Transcripts For CSPAN Washington Journal 01142020 20240713

Americans from job discrimination. A. M. , a discussion on federal efforts to regulate chemicals. Ont good morning, everyone tuesday, january 14. We will begin with your thoughts on a fair impeachment trial in the senate. What does that look like . Democrats, 2027488000. Republicans, 2027488001. And independents, 2027488002. Text us with your first name, city, and state at 2027488003. Or go to twitter at cspanwj and facebook. Com cspan to join us in the conversation. With the Senate Minority leader Chuck Schumer, democrat of new york on the floor yesterday talking about what he would like to see in the senate trial. [video clip] a fair trial is one that considers all the facts and gives the senators all the information they need to make an informed decision. That means relevant witnesses. That means relevant documents. That means the truth. Senate these things, a trial would become a farce, a nationally televised meeting of the mock trial club. There is a reason that with one exception, every impeachment trial of any official in the history of the United States has featured witnesses. That one exception was the trial centuryator in the 18th. The question of his impeachment was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds before the issue of witnesses could come up. Every other trial had witnesses. When leader mcconnell talks about precedent, he is talking about witnesses, plain and simple. The democratic request for 4 fact witnesses and three specific sets of relevant documents is very much in line with our history. We dont know what those witnesses will say. We dont know what those reveal. S will regardless of the consequences , democrats arent on a quest for the truth. Host that was the minority leader and in a tweet he said republicans are so unwilling to argue against witnesses that they can only support delaying the decision. They are like the broken magic eight ball that keeps saying act again later. Democrats will force votes on witnesses and documents in a senate trial. The leader of the democrats promising a vote on this and Senate Democrats put out this video on twitter. [video clip] in every trial there has ever been in the senate, witnesses were called. It is not unusual to have a witness in a trial. Any doubt, call for witnesses in a trial. Who was engaged . Who was in the middle of it . It is a totally different case and the difference between getting the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. You are basically changing the trial. Host Senate Democrats are saying the chamber should follow trialent, the impeachment in the senate. Here is the majority yesterday on the floor. [video clip] the senate was never going to precommit ourselves to doing the prosecutors work for them. Have alreadyts done enough damage to the unity, andnational our institutions of government. The senate will not be sucked into this precedent breaking path. Ourill fulfill constitutional duty. We will honor the reason for which the founders created this our institutions and our republic can rise above shortterm the house has done enough damage, the senate is ready to fulfill our duty. Host Majority Leader Mitch Mcconnell on the floor. Marco rubio tweeted out this. Claiming senate gop is going to hold trial without witnesses is lying. We are using same rules used in the clinton trial. During initial arguments, we will only consider testimony of witnesses used in the house. After initial phase, senate can hear additional witnesses if needed. Take a look at the rules for the senate trial in 1999. The house impeachment managers and the clinton defense Team Presented their cases. They each got 24 hours to do so. After that, senators had 16 hours to question the parties and then they held a vote to dismiss. If not dismissed, then they would vote to subpoena witnesses. Each side prevents presents evidence. This is from the clinton 1999 clinton impeachment trial rules. Senatorslicans deliberate behind closed doors, which they did, and they held a final vote on each article. That is what it looked like in 1999. Here is what Senate Republicans are arguing on twitter. After weeks of stalling, Speaker Pelosi finally announced she would transfer her urgent articles of impeachment to the senate, but she has not. The American People are ready to move on. Speaker pelosi is meeting behind closed doors with House Democrats today to talk about this and other legislative issues before the managers are voted on in the house and they will proceed with articles of impeachment over to the senate. That could happen. A vote on house managers as early as wednesday, but it is still up in the air at this point. Dodon in kansas city, what you think . What does a fair senate trial look like . Caller a fair trial would be a motion of dismissal and let and get this crap over with. Democrats had their chance when their trial in the house. No, to you and others senators insist on trial for trump. Apparently there is not enough votes to try to dismiss the articles of impeachment. This from roy blunt, who is part of the gop leadership in the senate. I would not think there is any interest on our side of dismissing, certainly there are not 51 votes for a motion to dismiss. The president and republicans for dismissal do not have the votes right now. Raymond in lexington, south carolina, republican. Good morning. Caller good morning. Thank you for taking my call. House did thing, the the investigation, take the evidence and look at it and decide whether or not based on trialidence they got the should go forward or not. This is dangerous for the future. In the future, what they ought to do before the congress the house of representatives can impeach a president , they need to present their evidence to the Supreme Court to see if the evidence is compelling enough that it should have a trial in the senate because this whole thing is a crock of nonsense. Adam schiff called it a parody. Phonek Donald Trumps call and could not find anything in it that was bad, so he made up the whole thing, he read it out onto the record as if it was an actual phone call and it was a bunch of nonsense. I will ask you seven times this and that and donald trump never said any of that. Destroying the institution, basically, is what they are doing. Host richard in california, what do you think . Finally, i say. A fair trial should not only have the testimony and witnesses from the investigation in the house, but any additional new witnesses pertinent to the facts and findings of the truth about what is really going on. Obviously you could not get all of that done because the white house blocked all witnesses and documents would have taken two years to get that information. If people like bolton and other people want to testify, they should be brought in. What you want is the truth. I hear all these calls about this is a sham. Are you kidding . There are probably 10 counts of impeachable things trump has done, they just did not have time to do the investigations to charge him with them. This is trump doing this is trumps doing. The good thing is we have democrats who can speak to abuse of power. It. Blicans want to dismiss macconnell is in league with the white house, he does not want anything. He wants to get this dismissed and go on. It is obviously so political. You have to be delusional to think this is some kind of conspiracy on the part of the democrats. I cannot believe it took this long to impeach him. Requestschdog group nnell. Probe into mcco the gop leader violated the u. S. Constitution and the senate rules. The public declarations that his role is to coordinate with the white house and thereby make a mockery of the trial contradicts his oath of impartiality. Mcconnell has come under scrutiny. He also told reporters he is not in thertial juror upcoming trial. Lets go to ron in pennsylvania, democratic caller. Caller good morning. I want to follow up with that. Ast caller republicans have to start realizing the American People, all we want is the truth and how did we get here . We got here because there was a. All made by our president our president was holding up aid to a country that needed aid. An extortion call basically was brought forth to the country. Now we have to get to the truth and when mr. Bolton said he was not going to be a part of the nsa deal and he quit as an person, we need to hear from him. As a country, we deserve better, we deserve the truth. We always tell our children never to lie, tell the truth. Bringhave a trial, lets witnesses and get this over with so the American People can move on. Host quinnipiac is out with a new poll. 51 of people surveyed approve of the house vote to impeach while 46 disapproved. 48 do not want the senate to the senatele 46 say should do so and they found 48 disapproved of the decision to hold onto articles of impeachment over the last couple weeks and 66 say john bolton should testify in a senate trial. Victor in florida, independent. Caller hi. I have a good idea as to how you can get at the truth. Test is a new lie detector out. I wish cspan would bring those people on. It is 90 reliable on detecting lies. Everyone of them should have to take that lie detector test, although it would not be binding for a conviction, but it would expose politicians for taking money from russia, from lobbyists because they want trump reelected. The russians have gone on record they want to trump reelected. Connell, they mc call him moscow mitch for a reason, because they think he is taking money. He has a long record of corruption. He appointed seven judges unqualified by the ada and try to appoint a racist judge, but they stopped him. He held up the nomination of a Supreme Court Justice Obama appointed for 11 months. He breaks the law all the time. Mcconnell needs to be tried with treason and if they find out he has taken money from the russians, that is treasonable. Trump did not rise to the level of impeachment, all he should have gotten was a reprimand where you would set such a low bar all the future president s would be affected by it. Host there are 4 gop senators open to witnesses. ,hat includes Lisa Murkowski mitt romney, and Susan Collins. They say they are open to witnesses. Not open toy are witnesses right away. This is from the wall street journal. Democrats are pushing to hear from 4 people, including john bolton. Some Senate Republicans have said they would like to hear from witnesses such as mr. Bolton and senator collins said she was reaching out to republicans to reach an agreement that would allow witnesses requested by the house and white house to testify. Lamar alexander indicated he might be one of the republicans willing to join democrats voting for fresh evidence and testimony. Mitt romney said he would not witnessesar from right away, he would like to follow the clinton impeachment trial set up. They would hear initial arguments and then he would be open to voting to hearing more witnesses and evidence. Here is Chuck Schumer on the floor yesterday talking about hearing from witnesses and getting additional documents. [video clip] lets consider what legal mcconnell leader mcconnell is suggesting. In the clinton trial, the senate waited three weeks to confront the issue of witnesses. Once they decided on three witnesses with the support of Senate Republicans here today, including leader mcconnell, it took time for witnesses to be deposed and for the senate to consider what they submitted. Ultimately, the clinton trial ran for two more weeks. Republicanellow senators to ask themselves after the senate concludes the trial leader mcconnell wants to get through, do you think he wants to extend the trial by several weeks . Leader mcconnell has gone on record and said he wants the total. O span two weeks he has gone on record and said after we have heard the to vote ande ought move on. Are we to believe he has an open mind about extending the trial several more weeks . Host minority leader Chuck Schumers response to the idea of following the 1999 clinton impeachment trial rules. Democrats, as far as new theence, are looking at information between lev parnas and rudy giuliani. Text messages, who was arrested in october. The messages include exchanges between the two. That is an example of the asdence democrats would want they call for a trial in the senate. The president tweeting we demand fairness, shouts pelosi and the donothing democrats, yet they would not let us have one witness, lawyers, or ask questions. John in georgia, what do you think . Caller it looks like we got ourselves in a pickle. You have the house that has voted two articles of impeachment that have yet to be presented to the senate. That you put up in the clinton impeachment, if that is correct, it seems to me that would take care of the thing. You have the house managers , you give thecase president , if he chooses to , thent his case, 24 hours you have questioning by senators a few hours and then you would probably have a motion to dismiss. That will probably carry and that would take care of the matter procedurally and correctly. If the motion to dismiss fails and additional witnesses need to be called because of new senators can vote. If they vote to call witnesses, call witnesses. , youhn bolton is called know the president is going to invoke executive privilege. That will go to the courts and we will be tied up for a long while. Lets just do it. Host john in georgia. Beverly in North Carolina, democratic caller. Hi. Caller how are you . From florida, victor, he covered it all, except for one thing, Mitch Mcconnell and mr. Put in a factory in mcconnells state built and managed by a russian who was thrown out by obama. That is the only thing i want to add about that. However, with our trial with congress, with the house, 60,000 documents were sent in when clinton was impeached, 60,000. None were sent in this time by trump. He wants to do the same thing senate. Trial with the what can i say about senators . Back this man . He is the gift that keeps on giving. If you spend one time one , that is 1700tor. 40,000 by the time you end one term, they are a millionaire. T is all about money the constitution Means Nothing to any of them. We have a president who does not want to be a president , he wants to be a dictator. Will be inresident milwaukee for another campaign rally. You can listen to what the president has to say in wisconsin. Dan in massachusetts, independent. Caller thank you for having me on. Host morning. Caller for years and years, i watch lawyers that talk about congress and stuff and Jonathan Turley has got to be the most evenhanded scholar i have seen and he said he is a democrat, also. He said the evidence is so that it really should not rise to this level. He did suggest a couple other ways they could have subpoenaed more