. I am 69 years old. I started out with the family when i was young. I took care of my three kids. I went to work for a big corporation. I started at entry level. I worked what ever wage i got back in the 60s. I worked my way up and i was patient and did what i had to do very when came time for me to get a raise or promotion, i went up. I had no reason to look around me and say he is making more than i am. That is not the christian way. Work for your food. Dont worry about what the other is making. We are doing what we need to do to get by in this country. Host i am going to have to let you go. We only have a couple of minutes. Guest i think it is certainly true that we live and a great country for a lot of reasons. One of those is we attract people from all over the world. We have a strong africanamerican history. We have a history with the latino and asianamerican community. If you look at things like wages, africanamerican women earn . 64, for latinos it is closer to . 55. We have different experiences. I also think that the great thing about this country is we have a common experience and common values. At its heart, it is about fairness and equality and justice for all. That is the great thing about our democracy. We can come together around some core values that we all believe in. Host we are in washington dc. Turn down your tv or radio. Guest hello. Im calling to let you know the Social Security administration has paid some people two dollars a month after a person has worked years and then they end up getting that much. It rose to 50 a month. Then it was a hundred dollars a month. I would suggest not to pay anybody over 90,000 a year. Guest i think you raise some interesting questions that connects to the prior caller. One of the most Important Reasons that you want to be paid fairly for your work is eventually as you get older you want to be able to retire. If youre not earning the wages that you should be earning, that has implications on you not only today, but years from now. Your Retirement Savings are based on what you have earned the. I understand the concern about the retirement. We want to make sure that we have the resources that we need to be able to live out our lives without struggling economically. There are longterm implications for not being paid fairly in the workplace today. Host tracy in long beach california, you are our last caller. Guest good morning. The previous two colors from florida, they are spot on. This issue regarding gender pay is just a smokescreen for the fact that wages have been declining for quite some time. You could go back several administrations and it is based around suppressed wages. As opposed to advocating for equal pay, why not advocate even verify and make that mandatory acrosstheboard. I will take my answer on their. Thank you very much and cspan is a great program. Guest i appreciate the comment. I dont think this is an either or. What i am talking about is fairness in the workplace and making sure that everybody is treated fairly. We have laws that say you are supposed to pay People Fairly for their work. Youre not supposed to pay people based on their gender or ethnicity. We have Immigration Laws about who is able to work and who isnt. There isnt any reason we can make sure that our laws are adhered to. We dont want a workplace that is infected with discrimination. There are women in particular who have experienced that discrimination. We should have a common interest in making sure that we do whatever we can to get rid of that. To the extent that people want is fairness in the workplace, we should be able to take the steps that are necessary to make sure that when people go to work and work hard and try to support their families that they are rewarded in the way that they should be and are not paid and fairly simply because of how they look or their gender or their race or anything like that. Host jocelyn frye, thank you for being with us this morning. Guest thank you for having me it has been a pleasure. Host we will have a discussion about the 50th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act. What we need is something akin to the Grace Commission during the reagan administration. An outside group of integrity and former members of congress, no current elected politicians. They should do a complete audit of government. There is a purpose to everything. If it is not fulfilling that purpose, it should be cut or limited. Lets take head start. This came in with the highest motivation. There are now three had starts. There is Early Head Start enhanced headstart, and the regular one. Veteran columnist hal thomas on fixing a broken washington. Jimmy lee following afterwards, a shared Heritage Foundation book signing. Also on booktv, saturday at noon eastern a panel on race and power and politics. Sunday at 2 00, strengthening communities and a historical negative narrative. There is no question that congress routinely does not speak the truth to the American Public. It is not just inaccuracies on what the Affordable Health care act would do. It is talking about where we are. Where are we . We are at a standard of living of what we had in 1988. We now have per family unfunded obligations of 1. 