people and pressured the courts to get more people, but i dont think they are interested in that. This is more of a show and a circus. What i am really concerned about is we watch this whole mueller investigation. We watched these people from the fbi and the Justice Department being questioned. We have watched these people say ,ow they have committed treason lied on tv in sworn testimony. The press does not portray it that way to us. We are living in this world where the press and media tells us how we should think and they repeat it over and over and they expect us to respond how all the professionals say we should. We are in a scary time. Very basic logic shows what is going on. We have a heavyhanded government with a democratic powerwho is abusing their and we have seen it from the beginning. On tv, live, sworn testimony, over and over again. There is no question what is happening here. With thisin the house impeachment stuff, you should have your deposition. That is where the discovery happens. What do you think should happen in the senate trial, given everything you said . Caller the senate trial should take all the information, all the discovery the housemaid and they should work with what they are given in the house. Is where all this information should be gathered and then they vote on what to do with it. They had a onesided gathering exposition and they voted on it. The whole thing is tainted. I think giuliani has it right saying the Supreme Court needs to intervene. The house is out of order. It was a sham from the beginning. Host what does the white house want according to cnn, the white house wants a senate trial to include the ability to dismiss the articles of impeachment against the president. The Washington Post reports any senator can move to dismiss the charges as long as it is done so in writing. The front page of the washington blunt, fourth in line in Republican Leadership saying there are not the votes to dismiss the articles of impeachment. Stan in florida, republican. Caller good morning. Congress is supposed to find all the information and build a case based on information. How do we know what information they got when they do everything behind closed doors . Now all of a sudden they want to force the senate to do like they did. I think they ought to do like they did, do not worry about what they say. You are doing the trial. You dont have to call witnesses. You are not a factfinding thing. You are finding the Information Congress gave you and adam trump, that guy has hated since he got elected. He stood up in front of all america and held up these papers and said here is absolute truth trump conspired with the russians. That has never been proven by trial. He ran the you are telling me this is impartial . Host republican in delray beach, florida. An update on the conversation with all of you yesterday on iran. Mitch mcconnell is going to on the war powers resolution that would limit the president s ability to take military action against iran. He says he will strongly oppose the resolution, but he will allow debate. Mike pompeo was supposed to be testifying for the House Foreign Affairs committee. He is not going to be showing up for that hearing. They will have a former national arerity advisor from we following that hearing on our website and on the radio app. In the Washington Times, it says he has not ruled out the possibility of ruling out the possibility of pompeo to testify. Here is what he had to say about his decision to kill the general. President trump [video clip] here is what has been consistent, we killed soleimani. A bad person, killed a lot of americans and people. When democrats try to defend him, they cannot and it is a disgrace. We killed the number one terrorist in the world, soleimani, and it should have been done 20 years ago. Nbc is reporting the president did want to target this irani and general seven months ago, but with conditions if you are interested in reading that story. We will take a short break and when we come back, we will talk republican,rgess, a medical doctor about the future of health care and later, we will talk with democratic congresswoman Suzanne Bonamici of oregon on legislation protecting Older Workers from job discrimination. 2020 coveragen continues tonight live at 8 00 p. M. Eastern on cspan 2. Donald trump is in milwaukee, wisconsin, at a keep America Great rally. Watch our coverage at cspan 2, cspan. Org, or listen on the go with the radio app. The impeachment of President Trump this week, the house will impeachment managers, follow the process live on cspan. The house will be in order. For 40 years, cspan has been ed ash has been providing has been providing america coverage so you can make up your own mind. Created by cable in 1979, cspan is brought to you by your local cable or satellite providers. Cspan, your unfiltered view of government. Washington journal continues. Host Michael Burgess at our texas. Republican of he is the Top Republican of the house subcommittee and a member of the rules committee. Thanks for joining us again. Guest thanks for having us on. Host you have probably seen a, blitzingmbergs the airwaves about health care. D[video clip] soaring Health Insurance isuctibles and what trumps plan . Repealing obama care, threatening coverage for millions of americans. Michael bloomberg knows the value of Quality Health care. He built a business with 20,000 employees, each with Great Health Care and paid leave. Mike cut the number of uninsured people by nearly half, expanded health care for working families, and improved care for seniors. It is time to get real and fix health care. People dont have the health care they need and this is america. Make suretainly everyone who needs to see a doctor can see a doctor. Mike will provide universal access to health care, lower costs for health care prices, expand access, and make sure everyone without health care can get it and everyone who likes theirs can keep it. How do you know Michael Bloomberg will deliver our health care . Because he has done it before. Host the president responded in a tweet saying Mike Bloomberg is spending a lot of money on false advertising. I was the person who saved preexisting conditions. If republicans win in court and take back the house up his end of is, your health care that i have brought to the best place in many years will become the best ever by far. I will protect your preexisting conditions. This is the Washington Times headline about the president s claim. Trump falsely claims he saved part of obamacare. Guest every time the president talks about health care, the first thing he says is he will always protect preexisting conditions. I believe him that he will. As a member of the legislative body, the signal the president is sending to me is that he will not sign anything we send him that does not protect preexisting conditions. Host what about the lawsuit underway . Explain what the lawsuit is and where it is because people point to that democrats point to that and say republicans want to do away with health care and preexisting conditions, they support this lawsuit. Guest it is not the president s lawsuit, it is brought by state attorneys general and it is to answer a fundamental legal question. In 2012 was. Aw could stay as it Justice Roberts went a little further. Do not look to the courts to do things you should be doing legislatively. Is last thing i want to do predict what the Supreme Court will do, but the same five justices that came up with this tortuous logic to keep the Affordable Care act in place are still there. It would take a leap of faith to they are going to come to an agreement. Thismocrats want to mute lawsuit, they would repeal the. Ndividual mandate if any part of the Affordable Care act is found outside the bounds of the constitution, the rest of it can stay. Past passed in the house did have a severability clause. The senate version, which is the one that eventually became law did not address they were silent on that issue. Probably did not make good sense. Host House Republicans approved a bill in 2017 that would have owed states celebrated the passage with House Republicans at the white house that the repeal and replace efforts stalled in the senate. Is this the goal of the house gop . When that guest when that bill passed, it repealed taxes, repealed mandate, soft landing for people on medicaid cash although things were accomplished in the bill. After it left our committee, it changed and relying on the part of the afford will care act that waivers that language was added to the bill, but there were additional safeguards, guardrails provided that any state that opted to do withwould have to provide certain parameters and you had to allow a path back in for someone who allowed insurance to lapse. If someone keeps continuous coverage, they are not in trouble, but you had to find a way to allow them back in, that that was the provision that got the attention. Parts that came through our committee, that was a long mark and we did it for 18, 19 hours on the rules committee. That is why we should do things that go through the Committee Process and not simply add things on the floor, which we see the other side doing almost routinely. Host we will go to calls. Independent caller. Caller thank you, greta. About januaryhat 8, 2017 . Donald trump said he and his Transition Team were putting the final touches on a Health Care Bill that would give us far better care at a fraction of the price and he said he would be rolling out the first of the. Ext week have you or anyone seen the document he produced . Guest i think there has been ample evidence of the type of policies he wanted to pursue and that has been done through a series of executive orders the president has put forward. Association health plans, wersement accounts, should not just do things by executive orders because as we have seen in the past, what happens is an executive order may not endure. I think the president has laid out a good ground game. Bob. Logan, utah, a democratic caller. Caller good morning. You hit the nail on the head, this resident does nothing but ally but lie to people there is nothing this president does but lie to people. He will go down in history as the lying king. Guest i think the house of representatives was not at its finest when the Impeachment Vote was taken last month. President Trump Took Office in january 2017. Since the president took office , 2. 5he latest figures million more people have sponsored insurance. That is a rapid expansion of insurancent of the market. Suddenly, you are getting up to numbers of people who have. Ither have access or insurance without a government mandate and without punishing people, which is what the Affordable Care act is the fuel was taxes and mandates. Host what is the linkage between the rise in insurer Insurance Employer insurance . Guest certainly the economy. Ple say the building box blocks were in place, but if you look at the trajectory of what happened since the president came into office, there is an Inflection Point about the end of january 2017. This president has overseen one of the largest expansions of the economy that i have seen in my lifetime and the old jack kemp phrase, a rising tide lifts all boats. It was full of people who needed insurance. Further, i would say this, the people who get employersponsored insurance, that was not part of the Affordable Care act, that was compromised between speaker gingrich and president clinton in 1996 in order to get the ability for large corporations to sell insurance in multiple states, they had to come under a group of regulations and what is one of the principal regulations . To allow the coverage for preexisting conditions without underwriting, without an exclusionary period and that exists in the large group market. That is why i am excited about Association Health cares because it would give small and medium businesses like my business, would give us the ability to participate in the large group market, which would be lower cost and better protection for employees. Host audrey in alabama, independent, you are next for the congressman. Caller good morning greta and. Ongressman burgess lately. Struggle here v. A. N is entitled to champ paperwork, they were 4 months behind and he had a break in insurance, they maynded his coverage to 2020. If he does not go to college, he is not entitled to champ v. A. Anymore. I think you let our group slipped through the cracked because you let middleclass families that have a job and get it through their employer my son is an exception to that end we have checked with the college fallything and semester, he will not have insurance and blue cross, blue shield of alabama, they are a monopoly and that is the only choice we have. I have called, it is 8,600 a deductible 5,000 for the best plan they carry. If you could look into this and maybe you could do something, a little fix for this, i dont know if you have handed authorization to v. A. Host i will have the congressmen respond. Guest that is a valid point you brought up because everyone an oversight and the writing of the Affordable Care act, that is one of those things ift needs to be addressed you have not talked to your livesentative to where you in alabama, worthwhile to do so, they can do a constituent theiry and look into for. Articulars of your case host democratic caller. Caller thank you for taking my call. I like the comment mr. Burgess belongs to a party that has opposed social security, medicare, medicaid, workmens and the number of without Health Insurance has increased and he is from a state that has failed to expand medicaid. Non 4 people in texas have insurance and this is a party we healthwill have great care. Pigs will fly before that happens. Have a nice day and thank you. Guest lets unpack a couple of those things. As far as the expansion of medicaid, that was part of the Supreme Court decision in 2012 under the language of the Affordable Care act, then president obama said every state has to. The Supreme Court said that is probably coercive and states cannot be required to expand medicaid if they do not wish to. Governor perry at the time was governmenthe federal was not always a reliable partner. Once expand medicaid you begin something, you dont have the option to walk away. There was concern on the part of the governor. I am sure very that is something they look at every. Egislative session the 11 15 waiver that allows for additional funding to come to hospitals that take care of underinsured patients. The Affordable Care act go to hospitals to take care of underinsured and uninsured patients. There are downsides. We just gave the hospitals a little bit of the reprieve in the last budget bill, but we have not fixed that problem. As far as republicans not i social around when security laws were