1 million per family. That needs to be spoken. We to build a context of how things are going to,. The biggest problem that i see with congress is the denial of reality. You can still be a good person and deny reality. We all have flaws. We all deny reality in some sense in our lives every day. The fact is, we have not had the leadership in this country and long time and i am talking president ial and congressional that will tell the truth to the American Public about the situation we find ourselves in. I have my idea. Senator coburn on his retirement from the senate at the end of the session. Sunday night at eight on cspans q a. Washington journal continues. Host joining us to discuss the Civil Rights Act is professor Maurice Jackson from georgetown university. Explain to us why the act is so important. Guest it came 50 years ago. It was the culmination of struggles for african and many others to achieve the promises of the emancipation proclamation or the constitution itself. It would prohibit discrimination in public facilities and use of federal funds for any discrimination. It went to labor unions and other associations. It gave the government enforcement power. It gave people affected some mechanism that would allow them to fight. Host president johnson signed that in 1964. This is what he had to say and i will come back to you for comments. Im about to sign into law the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I want to take this occasion to talk to you about what that law means to every american. We have come now to a time. We must not fail. Let us close the springs of racial poison. But us pray for wise and understanding hearts. Let us lay aside their relevant differences. Let us make our nation whole. Let us wait for the day that our strength and spirit will be free to do the great works ordained for this nation by the just and wise god who is the father of us all. Host your take . Guest this is Lyndon Johnson at his best. He is calling for the nation to rid itself of the poison of racism. He is calling for people to cleanse their hearts. He called on congress specifically. He is speaking from his personal experiences. He did not have many contacts with africanamericans. He saw the differences and he learned from them. He learned from his wife, she had to black women traveling with her and she could not they could not stay in the same hotel. He saw was happening to the nation. He wanted to save his country. He wanted to use the presidency and the power that he had. He does this to culminate a process. Sometimes we think of this 1964 act as something in itself. Things like this work in waves. These things came within a few years. In the early 1800s, there were abolition laws established. They did not take effect in the south. That took another 50 years. Then another wave comes. In 1960 s, he knew that only he could make this happen. Host historians point to this law is changing everyday life for africanamericans. What does it do for blacks and what didnt it do . Guest it meant that if you want to stay in a hotel you do not have to stay on the side of the road. It meant that if you wanted a job in a public institution, you should have equal right to get that job. The schools were still very segregated. 3 million africanamericans are going to and a graded south at that time. He cannot change the hearts of people. This is what johnson was speaking about. That is a process. Host our guest is her professor Maurice Jackson. If you want to join our conversation this morning our republican line is 202 7370002. Our first call comes from pontiac, illinois. Guest good morning. I was wondering if i might use you for a fact checker. As i understand it, when the vote came before the senate in 1964, republican senator from illinois, the minority leader, delivered a speech which is famously referred to as nothing is so powerful as an idea whose time has come. After the vote, republicans voted either unanimously or one dissenting vote on the Civil Rights Act. The democrats were divided and the bill would not have passed without republican support. In the 50s, there were two attempts by the republicans to pass the Civil Rights Act. The first was defeated by the democrats. While it was passed, the Senate Majority leader had so get it it it was essentially meaningless. Is it not true that Martin Luther king was a registered republican . I would be thrilled to hear your response. Guest thank you. He did say those things. And johnson knew that he would need republican support. I think youre wrong and the fact of this being all republicans. There were six republicans who voted against it. Those numbers were there. It was a bipartisan vote in many ways. Johnson knew he would need that. Nobody knew that Congress Better than he. Whether dr. King was a registered republican, in the south most people until the 1930s or republicans. They voted for the party of lincoln. They believed that the Republican Party was fighting for their rights. It would not have been uncommon for a person to vote republican or a black person to be a republican. In the south now, that his Family Tradition that has gone on for generations. Host president barack obama spoke this week about the act. He expressed some frustration that while we have made progress there are still divisions. Despite laws like the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights act and medicare, our society is racked with division. Yes race still covers our political debates, and there have been Government Programs that have fallen short. And a time when