passed in the 1930s or whenever it was. I certainly was not in congress when medicare passed. If i recall correctly from the middle 1960s when i was a child , president johnson passed medicare because he had republican votes. He did not have the votes strictly on the democratic side, particularly in the senate. Here pop duo she relied on republican votes to get the law passed. That argument is one people make, but i dont know if it is entirely accurate. Host joe is launching in new orleans on the line for democrats. Caller good morning. Guest good morning, jo. Caller first, i want to make an announcement. Last night on pbs, i saw a documentary called from obama to trump. It is in two parts. I urge everyone to find that particular show and look at it and it explains how we are in the predicament we are now as a nation. Say theould like to Republican Party was against the Affordable Care act from the very beginning. You offered your party offered no assistance writing that bill. Remember the president wanted democrats and republicans to work on a committee, which they did and then the republicans pulled out and started talking about death. Anels, they were negative you dont have a plan to Better Health care because you are interested in destroying the whole concept and mainly because it was done under president obama. Host you are shaking your head while she was talking. Guest realistically, president obama repeatedly said things like i welcome anyone to come to the white house and go through line. Ine by i will be glad to come down, what time would you like me to be there . I never got a response until several weeks later when i was told congressman burgess would not be invited to the white house to go through line by line. There is a lot of disingenuous statements made on both sides when the Affordable Care act was coming through. Pbs piece lasthe night. Here is a Government Television project that has produced something. I have to disagree because what has been the economic picture . How has it changed . What has happened with the Employment Situation between president obama and President Trump . It has gone substantially better. I do understand why people arent aware or talking about things like this because there newsgure i saw coverage of impeachment has been 14. 5 hours and the economy has been 9 minutes. Thinkrstand why people inrything is chaotic and disarray. People are doing better today under the presidency of President Trump. Host senator Chuck Grassley of iowa, republican chaired the Senate Finance committee. According to the hill newspaper said i made it very clear from a political standpoint that every one of these senators and is hearing the same thing i am in iowa, people are fed up with increases. There are 22 republicans up for reelection. As the president done enough . Guest the president has done a lot. He put forward in a couple of executive orders, the rebate rule, which would have moved rebates. That is a revision i support and i tried to get it accepted in committee. The president also did something that was a little controversial. Ith the price index republicans believe in markets. A pharmaceuticals are sold in a global market, is it reasonable the to pay more and. Hey try to rein that in it never made it through the final cut, so it never got. Hrough the agency i wish senator grassley would take a look, because it would answer a lot of his questions. One of the provisions was to engage the United States trade why is ittive and that intellectual property developed in the United States is not protected and it is allowed to be siphoned off by other countries and sold for a pittance and american patients are expected to foot the bill foot the bill westmark i would encourage senator grassley to take a look at what we did on the house side with hr19. Senator grassley has some. Nteresting ideas there are a couple of things that are too far. 90 of what he proposed was in the bill house ways and means and Energy Commerce committee used as an amendment when we debated Speaker Pelosis bill. Host we will go to john, democratic caller. Guest i would like to know if you were successful in stopping insurance, will that also cover noncustodial parents ordered by the court to insuranceheir medical. If it is not available through employer, they have to pay for medicaid . Are you going to declare all of us citizens of the United States covered by the constitution . Of theall citizens United States are covered by the constitution. Custodial arrangements are deadly set forth in the court papers generally set forth in the court papers, in the divorce requirements. There are plenty of places where there are there is room for improvement. He did not state what his problem was. His representative for the house or one of his United States senators can do a constituent inquiry on his behalf. We do that sort of stuff all the time in my office. Sometimes we are successful and sometimes we are not. In a complicated case, rather than try to legislate every complicated case, sometimes there is an answer through the agency. Host kim in iowa, independent. Caller i have a question, two questions. First of all, i would like to know, do you believe everything trump says . Second question, i wanted to know why is our apartment of justice, the Supreme Court trying to get them to rule against obamacare. If you believe everyone should be covered by health care, not asset. Host that may have the congressman respond. Guest i dont believe everything anyone says other than my wife. That is a given. Remember, it is not the president bringing this lawsuit, it is the state attorneys general, which is their right to do. When the ruling came down from the Supreme Court, it said because the individual mandate is a tax, that is why it can stay in place. The tax has been zeroed out. Is this law still constitutional . My perspective is the same five justices that found a way to continue the Affordable Care act are on the court and i dont want to speak for them, but i think it made it would be a difficult thing to decide i was wrong in 2012 and i want to rule in a different way. It is a legitimate question to be answered. The president has all the activity on the president s part said we would not put the department of justice in the middle of this. Delegated. They got blocked well that goes through the appeals process, companies have already begun to explore things like Association Health plans for their employees, which are now left in limbo, and the investment they have made, they are not sure what will happen to it. It would have been a reasonable thing for the judges in that case to put a stay on implementing that order, just as the judge did in the Affordable Care act case, nothing is different today than it was a year ago. The other thing that needs to be looked at, we all fall victim of looking at just right now, but if you look over the last 10 years, since the Affordable Care act, and we are coming up to the 10 year anniversary, what has happened to insurance premiums . Are they lower as was promised when president obama first proposed the Affordable Care act . No, they are substantially higher. One caller reference the higher premium they would pay. I suspect its for a bronze plan in the blue cross system, i know that because when the affordable , it was decided that there would be a special deal for members of congress are everyone will retire if they are forced onto this insurance. They did. Some members of congress have the ability to get a taxfree subsidy to walk into the d. C. Exchange. I did not do that, i thought it was wrong and it would be a challenge to the court that would be found to be illegal. I was wrong about projecting what would happen in the court, so i very much understand, because i get what every other constituent in my district who is in the individual market, i did what they did, got on the phone to work with healthcare. Gov which was not working at the time very well. I was finally april able to get coverage. I had a premium that was higher than anything i had ever seen before, 700 a month for an individual with a 5,800 deductible. I have had the Health Savings account for a while and used to high deductibles but nothing of that magnitude. Thats why you hear about the complaints and the complexity of the cost of health care, individuals are bearing a far greater burden on those expenses than they ever were before the imposition of the Affordable Care act. Payment,transfer transferring from one group of citizens to another, no question , butsome people benefited i promise you that the people i hear from in my district say we dont qualify for subsidy. A policeman and a teacher in my district will be outside of that subsidy range, good for them. But since they dont qualify, every time that silver benchmark plan increases in price, their premium goes up. Someone subsidized says i dont care, the subsidy went up with the premium, but that couple who for theg a retail price Affordable Care act, their premium went up a lot, and their deductible did not come down. Host we always appreciate the conversation with you. Thank you. Guest i will and i will bring my copy of the Affordable Care act next time, i apologize for leaving that in the office area we will take a break the office. Host thank you. We will turn our attention to senator sanders and senator warrens feud over gender. Can a woman be elected . Later we will be joined by Suzanne Bonamici of oregon, about legislation being considered by the house this week to protect Older Workers from job discrimination. We will be right back. We are asking students to tell us the issues they want the president ial candidates to address in the 2020 campaign, and with a january 20 deadline for the studentcam competition approaching, students are putting the final touches on their entries. We are awarding 100,000 in total cash prizes, plus a 5,000 grand prize. For more information, go to studentcam. Org. Our campaign 2020 coverage continues, tonight, live at 8 00 two, president an trump is in milwaukee, wisconsin, at a keep America Great rally. Watch our coverage on cspan two on demand at cspan. Org, or listen on the go with the radio app. The house will be in order. Cspan has been providing america unfiltered coverage of congress, the white ande, the Supreme Court, Public Policy events from washington, d. C. And around the country, so you can make up your own mind. Created by cabling in 1979, cspan is brought to you by your local cable or satellite provider. Cspan, your unfiltered view of government. Washington journal continues. Host we want to get your thoughts this morning on a backandforth between senators Bernie Sanders, independent, vermont, and senator elizabeth massachusetts, on gender. This is the banner headline this morning, battle on the left, 21 days until iowa and he says a woman cant win . This headline as well, andressive fear as Bernie Warren battle, it helps joe biden in iowa and beyond. We want your thoughts on this. Senator sanders put out a statement saying its ludicrous to believe at the same meaning meeting where Elizabeth Warren said she would run for president i would tell her a woman could not win. Three weeks before the iowa caucus and a year after that conversation, staff who were not in the room are lying about what happened. Donaldsaid that was that trump is a sexist, racist, and liar, who would weaponize what he could. Do i believe a woman can win in 2020 . Of course, after all, Hillary Clinton be donald trump by 3 million votes in 2016. Elizabeth warren put out this statement, bernie and i met for more than two hours in december of 2018 to discuss the 2020 election. Our past work together, and our shared goal of being donald trump, taking back our government from the wealthy and wellconnected in building an economy that works for everyone. Among the topics that came up would be what would happen if democrats nominated a female candidate. I thought a woman could win, he disagreed. I have no interest in discussing this meeting any further because bernie and i have more in common than our differences on punditry. Andrew, a democratic caller, good morning. Caller thank you for having me on. I have spent quite a bit of time looking at the Political Races , i like todidates see what they said 10 years ago, 20 years ago, and last week. The one thing i do know about Bernie Sanderss for decades, he has been very much a person to try to get women into politics, going back 40 years you can see videos where he is teaching kids at an Elementary School the importance of women getting into politics. He encouraged Elizabeth Warren ,n 2016 to run for president and of course the d c probably probablyhe d c dnc told her its hillary stern, but he has always been about everybody. He did 40 rallies to try to get hillary elected. Everybody needs to remember that, he campaigned for hillary to be the first female president. I think we need to realize one thing, hes honest, what he says is to be believed, he has the record in the history that supports that. Well, if wehis as try and run joe biden, who was kind of a weaker version of hillary as far as his platform, who has the same kind of baggage with his son, hunter, trump will beat biden. Trump fearsam media biden, trump is a con man, bernie is plus 20 on the real clear politics poll, and hillary was just a plus eight and lost. Bernie is the one to win this year if we want wall street out of the white house. Thank you. Host thank you. The New York Times with this headline, a tight race in iowa with the former Vice President gaining momentum, the poll published three weeks before the first in the nation nominating contest, it found the former Vice President at 24 , but with Bernie Sanders behind him 18 mark, the former mayor Pete Buttigieg at 17 and Elizabeth Warren at 15 . This differs from a monmouth poll a cnn Des Moines Register poll released last week, showing sanders on top of the democratic field. Caller can i comment on that . Host of course. Caller keep in mind the media that we get outside of the cspan, which is the jewel of content. Cspan is the place to go for both sides and honest information. The mainstream media, everyone should know that 90 of the media out there is owned by wall street. Wall street likes wall street candidates, joe biden is a wall street candidate. Msnbc,turn on cnn or they are selling joe biden. Host im going to leave it there to get in more voices. In jamaica,nne, new york, what do you think . Caller i think its foolishness. Our goal is to get trump out of the white house. And i think a woman can be president because we are the only civilized country that has not had a female president. Andeed to stop it, concentrate on doing what we to get that deranged person out of the white house. Independent, from arkansas. Was a if this truly oneonone private conversation, nobody knows what went on except for them, its a classic he said she said, i dont know whether he said it or not but i do believe the day will come when a woman is elected president , but i dont believe it will be a socialist democrat. In saying that, theres another issue, how is it that a candidate can promise people government money, in order to get votes, but somebody like Michael Bloomberg cant go out there and say i will purchase everyone a cell phone if you vote for me. On the one hand its illegal but its also apparently legal. Candidate should not be able to promise stuff that is not theirs. Host felicia, in georgia, and independent. Caller thank you for taking my call. A couple of things, probably, it seems likely that Bernie Sanders and his explanation about what said something that Elizabeth Warren heard as a woman cant win. Which is supporting his run. Winink an independent cant , and its a bit arrogant to not join a party and then expect to lead it. I think it is obviously win, tot for a woman to accomplish something that has never been done is breaking the ceiling. Elizabeth warren is at least thecrat, running to lead Democratic Party, which is the first hurdle. Sanders, even after last time, still did not join the Democratic Party, and i dont know what anybody is saying to me that i dont have to join something but i can lead it. Thats a problem. Host we are three weeks away the the iowa caucus, and New York Times has the headline, iowans exhibit commitment anxiety because many are fearful of setting the party on a path to a weak nominee to face President Trump. Lets go to bernie, and democratic caller in kentucky. Caller i dont know about the backandforth between sanders and Elizabeth Warren, but cannot woman be elected president . Absolutely. We have a candid up there right now, Amy Klobuchar a right now,p there Amy Klobuchar. Shes right in the middle, she works with everyone and she has a great sense of humor. In hanover, maryland, a republican. Caller good morning. Im sorry caller, your phone is breaking up. Can you call back on a different line we have difficulty hearing you . Barbara, a democratic caller in california. Caller a woman could be president , i really hope bernie is not our nominee, i wish call harris wouldve stayed in the race because thats who we need. Thank you. Ronny is next. Caller i think a woman can be president , anybody would be better than what we have got in the white house right now. It would be great to have a woman as president. Donald trump has done nothing but denigrate women. Hes a sexual predator by his own admission. I think it would be great to have a woman in the white house to prove him wrong on every point that hes ever made about women. He looks at women is less than equal in men and i think it would be great. I think sanders and warren need to cut their bickering out and get to the matter at hand, which is getting this lunatic out of the white house. Is a republican, from North Carolina. Hello. Caller hello. Thank you for taking my call. Thank to to answer that question if a woman could be elected for president , yes, of course. Im a republican, i would not hesitate to vote for a woman who in the rightiples stuff and the right views that would be best for the country. Of course. Not if President Trump was running for reelection, can you think of a female republican that you would like to see run . Or run later on in 2024 . Course, nikki haley would be terrific. If she ran in 2024i would vote for her. Host over President Trump if there was a primary . Caller yes. In birmingham, alabama, a democratic quality. Caller yes, with no hesitation a woman can win, but i will say this. I dont know what it is about america, that we dont vote for women like we should. I looked at all the sexism that went on when hillary ran against trump. Real, the reality is people in america, for some reason, do not view women in power as a president. Germany has angela merkel, their Prime Minister new zealand, a lot of people have women in power. But in america, it is something about us, im speaking from my heart, and im not a white woman. Women believe in voting 97 of blackhis, women voted for hillary. We did that because we believe in women running for power, and we believe in that. But a lot of white women voted for donald trump. With the sexism that this man has done, no way in the world would i have voted for him over a woman. Have a great day, i spoke from my heart. Know,as you probably senator cory booker of new jersey, dropped out of the race yesterday. His statement is with a full heart i share this news, suspending my president ial campaign. To my team, supporters, and everyone who gave me a shot, thank you. Im so proud of what we built and i feel nothing but faith in what we can accomplish together. , can a woman be president . Caller thank you for taking my call. I think theres a big to do about nothing with this thing with warren and sanders. I think the press is building it up so it gets a lot of attention for the debate. But it doesnt seem important. They are friends, they are doing what you do on the campaign trail, you reach a point where your friend becomes your enemy. Host so you think this is strategy . I think it a certain point everybody is going to change their strategy, and it will boil down to one or two. Andidates that are doing well thats what they have to do to be trump. We have to be together. Headline this morning, 21 days of iowa, he says a woman cannot win. The Huffington Post with their headline says that Bernie Sanders would help out joe biden in iowa. Kingsbury, texas, on the democratic line. Bernie hasnt been negative to women, period. Equality, son yesterday i heard him say that a woman did win the presidency in 2016 by 3 million votes, that was hillary of course. Anything liked what candidate warren is saying and its really surprising that shes announcing that. But it could be some sort of strategy. Host have you always been a supporter of senator sanders . Voted i wasnt 2016, i for him in the primary, and when it came to the election i voted for hillary. Host i was wondering if you were open to voting for senator warren if she were to become nominee . Caller i am open to vote for anyone other than trump. Anyone other than a republican at this point. Theyometime in this race, will have to point out their differences, the candidates. Thats just the way it will be. Charles,ammed, in lake louisiana, a republican. Are you there . You have to turn on the tv, go ahead and speak through the phone. Caller let me turn that tv down. I am ready to speak. Host we are ready to listen. Caller i think President Trump is doing a fabulous job, i think he has a great handle on the politics of the world right now. I think is doing tremendous work abroad. Be one of is going to the greatest president s that weve ever had. The economy is booming at this particular time. Host so we are asking can a woman be elected president . Caller yes, a woman can be elected president , and my candidate for president would be condoleezza rice. She could be elected president. In lebanon, ohio, a democratic caller. Caller i do think a woman could be elected president , i also ,hink the statement wasnt true or it was fabricated. I think bernies records from the 70s have been clear on him being united on policy, not gender. Is ank this whole makeup separation of the progressive party. Nebraska. , in omaha, caller i think a woman can be , i think nikki haley in 2024 will become one. I think the dustup between elizabeth and bernie, i think bernie was saying that she could not be elected president , that does not mean all women. Just because she is a woman, and she cannot be elected is a realistic thing. She could never be elastic because shes a northeast type of person elected because shes a northeast person. Host but bernie can . Caller no, neither of them can. But when they are talking amongst themselves, he has a better chance than her, because he has been the leading he has had the same ideology his whole life, where she picks and chooses what she says and does. She is not electable as a woman, but women are electable to be president. Albuquerque, new mexico, independent. Caller a woman could be elected, but she doesnt have the leadership to run this reason, for the simple comeshe Democratic Party from a racist background. If you read the history of the Democratic Party, it was formed in racists. Republicans have never been racist, period. Was richard, in new mexico. When we come back, we will have at our table democratic congresswoman Suzanne Bonamici of oregon, a member of the Labor Committee, we will talk about legislation being considered that protects Older Workers from job discrimination. Ad later on, Arianna Figaro joins us to take a look at a at ar joins us to look federal regulation. We will be right back. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2020] our campaign 2020 coverage continues tonight, live at 8 00 eastern on cspan2, President Trumps in milwaukee had a keep America Great rally. Coverage on cspan2, on demand at cspan. Org, or listen on the go with the free cspan radio app. The impeachment of president week, this sending the articles of impeachment to the senate. You can follow the process online at cspan. Org impeachment and listen on the span radio at app. Cspan has been providing america unfiltered coverage of congress. Public policy events from washington, d. C. , so you can make up your own mind, created by cable in 1979, cspan has been brought to you by your local cable and satellite provider, your unfiltered view of government. Washington journal continues. Host with this is congresswoman bonamici to talk about Older Americans and jobless, nation, before we get to phone calls on this issue, tell us the legislation being considered this week. Guest this is about protecting Older Workers against discrimination, a very bipartisan bill which will correct the law passed years ago to protect Older Workers from discrimination. We know this is a problem, i hear about it in oregon, particularly from Older Workers in the tech sector. We know its a problem across the country, the aarp did a study showing that three out of five workers over 45 have seen or experience themselves age discrimination in the workplace. Ago,at happened 10 years there was a case, a gentleman named jack grose who came to our which brought a case of age discrimination when all the way up to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court changed the test that an older worker needs to show to move forward with the case. This bill simply corrects that, right now its a very it has been hard to prove cases of ages, nation. This puts the law back to where it was 10 years ago, to allow workers to seek a remedy. Host why is it hard to prove . Guest the test imposed by the court, which is inconsistent with other civil rights laws, requires that workers show that it is the sole factor for the discrimination. Motivationas a mixed test, so a worker could move forward with a case that they showed it was a factor, one of job ortors in losing a being discriminated against on the job. This simply puts the law back to where it was about 10 years ago. Host how do you respond to this opinion by forbes possible William Baldwin who said the problem with age Discrimination Laws that they bump up against reality, Baseball Players peak at 24, programmers at 40, pilots at 58, so workers clinging to jobs in their 60s and 70s are overpaid. Host i didnt guest i didnt read the whole article but i dont agree that we can make those sorts of gentlers asians generalizations. Many Older Workers have a lot of great experience and are qualified for jobs and they should not be discriminated against based on their age. This job puts the bill we are passing tomorrow in the house, and it will restore the lotto the way it was for decades the law the way it was for decades before the Court Opinion barrier. N unnecessary we have found that diversity in ,he workforce is a good thing when we are sending the message to Older Workers that they are not welcomed or qualified, thats not good for businesses, communities, and a lot of people are living longer. They are often working longer and supporting families. When Older Workers are let go from a job, they often become longterm unemployed and it becomes harder and harder for them and they may be trying to support a family and save for retirement. This is putting the law back to the way where it was working fine for decades. Host we want to encourage our viewers to call in. If you are ages 50 and older , andin at 202 7488000 all others can dial in at 202 7488001. Is made into law, how will people have to prove Going Forward that they have been discriminated against . Guest it goes back to the way it was for decades, that it was a motivating factor but not the only one, the determinant factor to move forward. Host when you have heard from peoples job discrimination, you say to happening at age 45 even, what are the stories they are telling you . How do they know theyve been discriminated against because of their age . Guest when i talk to people in the tech sector, they often have years of experience, and the people ive spoken with they do all they can to keep up with current trends, and then they see around of layoffs, they are gone, new workers with less experience and not the same level of skills are brought in to take their places. That, to them, feels like age discrimination in day should be entitled to make that claimant given an opportunity to move that they were to prove they were discriminated against due to their age. There is a bill in the senate as well, this is a very bipartisan bill. Host what is your confidence level that President Trump would sign Something Like this . Guest thats unpredictable, i would hope that the president and the administration would realize that age discrimination is not welcome in our businesses and communities. Host how did you come to this legislation . Guest this is something i started hearing about in oregon from constituents, but im also honored to chair in the education and Labor Committee the subcommittee on civil rights and human services, where we deal with a lot of Workplace Discrimination issues. Equal employment had a hearing about their work, and the administration has been rolling back a lot of civil rights protections and cutting the budgets of agencies like the eeoc. This is a problem we hear about across the country. In new york. Good morning. Caller good morning. , after multiple mergers and having to change jobs many times, i finally after yetthe street another hostile takeover. It was a good 10 years before i could get back in to corporate america. It was a nightmare. When i did get back in, having not had a job for 10 years, i worked for a nonprofit but