cynicism is passed off as wisdom, it is easy to see that there are limits to change. We are trapped by our own history and that politics is a fools errand. We would be better off if we roll back big chunks of lbjs legacy. I reject such thinking. Not just because medicare [applause] not just because medicare and medicaid have lifted millions from suffering. Not just because the poverty rate in this nation would be far worse without food stamps and headstart and all the Great Society programs that survived to this day. Host your thoughts . Guest i think the president spoke about things that still exist. Some have not seen the meaning of the civil rights bill. He is calling the nation to what the bill has done. Bill clinton spoke eloquently about growing up poor in the south and he went to georgetown and give a speech there. He was speaking about what it meant to be white and poor and how those things affected him going to georgetown. Jimmy carter comes from plains georgia. When mrs. Obama got there george bush spoke about the struggle for equality. He has a mission. Things come in waves. The civil rights amendments of the 1860s. The 1960s. Now he is trying to put forth a program of the healthcare bill and minimum wage. We must work with it. He is setting the stage because the issue is coming up about Immigration Reform and the race of minimum wage. This is a positive outlook of what that would do for the nation. Host our next call is penelope in pompano beach, florida. Guest good morning. I just want to ask the question, is it true that martin is a king was a republican . I feel Like Democratic Party is being bamboozled by a lot of things. I want to know were civil rights supposed to protect the descendents of the oppressed . Was this enacted for everyone or for the tragedies that the American Government put on the descendents . Why no one is talking about reparations, it is like the tragedy of slavery never happened. The government has given us physical freedom. We can go into a bank and get alone. They never gave us economic freedom. Guest thank you for the question. Theres never been a law that i see that has been passed in america that his did not affect African Americans not whites. Affirmative action had an effect on white women. After the civil war, there was the friedman bill. This meant that it was established not just for freed slaves but everybody. Landgrant schools were created. The ohio state, the georgia state, not typically black schools that were opened. A Public Hospitals were opened up. These benefited the entire nation. When the civil rights laws came some of it opened up things for blacks but also laid the way for all minorities and people with disabilities and for women. I was watching a basketball game. Kentucky was playing wisconsin. In kentucky in 1966, kentucky was all white. Everybody on kentuckys team was black and everybody on wisconsins team was white. Without these laws, this would be impossible. I say this because the whole nation is infatuated with sports. More people watch the ncaa ballgames than anything. Look at what the civil rights laws have done to integrate that and bring about other things. We have an africanamerican president. That would not be possible without civil rights laws. There are many issues. We have to start thinking that civil rights is just the black issue. Lyndon johnson said in 1965, you cant expect a man with a mule to catch up with a man with a caterpillar. A caterpillar is a tractor. A big combine that might cost several thousand dollars. That is what johnson knew. That is why he was speaking about measures that would equal the playing field. It is as simple as that. Host mark is in houston, texas. Guest i like to extend what you just said. If young people today in high school or Early College and the parents are interested in life and Public Service, i would encourage them to get a copy of Lyndon Johnsons inaugural address. It frames the direction for the country. As much as i hate looking backwards, host it sounds like we lost them. Guest he said he was from texas. I think president johnson was speaking about that in his inaugural address. They want to get those words in history. Few who left the test of time. President johnson spoke about a life of service where everybody had an equal opportunity to participate and have a life worth living. He also knew to aid the least of these. Some people just want a chance. President obama said in philadelphia there were some africanamerican guys on the corner. He used an old the vocal verse. There but by the grace of god go i. He was lucky and was able to go to columbia and harvard. I had opportunities were i could work and get a job and then work my way through school. I had the advantage and not everybody has those. Not everybody has summit to support them. He wanted everybody to help people. Host this is a question from twitter. Guest i was reading the debate between somebody said it couldnt and somebody said yes it could. She won the pulitzer prize. I think i will go with her. I think i would go with her. The healthcare law passed. Even with on issues like this , and i saw when mr. Clinton was reaching out to mr. Obama, on issues like this a thing can unite or divide a nation. I do think it could pass. Host in philadelphia pennsylvania, howard is on the line for republicans. Caller i really agree with the first republican a call. I have a lot of problem with television blacks. Nobody ever talks about the 70 1790 census. President grant was better than anybody on civil rights issues. I hear about blacks voting for fdr, but he did not support antilynching bills. There were only some blacks in cities. Today you have this conflict of interest between democrats and republicans in the city. What about the drug war . Cops of killed almost 6000 americans since 9 11. There are so many issues . Where are the libertarians . Are we trying to brainwash people . Guest i dont include myself in those television blacks. I am just a college professor. If you go back to the 1790 census one of my main fields of study is philadelphia in the 18th century. In that city, it was the first to take up the abolitionist cause. They were the first to pass antislavery laws and then it went to connecticut in other places. These were things people knew about. Grant became president Frederick Douglass had to go to lincoln and grant and demand they a book allow black people to fight in the war. They took up the cause and mobilized. You see advancement. When you say that roosevelt did not vote for the antilynching laws. Yesterday was the anniversary one great lady stood in and her name was eleanor roosevelt. Sometimes first ladies have to take the torch. President roosevelt did not do it because democrats in the south hold the balance of power. Mrs. Roosevelt had power. She allowed Marian Anderson to come sing. That echoes throughout the nation. You can bring up all the problems you want. These are problems that plague the nation, not just africanamericans. If you go in many rural areas you see how these things have torn up white communities. Lets not keep it as a black thing. The nations poverty rate, the majority of those are right whites. Host i want to get your take on a pole from cbs news. They asked whether or not Racial Discrimination will always exist. 46 said that it would. 44 among whites. 61 of africanamericans said it would. What impact has the Civil Rights Act had . Guest i would imagine you would have a larger number of whites who said racism would go. They did not accept the fact that they were racially motivated. It is amazing when you give the numbers, they are equal in some ways. It shows several things. It shows the we have faith in certain things, some things we have given up on. Some people thought there was an African American president problems would be stalled. It does not work that way. This was an African American president who mobilized a lot of young people. I grew up in the south and southern bigotry firsthand. There is a certain optimism. I grew up in this world and i raised two children who grew up in a different world and have a much greater faith in the future. The polls, it does not mean they mean anybody is inferior. They are saying i dont believe that white people are going to change. You must go out and work among your brothers and sisters and work on them to change this. I had one black friend. Go work in an innercity community. By looking conditions today, i moved some years ago. There is nowhere to go because of gentrification. Africanamericans have to move out. The whites are moving in. I dont think they are bigoted. They want to live just like someone else. They have opportunities that people before them did not have. The income gap, the wealth gap for whites is 100 times more. Those affect peoples outcomes and ideas. Host hartford, connecticut is on a line for democrats. Guest i am past 70. I am a black man. I lived during those turbulent days and i can distinctly recall my life wife who was a texan we were living in new jersey at the time and we would drive to her home in abilene, texas. There was no decent place where we could stay, a matter how much money we had in our pockets. The professor mentioned earlier that we had no place to stop on a Long Distance trip except alongside the road. Many of the service stations would not allow us to use bathrooms, especially the ladies. The bathrooms were always not working when we needed to stop for a. Of time. We used to have to know where we were going and the roots we were taking. We often found ourselves in very uncomfortable positions. I just look at some of the leading republicans back then dirksen of illinois has been mentioned. Republicans in new jersey were very much in support of the civil rights program. At the same time, we had a prominent democrats in the south and others who were totally against it. In those same states today virtually all of the republicans are in it position where i dont think the civil rights bill could pass at all this day. The south has completely flipped. The Republican Party has completely flipped from what it was back then. I want to tell you i fully understand. Host we are going to have to give the professor a couple of minutes to respond. Guest i hope that you tell these stories to your children and your grandchildren and her nephews and many others. I member a couple of years ago Michael Jordans father was killed on the side of the road. Many people did not understand it. I didnt quite understand it myself. It made me think that he even with money in his pocket he felt safer in his car than he did in a hotel. The sad fact is i have been in public facilities in the last few years where i have gone in and people would treat me lesser. I would ask for a no smoking room and i