i lost money every year doing legal work for them. Im an attorney. My salary was literally one half of what it was in 1990. , this is a say multibillion Dollar Corporation that i got back in with, and it was only because the woman who hired me had known me for 40 years. If i had not known her i would have remained unemployed. Host what did you hear when you would apply for these jobs over the 10 years . Did you think it was age discrimination . Guest yes caller yes, all corporations were looking for someone with up to 10 years of experience, there was no job for anyone with more experience than that. Guest your stories to common. When i hear from people that i represent in northern oregon, and as we heard in the hearing on protecting workers against discrimination, thank you for sharing your story, it is to and i too common, hope this legislation passes to help more people who face discrimination. Paula, inan go to washington, d. C. Caller i am fortunate to work for the federal government in human resources. So i have not experienced i experienced, that type of discrimination. I was wondering if you could comment on what you have heard from the perspective of the federal sector. I feel, but this is nothing that i could prove, i feel like i am getting less interviews, even with my years of experience. Im not overly searching for a job, i am looking to retire at , but you do feel a , and ince in competing was wondering what your thoughts were on that . Guest thank you so much for sharing your experience. The information i have seen has not been broken down by public and private sector. But looking at the aarp starting to show that three out of every five worker three of every five workers have experienced a just termination in the workplace. ,e know the problem is common too common. It is our goal to bring things back to more parity and making sure that workers who have faced discrimination can move forward in their claims thank you for sharing your story. , texas. Red, in seabrook im 21 years old, ive been through various jobs one of thethe years, at my i have noticed Doctors Office is that they have these tablets and older patients dont really know what they can do. We have to help because the technology is advancing at a rate where they dont know how to do. To i am sometimes at a loss do it myself and im 21 years old. You for sharing that experience. There are certainly many people who faced age discrimination who have the skills, who know technology and who are more than capable of doing the work but simply have experienced age discrimination. Wecourse we need to do all can to keep up with technology, this bill is really designed to address situations where people have experienced age discrimination, when they have been replaced by someone younger, not when their position has been changed because of technology. But i do appreciate your call. Host what is the agency that oversees job determination against Older Americans . Guest the eeoc. Host what have they told you about discrimination in Older Americans . Guest i dont think anybody would say that discrimination against Older Americans is a good thing. Unfortunately what we are seeing is because of the Supreme Court move 10 years ago, workers who first file a complaint with the eeoc but want to move forward with a claim on their own, the barrier is too high and too difficult for them to prove their case. I mentioned jack gross, whose case went to the Supreme Court, he was at the hearing and in speaking with him, he would rather like to see this law changed because of his experience over the years. Watching how this happened and how it became harder and harder for people to prove age discrimination. We want to remedy that. When you look at the oc following through on claims host when you look at the io see following through on claims, is it a lot lower . Guest i dont have the statistics in front of me but i know the number of cases they are seeing is increasing. Ive certainly experienced that hearing from constituents. People are living longer and want to work longer and have the skills to continue. They should not be held back because of discrimination. , in louisville, kentucky. Welcome. Caller thank you. I want to preface my remarks by eeoc casesd two 2008. Before i retired in but let me give you a background for who i am as a person. In 1954. Working i worked on the farm, baling hay barn stacking hay in the for five dollars for two days and i almost died. ,ater on, i went to high school in the reserve Officers Training corps. I was a Football Player there for two years. If you were there you are automatically drafted into the army. As a railroadked switchman, i was a dairy worker making cottage cheese and , later on i worked in the u. S. Army department of defense. They sent me to school, i went to Murray State University and i have two master degrees. I became a teacher in the guidance counselor. A joball of that, i got with the u. S. Department of commerce, which at that time was under the department of agriculture. Geographer and statistical worker. I worked with computers, when they first started using computers. I need you to host i need you to get to your point. Eoc cases, i did age and employment discrimination with the department. Are you cutting me off . Host know im still listening but we have to get to the point. I have diabetes, they 2500, andonths pay, when i had the case, they made me pay that back. Case and i lost one case. On hs commission i won but they mainly pay back the 2500 that they gave me for that month that i was very ill. Guest thank you pat, you certainly have a diverse Work Experience and i appreciate that you shared that with us, it looks like youve done a lot over your life. Its interesting to hear that you had two cases, one that you won, and one that you lost. If that happened recently and it bothered you, i suggest that you contact your member of congress to see they can address that if you feel it was done unfairly. We do appreciate you sharing your experience and im glad you were able to prevail in one of your cases. Coventry, rhode island, lynn. Go ahead. Caller i was wondering, since everyone is talking about this regarding retirement, why isnt anyone retiring or forced to retire in the government . Guest what do you mean . 65,er nobodys retiring at nobody has to retire in the , a lot of people are there and i dont even know what age. The Supreme Court is there forever. While the Supreme Court has a lifetime appointment, thats the way our constitution is structured. With regard to the government there are people who have worked for the government for a long many i can think of instances where experience is considered a bad thing, and people in my position, we have to earn our position whenever theres an election. If people dont like what were doing they can vote us out of office. I think experience is often a good thing and people should not be discriminated against or forced to leave a job they dont want to leave where they are excelling simple because of age discrimination. Danny, in oklahoma. Good morning. My question, or welder. T, im a im 49 now. Times, iveifferent tried to work for different , and they say they need more people to join the union 40 to 45you are about or so, trying to join the union, they kind of look at you like we appreciate it, we really want younger members. They might work with you, they , to be ae you few jobs full member its a little difficult to get through the door at a union hall. I was wondering if anyone else had that same experience . Guest thank you for raising that issue. Ive worked with lots of people in organized labor and have not known them at all to be interested in age discrimination or engaged in age discrimination , it would concern me if they were. I know a lot of organized labor, which has helped build the middle class in this country, they are concerned that people are aging out and retiring and they wont have enough people to do the work. So it would concern me greatly if you felt you were discriminated against. I would perhaps follow up and have a hearttoheart conversation if you were interested in doing the work because union jobs are good jobs, good pay, good benefits. I would not encourage you to let that go. Go back and talk with them, show that you have the skills that they are looking for. Thank you for your call. Host robert, in florida. Caller good morning america. Askedrienced at 57, i was to leave a corporation and what it would take for me to leave. I have an interesting grew through the ranks of a corporation through experience, i started out as an assembly man and i worked myself up to manufacturing engineer. In those days you could do that. But nowadays you have to have a College Degree to be an engineer. Of theser we had one young degree manufacturing people come into the plant and they destroyed thousands of dollars worth of equipment because they did not know what they were doing. Operationa cleaning seat and destroyed thousands of dollars worth of equipment. Longer progress because i dont have a college not getyou could promoted anymore. But in the old day you got promoted through the ranks. Colleges now big moneymaker colleges now a big moneymaker, without a degree you cant go anywhere. I think they should change the rules about running for president. I think they should lower it to 18, you have kids getting phds at 18, so i think the Younger Generation should be running for president , not these ulf arts fartse, not these old like me. Guest as somebody who serves on the education and Labor Committee and concerned about College Affordability, we are working on a College Affordability act, anybody who wants to go should be able to go without being deterred because of the cost. When i went to school, Community College and law school had a very manageable amount of debt. Thats not what we hear today. And hearing about getting a job without a College Degree, that is true in some fields, but there can be great jobs in the trades and we need to make sure that theres a path for everyone to get into a good paying job. We need to have a path for everyone which is why i support the great Workforce Development as well as making college affordable. With regards to younger people running for president , its an intriguing idea. Im impressed when i visit with students in high school and college about how engaged they are and how much they care. Thank you. In North Carolina. Caller thank you so much for cspan. I want you to discuss what at t has announced, they are laying off over 2000 workers, most of which are 53 to 60ish in that area. On can be 65 in a couple of months i am going to be 65 in a couple of months. Im concerned because these workers are being forced to train their replacements, if they dont train them they get fired on the spot, if they do train them they get their job until april of this year. No severance, no pension, no nothing. I thought trump was going to bring these wonderful jobs, but at t is doing this to baby boomers, younger baby boomers. Could hardlyted, i take it. Guest i dont know enough about the specifics of that situation, but in general if a company is laying off older people and hiring younger people with the same position in the same skills, thats a concern. As we were speaking about earlier, so many people live longer and want to stay in the workforce longer and if they are being laid off before they have retirement security, they will join the ranks of the longterm unemployed. Thats hard for them and their families. If age discrimination is taking place that needs to be addressed , and hopefully the legislation we passed tomorrow, hopefully, will help those facing age discrimination. But i dont know enough about that specific case. If its because of age discrimination at the big concern and thank you for sharing. Host you have to get up to the hill. You are meeting behind closed doors with the speaker. What if you been told what have you been told about this meeting with sending the articles of impeachment . Caucusits a democratic meeting to discuss the pass forward on moving the path forward on moving the articles of impeachment, and some of the managers will be announced. There are some rumors already but it will be confirmed in the meeting, i think. I will find out when i get there. So that we will know what will happen when the case moves over to the senate. The managers will likely be people with experience on the house side with impeachment proceedings in the committees that handle it. Host what have you been told about naming house managers . When that vote will happen and when the articles of impeachment are physically brought over . Guest thats what we will be learning today. I expect he could happen as early as this week that we will vote it could happen as early as this week. Host as early as tomorrow . Today . Guest possibly, i will know more later today. Thank you. Host did you agree with the speakers decision to hold onto the articles of impeachment for as long as she did . Guest yes. Absolutely. Since the house vote a lot more information has come out, she wants, and i want, and so many people across this country wants there to be a fair trial in the senate, not a perfunctory open and shut case. No one is above the law and the people in the United States deserve to see the evidence and hear the witnesses. Especially in light of everything that has come out since the vote, i agree that it was within her discretion and the right thing to do to see that we could make sure the trial will happen and happen fairly. Host congresswoman bonamici, thank you. We will take a break. When we come back we will talk which willa figueroa look at a class and we will look at a measure forcing the epa to regulate toxic chemicals in Drinking Water. Our campaign 2020 coverage continues, tonight, live at 8 00 on cspan2, President Trump is in milwaukee, wisconsin, at a keep America Great rally. Watch our coverage on cspan two, on demand at cspan. Org, or listen on the go with the free cspan radio app. The impeachment of President Trump, this week, the house will vote on impeachment managers, sending the articles of impeachment to the senate, follow the process live on cspan, on demand at cspan. Org impeachment and listen on the free cspan radio app. The house will be in order. For 40 years, cspan has been providing america unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the Supreme Court, and Public Policy events from washington, d. C. And around the country, so you can make up your own mind. Created by cable in 1979, cspan is brought to you by your local cable or satellite provider. Cspan, your unfiltered view of government. Washington journal continues. T Arianna Figaro at discuss as here to measure that passed. What does pfas mean . This is a class of about 5000 chemicals that have been used