would get the wrong room. I have gone into fancier restaurants, if i am traveling by myself, and they would automatically put me in the back. Maybe i want to see the lights in windows two. Oo. There were people and you are right they were republicans like paul douglas. People step up with a moment calls for it. I think jesses people did step up. Even in congress, people are worried about their legacies. People in their districts, even districts that are overwhelmingly republican, they know the benefit of these laws. They know the benefit of having their children go to school with people of different races. The benefit of having their kids play on sports teams together. I grew up in the south very poor. I have no choice but to be optimistic. Sometimes the debate is unnecessary. The thing is not to worry about whether we can pass a law but whether or not we can keep the law intact and keep anything from being repealed. Host hayward is on our line in North Carolina. Guest good morning. We have a problem as blacks when we get money in our pockets. We decide not to help our people. [indiscernible] host we are having a hard time hearing you. Im going to put you on hold. Carlos is in florida. Guest i am a republican and i am a minority. Frederick douglass, mark k, Abraham LincolnMartin Luther king, Abraham Lincoln were great americans. I feel so was not for them we would not have this great president in office now. I love you could debate that or not. Those were three great republicans in history. My question to you is i was raised in the south bronx. All my life, we always voted democrat. It was always a dump or i lived. I dont know why they voted democrat. I wondered why they never changed. With a high crime rate, why did we never as minorities change and vote republican . New york eventually voted for really rudy giuliani. Why can we change and vote republican eventually . I was watching the History Channel 80 of the democrats voted against the civil rights movement. If it wasnt for the republicans, we would not have the civil rights passed. Republicans have done so much for minorities but we vote against republicans. I dont know why why we flipped on the republicans. Why do we want to punish the republicans . I am going to hang up. I dont know why we want to punish the republicans. Those three great americans. Guest thank you. I do know you been to the south bronx lately, you would see a different bronx than you were there. We are forcing people who live there for generations. I told you about chicago. We cannot live under the legacy of what one did 100 years ago. We have to look at the here and now. I think you have to go back to the reagan years. During this. Of time, terms like welfare queen disparaged africanamericans. When reagan went to philadelphia , he did not acknowledge. I think we have to look at some of the language is being used by the budget director in congress who speaks about this innercity culture and things like this. I think you have to look at the sources. You have to go to your leaders and ask what they have done. How have they advanced africanamericans. . Some have attacked universities that want to open up admission of allow people of different minorities. Why are they attacking the Immigration Law . You have every right to ask these questions. This should be aimed at the members of your party. Host there is going to be a civil rights summit at the johnson library. If youre interested in this topic, be sure to tune in. We have another couple of minutes. I want to sneak in a couple more calls. This is john from virginia. Caller hello. I am a white person. I believe it reparations are overdue. That reparations are overdue. We should establish scholarship grants for descendents of slavery. When you start a child in school with 100, pay them for showing up and doing well. By the time they graduate high school, they have enough money to go to college. You would also be able to create a culture of excellence by the kids who would earn a good future. I think this would be the best way to increase High School Graduation and it would be a winwin. Guest thank you, sir. John conyers has yearly introduced a bill about reparations. As you have just mentioned, this idea is not to go to any individual arson. It is to aid individual person. It is to aid organizations. Africanamerican the numbers are better. Africanamerican men are not going to college. Money that should go to this, it takes a little bit more. When i look at programs, i was looking at a program in washington the other day where they had a program for kids. They want all the kids to come. One of wonderful way for kids to come together and share their experiences. When you speak about the idea of reparations, it must be toward institutions or laces that will aid. It could be a program for apprenticeships in Certain Industries where people could learn different skills. It could be in the computer industry or hightech wages. We certainly need to put much more money toward education, especially towards those who may not have the opportunity to go to an advanced university. Thank you for your suggestion. Host that is all the time we have for today. Thank you so much for joining us this morning. Guest i have enjoyed it. Thank you for having me. Host we will be back tomorrow at 7 00 eastern. Have a great weekend. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2014]