in consumer products, from teflon nonsquirt nonstick cookware to waterproof clothing. It was used in the military for Firefighting Foam, which is where a lot of this damages coming from on top of consumer products. Host how is it getting into the Drinking Water . Terms ofe military, in Firefighting Foam, the military used to use it in training and it runs off into groundwater. As for consumer products, if you throw your waterproof clothing away, it ends up in a landfill which leaks into groundwater. Just by everyday use. These chemicals travel, they dont stay put. Host why is the water not being treated for the chemical . Guest its tricky. It depends on if you have a , andte well, a public well we also have to test for water if it has these chemicals. Is a chemical thats not regulated by the epa. Theres not a set standard to regulate them, which is why lawmakers have been pushing legislation to have some type of regulation on cleaning water. Host that push was led by a representative on the floor, here she is talking about the urgency of the regulation. [video clip] clear, this isy an Urgent Health and environmental threats, period. Nobody can deny that it that. The number of contamination sites is growing at an alarming rate, including our military bases, almost 400 military installations in this country. This isd in the 1940s, a forever chemical, its in the blood of more than 97 of americans. It poses potential health risks, we know it. The epa has known the risk for decades, and allowed his contamination to spread. The house is not an order mr. Speaker. [video clip] the gentleman will suspend and be in order. The gentlelady is recognized. Take care ofll not this problem conga Congress Needs to act. The time is now to act on pfas. We have got to do it together the American People count on us figueroa, where in the country is the water contaminated with pfas chemicals. Host really everywhere guest really, everywhere. They are actively testing for it, and essentially, where they are testing for it, they are finding it. It is not just in the u. S. , you find the chemicals in europe, in other countries. Come for testing, he are most likely going to find it especially if you are in a military base that did use pfas Firefighting Foam. You is it in your body if are only drinking the water in other words, if you are shoring with it using it for your wash, etc. Is it still getting to your body . Guest there have been a few daddies i have come across that it has been found to dust contamination through your skin, but if you are drinking it, you would have to get your blood tested to see if you have a chemical. But it has been found in about 99 of americans. Host Drinking Water . Guest pfas contamination. In terms of Drinking Water, the Environmental Working Group has done studies and estimated that about more than 100 million americans are Drinking Water contaminated with pfas. Host what if you while you water . Guest these are forever chemicals. They are very hard to destroy. Re is actually issues with they are not sure if incinerating it can destroy them, because they are so durable. They were made to last forever. Host lets get to calls. Harold in shona, california, independent. Good morning. Caller good morning. There is not enough time to say what i have to say, but ammonia is the worst thing they are putting in the water on purpose to take the bacteria out of the water. It kills the oxygen in the water. The only way it does not leave the water it does go into your bodies, like she said, like the other chemicals. It does not remove anything. We have got to get it out of our water. It is killing our coral reefs. They put it in the sewage water, they run that into the ocean. The only way a money of these the water is to put it in the ground and it turns into nitrates and the only way a ammonia the only way that onia leaves the water is if you put it into the ground and it turns into nitrates. It is killing the good bacteria that you need to leave. Nitrates,ing into plugging our arteries, and also could be causing alzheimers. I am just a self educated person, and i did this Research Since 1998, since they started putting ammonia in the water. When we were mandated to do it. Host ok. Ariana figueroa, when this law is passed in the house, if it were to be signed by the president , what would it have the e. P. A. Do with these chemicals . Guest what it once the e. P. A. To do is set a Drinking Water standard for two of the most studied pfas, and those are the pfos. Nd currently, the e. P. A. Has guidelines for it, but they are nonbinding, so that pushed lawmakers in the house. However, Senate Republicans and other leaders have said they do not plan to take up the package they are saying it is too broad. The president himself has issued a statement that if it does come to his desk, he will veto it. Host by putting that in place for Drinking Water, how would you stop chemicals . Guest they are still being used. Host what you need an all out ban to prevent them from getting into Drinking Water . Guest right, which is the issue. Obviously, it is in our everyday life. That is the argument from lawmakers, that you cannot have ban on chemicals, they are used in medical devices, in airplanes and in our take up out boxes. Host in truth or consequences, a democratic caller. Caller this is oldschool warfare. They used to assault back in the old days. This has been going on a long time. s, not onlyup bpa have the poison the Drinking Water, but the plastics are affecting the childrens gonads, their Sexual Development and their brains. So this is nothing new. I think they are allowing it to happen to the people. It is no different than the poisoning of the food supply. Host ok. We will go to william in texas, republican color. Caller good morning republican caller. Caller good morning. I wanted to talk about two bills we have been keeping track of. Ariana figueroa, what medical conditions are linked to pfas chemicals . Guest a study that was done a few years ago that tested the blood of about 70,000 residents who were in litigation with one of the companies, dupont, a panel had found that based off of their blood, there was a probable link to six diseases. Some of those included high cholesterol, thyroid issues, kidney cancer, and testicular cancer among a few others. ,ost how is this being studied and how extensively is it being studied . Guest it is being studied in different areas. People are looking researchers are looking at links between mothers and their unborn children, on how pfas can be passed from mother to child. What otherstudying Health Impacts that you might have from these chemicals. Mightwers might be know about this issue. It might sound familiar, after Mark Ruffalos movie, dark water. Be justified in september, this is what he had to tell them. [video clip] we have not stopped the use of pfas in Firefighting Foam nor have we cleaned up legacy pfas pollution. This is decades. Are still no legal requirement to filter pfas from top water, so more than 100 million americans today are likely Drinking Water contaminated with pfas. Nor is there any legal requirement to cleanup the most contaminated sites. Paying for this failure to act . It is the people. Sa whoseke husband died from liver cancerndy, after a nearby tannery poisoned the Drinking Water. People like a guest here today, is mother, worked at duponts teflon line which was pregnant with him, and he was born with numerous birth defects. These are real people, guys. Its real people, mr. Chairman. People who live in the frontline communities. Real people who are paying the price in the form of Higher Health care costs, and higher water bills. These chemicals dont respect elliptical boundaries, which i am so glad we can understand that dont respect elliptical boundaries these chemicals dont respect political boundaries. They are found in me. They are found in my kids. They are found in everyone of you. So who should pay . The companies. The companies that made billions upon billions of dollars producing chemicals they do were building up in our blood, and of the new they were toxic and they knew they were toxic, but they field to tell everyone, failed to tell their workers, their neighbors, their regulators, which keeps us from making a choice about how we will live our lives. These companies are making us sick, mr. Chairman, and we are paying. We are paying to have to heal ourselves. Arianna, are these companies lobbying congress not to act . Guest they have definitely ramped up their lobbying efforts on legislation that has to deal with whether it is regulating chemicals or working to ban them. They have definitely ramped up their lobbying. But in terms of specific things they are lobbying for, but has not been disclosed. Host any lawsuits against these companies . Guest lots. There are dozens from classaction suits to farmers suing because their livestock has been contaminated with the chemicals. It is all over. Host who are these companies . Dupont, 3m, and another one which is a spinoff of dupont. Host in kingsbury, texas, democratic caller. Caller hi, i wanted to ask you guess the question. Now nking water has its contaminant level for the maximum it has exceeded the maximum level. It says some people who drink water containing bromide in excess of the maximum could have a risk of getting cancer. I know youre talking about some chemical, if have never heard of the chemically are talking about. Regulations have been so lax under trump. They have dropped many regulations and it is getting worse and worse. This is the second letter in a year that i have gotten from my Water Company talking about contaminants. I guess they expect us to just go out and buy our water. Can you tell me what this chemical is please . Guest unfortunately, i am not bromate. With fro but i can talk about p fast in your water. I was curious, i missed where she was from. Just curious if it was one of the states that was wrapping up had tried to set their own Drinking Water standards. Host she is from texas. Guest ok, so no. I am sure there are bases where they were conducting their own testing. Host we heard from congresswoman debbie dingell. Debate on the floor included arguments against broad regulatory action. This comes from republican congressman james komar. [video clip] it is important to remember that the reason pfas substances became so predominantly used is they provided strength and resilience in a broad range of applications from nonstick cookware to Firefighting Foam that saves lives. Why does a medical Technology Industry care about proposed pfas . S related to because the medical devices made by these companies for over 50 years have been made with all the mars, if you fast made polymers, if you fast compound. May have kept patients alive and healthy. As i have told you before, mr. Chairman, i am committed to working with my colleagues on solutions that will contain any existing damage from legacy pfas substances and reduce the risk for future harm. But i also hope that we as a body can make responsible evidencebased, science driven decisions. Is important to note that nearly 5000 chemical compounds make up the pfas family. 5000 chemical compounds. These compounds have different structures and characteristics, which ms. Also have varying health and environmental impacts. Research has only been done on a small number of these compounds, so we should be careful about taking any sweeping actions that could have the unintended consequence of negatively impacting a broad segment of the economy, including public entities like hospitals and airports. Host like in West Virginia, go ahead. Caller i grow up in the ohio valley, and coal mining and stripmining killed workers and factory workers back in the 60s. I graduated in 90ss degree from high school then went into the military for six years. It was so bad that you could see the ohio river, between West Virginia high, it was brown. I come back out of the service after six years. And it was about the same. I noticed a bit of improvement over the years. Then it started getting better. And it took us 55 years to get it cleaned up. Now, we are right back into the same position over the past three years. Environmental regulations have been removed. Fracking is taking place. All the toxins are either dumps in the creeks or the river, or chicken to where the strip mines are and dumped there then of a flow into the water. We are back to the same situation that took us 55 years to fight for and clean up the area. What people need to worry about more than anything, the air, the water, the animals and the earth is what we were put here for. Thank you. Host Ariana Figueroa describe regulations of a Drinking Water in this country. Are they vigorous . Are there a lot of them . What does the government do . Who has authority over regulating Drinking Water, is it state and local government or the federal government . Guest it depends. States can set their own limits. Like new jersey and has already set a regulation for pfo s and pfas limits. The e. P. A. Has guidance. They would set a federal level, but they are in the process of doing that, and regulations can take up to a decade to set. That is the course of action they are on. Host harry is next our last caller in georgia. Good morning. Caller good morning. I have grown up through my work life and i have worked with these resins my whole life. Products really, dupont is who makes them. Just like another caller said, there are thousands of them by now, thousands of these the thing that is criminal is that our government does not. They are aware of it, but they dont let us know about it as citizens. Is, itis something that touches everyone and there are going to be people who have bad reactions to it. But it is just like teflon. You eat it right out of your frying pan. It is almost ubiquitous. It is everywhere. The one thing that Everyone Needs to remember is, who in the government is responsible for this . Like the last guy said, it took 50 years to start cleaning up a lot of this mess. And what does it take, three years of donald trump to get us right back in the soup again. Host ok, harry. Ariana figueroa, what are you watching next on this story of pfas . Guest mostly just checking to see where it is going now. With impeachment, i am sure things are on hold. A lot ofi said, environmental groups are still this. G for lawmakers are not walking with from this issue. Host you can follow Ariana Figueroas reported a few budget. Net. Ews when we come back, what a fair senate trial looks like on impeachment. There are the numbers on your screen. Start dialing in. We will be right back. The impeachment of President Trump. This week the house will vote on impeachment managers, sending the articles of impeachment to the senate. Follow it live on cspan, on demand on cspan. Org impeachment, and listen on the free cspan radio app. Our campaign 2020 coverage continues. Tonight live at 8 00 p. M. Eastern on cspan two, President Trump is in milwaukee, wisconsin, at a keep America Great rally. Watch our coverage on cspan2, on demand at cspan. Org, or listen on the go on the free cspan radio app. [gavel bangs] order. House will be in for 40 years, cspan has been providing america filtered coverage of congress, the white court, andsupreme Public Policy events from washington, d. C. And around the country so you can make up your own mind. Created by cable in a 1979, cspan is brought to you by your local cable or satellite provider. Cspan, your unfiltered view of government. Washington journal continues. Host we are back with the conversation we started with this morning. What does a fair trial in the senate look like for the impeachment case against President Trump . Presumably, House Democrats our meeting behind closed doors. The speaker called the meeting for 9 00 a. M. Eastern time this morning to discuss the next steps, naming of the house managers, a vote on the floor to approve the house managers, then those people tapped by the speaker will walk over the articles of impeachment to the senate. Here is Senate Minority leader Chuck Schumer on the floor yesterday talking about what he would like the trial to look like. Sen. Schumer a fair trial is one that considers all the facts and gives the senators all the information that they need to make an informed decision. That means relevant witnesses. That means relevant documents. That means the truth. Without these things, the senate trial become a farce. Nationally televised meeting of the mock trial club. There is a reason that with one exception, every impeachment trial of any official in the history of the United States has featured witnesses. That one exception was the trial of a fellow senator in the 18th century. And the question of his impeachment was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds before the issue of witnesses could ever come up. Every other trial had witnesses. So when leader mcconnell talks about the president , he is talking about witnesses, plain and simple. 4 the democratic request for witnesses and three specific sets of relevant documents is very much in line with our history. We dont know what those witnesses will say, we dont know what the documents will reveal. That could help the president s case or they could hurt it. Regardless of the consequences for the president , democrats are on a quest for the truth. Host senator schumer yesterday. He also tweeted out that republicans are like a broken magic eight ball that keeps saying, later, when it comes to witnesses. Democrats will try to force votes on witnesses and documents in the senate trial. Senate democrats putting this compilation video out on twitter yesterday, with republicans back in 1999 mccune there argument for witnesses and evidence. [video clip] in every trial there has ever been witnesses were called,. It is not unusual to have a witness in a trial. It will only be result by a fair and sober search for the truth. When you had a witness, who was there, who was engaged in it . Who was in the middle of it, telling you about what they were doing and why . There is a difference between getting the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. It is not unusual to have a witness in an impeachment trial. We dont get to call meaningful witnesses, direct witnesses to the point, it is that you are basically changing impeachment. Host argument by Senate Democrats. However, republicans, led by senate Majority Leader Mitch Mcconnell are saying this on the senate floor. [video clip] the senate was never going to recommit ourselves to doing the prosecutors homework for them, and we were never going to allow the house to dictate proceedings to senators. House democrats have already done enough damage to the unity,nt, to national and to our institutions of government. The senate will not be sucked. This precedentbreaking ourill fulfill constitutional duty. We will honor the founders created this body, to ensure our institutions and our republic can rise above shortterm factional fever. The house has done enough damage. The senate is ready to fulfill our duty. Host the majority leader arguing precedent is needed here. Senator marco rubio, republican thoserida tweeting out, claiming the g. O. P. Will hold trial without witnesses is lying. We are using the same rules used in the clinton trial. During the initial argument. , we will only consider testimony of witnesses used in the house. After the initial phase, the senate can hear additional witnesses if needed. Take a look at the senate rules for that 1999 clinton impeachment. The house impeachment managers and the president s defense team at the time each got money for hours to make their case. Following that, senators were allowed to question them for 16 hours. Then they held a vote to dismiss the case. If it was not dismiss, which it wasnt, than they would want to subpoena witnesses, and each side presented evidence. It also said that the rules said senators would deliver it behind did,d doors, which they then hold a final vote in public on each article of impeachment. We are asking you, what do you think a fair senate trial looks like . Lets go to logan in ohio on the republican line. What do you think. Caller a fair trial would be if both sides speak. t just let one side dossiers about the other just because they dont like them. Also, have all the evidence. Dont just say he is abusing power without evidence. I dont think that is fair for the president , just because you hate him, doesnt mean you truth. Censor the just because you dont like one person. That is not fair. Host sandra in tennessee, independent. What do you think. . This wholeeel that Senate Hearing will be predetermined because since he ismcconnell claims commander in chief, him and lindsey graham, to put ideas ear. The president reggis first of all, abuse of power, where the Trump Administration refused to turn over documents, refused to testify, using his power to deny discovery, which is for all the people involved to testify. Using his executive privilege. It is predetermined. Mitch mcconnell helping and assisting the white house, to me, is not fair. That thing is, we were denied discovery. Donald trump should be impeached just for what he did with soleimani, just for what he did with over 1200 lies and misinformation, causing hostility to the country, divided all americans, giving halftruths. The man is incompetent. He is a danger to this country, the base better wake up cause i feel bad for them. They are misinformed, uninformed, and of the facts lie. You have to have complete discovery, which the democrats were denied. Host a reminder to you and others you have to turn down the television. Just listen and talk through your phone. Here is gary from the louisiana, sending us a text message saying Senate Democrats are in a hurry to convict the president before the election, they dont want the truth. It is absurd that they think mcconnell will not be fair. Look at the house, they voted guilty before the socalled inquiry. And other text from tom in new york a fair trial would include witnesses and documents. This should be a search of the truth. The president cannot be permitted to use executive privilege as a blanket denial for testimony and documents. A headline from the hill newspaper says, the public citizen, a watchdog here in washington, d. C. Has requested the Ethics Committee look into senate Majority Leader Mitch Mcconnells comments over impeachment, saying he would work with the white house and that hes not an impartial juror. Surely ino maryland lets go to sh irley in maryland. Caller if i was pelosi, i would hold out even longer on turning those articles over because the longer she. To those articles the better chance because the longer she holds onto those articles the better chance we have for the truth to come out. Slowly but surely, different truths have been coming out. The fact that she is going to turn them over, as far as a fair trial, theyre definitely should be witnesses on both sides. That is the only fair thing to do if i was her. It is a cover up if they are not allowed. Her statement saying that donald trump will go down in history as impeached for the rest of his life as well as impeached by a cover up. Also, with regards to the whistleblower, i do not believe that whistleblower should have to testify. He is protected. What makes donald and the amanda and feel that they can change that what makes donald trump and the administration feel that they can change that was the blowers are not protected . Host ok. On witnesses, there are 4 republican senators who have said they are open to voting to have witnesses come to the senate. Lisa murkowski of alaska, Lamar Alexander, senator collins of maine, and mitt romney of utah. Here is a quote. Mitt romney said they would like to hear from witnesses such as mr. Bolton. On friday, senator Susan Collins said she was reaching out to a small group of republicans to reach an agreement that would allow witnesses to testify. On monday, senator Lamar Alexander indicating he might be one of the republicans willing to join democrats in voting for fresh evidence and testimony. So folks are watching those 4 republicans. Mitt romney has said he wants to follow the outline of the 1999 clinton impeachment, to vote on whether to call more witnesses after there are opening arguments, which could be as early as next week. Now, House Democrats behind closed doors this morning, the speaker called a 9 00 a. M. Meeting to discuss house managers and the timeline Going Forward. The reporter who covers capitol hill for cnn tweeting out, house judiciary chairman Jerrold Nadler told me i would expect to be named house manager. We learned from suzanne von bonamici, our guests earlier, that she thinks that they will be told the house managers are doing this man 00 meeting during this man 00 a. M. Meeting. Hi, kelly. Caller hi. To me, the democrats did not prove anything to have articles of impeachment to begin with so i dont think that should have gone through. It should have really ended there as far as the senate trial. I think it should be a dismissal theyot only that, i think impeachment articles against President Trump should have been erased so it would not have a black mark on his presidency. Host kelly. Here is a headline from cnn. The white house wants the senate trial rules to include their ability to dismiss these articles of impeachment against the president. The Washington Post says that any senator could call up a motion to dismiss, they just have to do so in writing. However, here is the front page of the Washington Post this morning quoting a member of the senate, roy blunt of missouri, saying, i dont think there is an interest on our side of dismissing. Certainly, there are not 51 votes for a motion to dismiss. Your reaction. Caller i think they ought to dismiss it. Just like i said, there was no proof through congress that he should be impeached. All they brought forward worst just he said she said he said, she said. That is where the articles were drafted. Nothing was proven. Nothing. It should have been dropped there. Host carol. Democratic color. Caller hi,. I dont know what that guy was talking about. Witness testimony, what evidence . Host do you want to see more witnesses in the senate trial . Caller host all right, we will go to miles in alaska. Caller good morning. It is truly unfortunate that republicans in this nation are not going on a level Playing Field right now, in that to enter a trial without witnesses, with the White House Administration that has been obstinate since the mueller trial, which brought up so much information. Callers have been saying, it is over 70,000 documents that have not been turned over. That haswhite house been a barrier from the beginning, going into an impeachment trial where there are no witnesses, it is hard to explain to the young folks how this trial could be fair. , who shouldles testify for the administration in the senate trial . Caller for the republicans, we have 4 republicans. I am saying we i like to think we are one nation i think republicans should be encouraging every republican to hand over the documents first. Have every one of the witnesses that was subpoenaed in Congress Come and testify in the trial. Everything that they asked for in before the senate trial, they should give up in the trial. Every witness and every document they asked for should be presented in this next trial. Host ok. Quinnipiac university is out with a new poll. They asked several questions and impeachment and found that those surveyed, 51 said they approved of the houseboat to impeach, while 46 disapproved. 48 do not want the senate to to convict. 46 said they should. Saidf those surveyed former National Security adviser john bolton should testify. 48 said they disapproved of the speaker holding the articles of impeachment. Former secretary of state john bolton said he would be willing to testify. Saidpeaker also republicans should later consider whether or not to call witnesses. Here is what he said. Let us consider what leader mcconnell is suggesting when he claims to be open to witnesses at a later date. What does he mean when he says that . Trial, the Clinton Senate waited three weeks into the trial to confront the issue of witnesses. Once they decided on three witnesses, with the support of several Senate Republicans here today, including leader mcconnell, it took time for the witnesses to be deposed, and for the senate to consider what they had submitted. Ultimately, the clinton trial run for two more weeks. I want my fellow republican senators to ask themselves, after the summit concludes the part of the trial that leader mcconnell wants to get through, do you think he really wants to extend the trial by several weeks . Leader mcconnell has gone on record and said he wants the two weeksto span total. He has said, after we heard the arguments, we ought to vote and move on. Are we to believe that leader mcconnell, after two weeks are up, really has an open mind of extending the trial a few more weeks . Host we are asking, what he think a fair senator looks like . From alaska, democratic . Caller seems like it would be nice if all republicans were on the same page as these other 4 in wanted to hear witnesses. If we dont get witnesses, at least let us get the documents. Let us see what is going on. Let us see what the timeline is. Let us at of mice everything itemizemize let us everything. Host ok. Turned out the television. Host next caller, independent. Caller i believe a fair trial is going back to the simple basics in understanding that the request from donald trump was to have people to testify. Now he has an opportunity to do that. It seems like Mitch Mcconnell has already made it pretty determined that they are going to acquit him. I am thinking, if the president is asking for people to testify, bolton, who has now said he would, let them testify and let the American People make their decision. Right now people are taking things in their own selfinterest and making it difficult to. The philosophy around two plus two equals four. People need to understand what a fair trial is. This is not a trial dealing with a natural trial, this is a trial dealing with impeachment. Let the witnesses come out and testify and they will let the american and then let the American People make the best decision. Host ok. Heaven forning from the from the New York Times, Speaker Pelosi telling democrats in private caucus, that the resolution to a point managers will be on the floor tomorrow, wednesday. That is the latest from the meeting happening on capitol hill this morning behind closed doors. The speaker of the house meeting with democrats to talk about who the house managers are, we understand, when they will be appointed sounds like it could happen today. They will be voted on tomorrow then we will see when the house managers bring over the articles of impeachment to the senate, which would trigger the beginning of the trial that. In pennsylvania, republican. Caller good morning. I think anything would be a fair trial compared to what happened in congress. Host you mean in the house . Caller yes. I would like to know what the withs he is towards iran the Democratic Party and the Obama Administration doesnt have anything to do with Valerie Jarrett and her parents being from iran . Host we will go to eugene, Staten Island new york, republican. Caller i would like the senate to have the same rules a house did. When nadler acted like a little judge and jury, the nine fellow congressman denying little congressman to speak, telling them they were out of order and give them no rights whatsoever. Lets remember, the democrats are still having their koolaid effect from hillary not winning. Host all right. Reader from new jersey, democratic caller rita. Caller good morning. I believe that in order for us to have a fair trial in the impeachment hearing, Mitch Mcconnell should be removed he publicly stated on national that his position is the same position as Donald Trumps, the white house. He is just not eligible to run it, you know . Me even more, i saw as reported on msnbc last night, and cnn, is that russia has hacked the resume a Burisma Oil Company to look for on joe biden to look dirt on joe biden. The same thing that happened with Hillary Clinton. I know in my heart that donald trump knows about it. Also, Mitch Mcconnell should be recused because he accepted money from russia to build a steel mill in the state of kentucky. Russia owns real estate now in kentucky, and they are soliciting red states to build steel mills in their states, in the red states. This is crazy. He is given all the shipping context of her family as the transportation secretary. Trump is blackmailing this man. There isckmailing no way Mitch Mcconnell can be impartial. A fair trialys includes the recusal of the Senate Majority leader. Here he is talking about the speakers decision not to send over immediately the articles of impeachment. [video clip] sen. Mcconnell on friday, Speaker Pelosi signaled she would finally went down her blockade of a fair and timely impeachment trial. A has certainly been revealing to see House Democrats first claim impeachment was so urgent, so argent, that they could not wait to fill out the facts on record, and then subsequently delayed for weeks delay it for weeks. I am glad the speaker realized she never had any leverage in the first place to dictate Senate Procedure to senators, and is giving in to bipartisan pressure to move forward. Proceedings,enate this strange gambit in terms of influencing Senate Proceedings this strange gambit has achieved absolutely nothing, but it has produced one unintended side effect the speakers efforts to free commit the senate to carry on an investigation with which her own house lost patience conceded that the house case is rushed, week and incomplete. Host Mitch Mcconnell on the floor yesterday arguing against the articles of impeachment. Marshall in virginia, republican. What do you think a fair trial looks like . Caller a fair trial would be similar to what we have in the country everyday. The house of representatives worked to present evidence claiming the president was being impeached for two different articles. They had the opportunity to call any witness they so chose. They had the authority to subpoena witnesses. They have the authority to go to court to get any information they needed. Once they had completed that investigation, they sent their articles over to the senate and then in everyday life, it is just like the jury, the senate has the duty to look through and which articles have the support and the facts to be charged with. If they find there is not sufficient evidence, it is their duty to dismiss. It is no different than any other trial in any other court, any other time, it is just the fact that they keep trying the president two times, once in the house of representatives and and once senate in the senate. Host we are learning from cnn reporter confirming the New York Times reporting as well that pelosi suggested to the carl dix that the vote to name the managers will be tomorrow and the transmittal of the articles will be tomorrow. She has not named the managers yet. Mark in saint peters, missouri, democratic column. Caller i just what you to know, i have been a lifelong democrat. I am recently retired. I have been watching the impeachment trial and everything. As i watch it, i am just utterly disgusted. I really think that the senate should vote to dismiss this. Mpeachment i watched the whole thing and i just cannot believe it. One of the callers said that senator mcconnell and the ,epublicans are not impartial and they should be ousted or whatever. If you truly think the democratic president ial candidates are not going to be impartial, i think everybody has pretty much lost their mind. Another thing is that they want to call witnesses in the senate trial. However, the democrats had that ability in the house when they were going through the articles of impeachment, and they chose not to do it. Wanting they are senate to basically do their job. It is unbelievable. I have just watched my party the Democratic Party, go after this president nonstop since the well, since the day he was elected. I do not agree with what donald ,rump says, that tweets however, there is a way we can remove him from office, and that is coming up in the 2020 election when we go to vote. I am just disgusted with my Democratic Party. Point. Ark we heard your our cspan capitol hill producer tweeting out information here the house will vote tomorrow on appointing house impeachment managers and officially sending the articles to the senate. The house managers will not the announced today, according to sources inside the caucus meeting. Independent. Ron, hi, ron, what do you think the senate trial should look like . Caller there is really no way. It is a political process and it. S personal on both sides the house is partisan democratically, the senate is partisan republican. So if you expect a fair trial, a fair impeachment in the house, you should expect it to go democratic. If you expect a trial in the senate, you should expect it to go republican. There is no way it can be fair. It is a partisan political process to start with. Host ok. Harvey in dallas, texas. Republican. Caller thank you for taking my call. In order not to be redundant, i agree with the past two callers, who said that in the case of a fair trial, there are rules already in place. What i am more concerned about is the loss of trust people have in the government. Even the format for your program. Once you mentioned a congressmans name, the next question is, what his his Party Affiliation and the walls go up at that point, of distrust. If it is a democrat, he cannot be trusted. If it is republican, he cant be trusted. So until we get to honest debates and return to civility, we are in a declining process. Host ok. Yvnka, south dakota onne, south dakota. Caller good morning. Dakota,ling from south and i feel that the senate trial should be fair because nobody is above the law. To listen and too talk through the phone. Turned on the television, please. Caller good morning, washington journal. From southyvonne dakota, and i believe the senate trial should be fair because nobody is above the law. We vote here, republicans and democrats. Will look up to our senators, who have been voting the other way. I am an american, and there are many of us watching the impeachment hearings for many we get a lot of impeachable things we have heard. The senate should not be afraid to carry on what it started, to ensure a fair senate trial. Host so what does that look like . Caller it looks like Mitch Mcconnell and lindsey graham, and a few of them are calling for a very biased decision without saying that they will not impeach the current president , and that mcconnell would dismiss was the right word. Any kind of issue regulations discussed from the democratic side regarding the current president. Host all right. Michael in madison, wisconsin, independent. Say if i just wanted to a democrat was doing the same thing trump did i believe they would impeach. [indiscernible] what tohe constitution be impeached over. Document that is all i really have to say about that. Host we will go to have her hill, massachusetts. Dennis, republican. Caller good morning. I would just like to say that i think the house impeachment was very unfair. I dont understand why it went from the Judiciary Committee to hiff heads. Ee that sc i think that was very unfair. I believe the whistleblower should be testify. I understand there is an open investigation against the inspector general. I also think there should be term limits. These people have been in office for too long. There have been some out there from the 1990s. That there to note was a bipartisan vote against the impeachment, the only bipartisan vote that ever occurred. Thank you. Host ok. A text this morning from jeff in Fort Lauderdale saying, as an independent voter, i find partisan politics predictable, illogical and foolish on both sides. Can the chief justice decide if and what witnesses can and will testify . A secret foot could remove most of the political considerations, resulting in a more honest vote a secret vote could remove most of the political considerations, resulting in a more honest vote, allowing members to vote their mind and heart rather than their party. Host next caller. Caller the reason i was calling is it seems that folks are widely misunderstanding the setup of impeachment. Specifically the house would be analogous to the grand jury. Areefore, the callers that repeatedly saying that the house missed their opportunity to call witnesses misunderstand as a procedural matter how impeachment was designed. The trial, just as a trial occurs in a federal or local system, contemplates that you will have an adversarial process. The initial stage, when you are doing with the house, does not. So the folks that are saying that the House Democrats missed their opportunity to call witnesses misunderstand, they completely are overlooking the fact that the constitution contemplates that an adversarial trial process will involve witnesses from both sides and the gathering of evidence for both sides. Host what do you mean by both sides the president being accused and his defenders or the house on the senate . Caller right. I mean both parties. Just as an adversarial trial process would allow the prosecution and the defense to call witnesses, to gather factual evidence, documentary and oral testimony, that is what the constitution contemplates. Folks dont understand that a grand jury proceeding is typically onesided. It is to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to move forward. It is analogous to an indictment. That is just to see if theres a baseline of evidence. Folks i think need to understand you know, this highlights a bigger problem here, that people do not understand the fundamentals of civics in our system, not only the judiciary, but also looking at the constitution. That is extremely problematic. This is really not a partisan issue, this is a civics issue. Host so what do you think of republicans say lets use the 1999 Clinton Senate trial as precedent here with the for howg as an outline they would conduct the senate trial against President Trump . What do you make of that . Inler the issue is that that instance, they were allowed to gather testimony and by day, i mean they had an independent counsel. Mr. Starr was gathering factual evidence for a long time. So it is not analogous in this case. There has to be a means for factfinding to occur, and in this case, because that didnt occur in the house, it primarily occurred by way of gathering documentary evidence, there needs to be a mechanism so witnesses can be called in a forum. In this case, that would be the senate. And it would be both sides, meaning both parties, in this case, President Trump and the democrats would be able to call witnesses, factual witnesses and together documentary evidence. That is a procedural matter that people need to understand irrespective of their views on the merits. Host got it. All in North Carolina texting the use of precedent restricts the house in the senate. Impeachment is very rare and the constitutional guidelines were made in such a way that would give congress the flexibility to address the process. Sadly, our congress is not willing at this time to implement a fair trial for this particular impeachment. The house will be gaveling in every minute here for todays legislative session. Lets try to get in joanne in harvey, illinois, democratic caller. Caller just calling in to say good morning. The last caller was absolutely correct. But just to break it down in ae terms, of fair trial fair trial in any other case would be witnesses and evidence. In the house, that was blocked donald trump, and when it goes to the senate, there should be a remedy for that by having the fair trial with evidence and witnesses. Any other method would not be fair. Woulde American People not have evidence to see whether donald trump was guilty or not. I absolutely believe he is guilty, but we cannot make that decision without seeing all of the evidence. Host ok. All right, joanne. That does it for todays washington journal. As i said, the house is about to gavel in for the legislative session. We would bring them in here now. Gavel to gavel coverage here on cspan