line, everybody on the block can get on the phone. what is different is that everything is louder in terms of how you reach and the speed of the communication. >> for the full schedule, go to booktv.org. next, remarks from california attorney general javier basera, about lawsuits filed on behalf of immigration and environment. he discussed constitutionality and pregnancy counseling to inform people about state abortion services. held by the national press club, this is an hour. all right, hello, everybody, i guess we'll get started. good morning, welcome to the national press club and welcome to everybody who is watching on line and on c-span. i'm chris mcgarren, a reporter at "the los angeles times." and here with the california attorney general, xavier bassera, many in washington are familiar with him. he served 12 terms, a member of the ways and means committee and the highest ranking member in congress. up to a few weeks ago, i was based there and familiar with his work in california. governor jerry brown appointed him as attorney general after his predecessor, kamala, was elected to congress. he is running next year as the term for attorney general, a stepping stone for higher office and navigating important issues in the state. one out of eight americans lives in california. and the state's democratic leadership is dedicated to opposing president trump. hardly a day goes by without news of another legal action from his office, he is looking into regulating ceiling fans, on immigration he sued over the construction of trump's border wall and to protect dreamers from possible deportation. today he will touch on a variety of topics, his experience in california and his plans to tackle the trump administration. please turn off or silence your cell phones. our guest is going to say a few words and then take questions from the audience for about 30 minutes or so. if you watch on line you can submit your questions on line. just e-mail your questions to questions at press.org. so we'll work them into the program. without further ado, the california attorney general. thank you for joining us. >> chris, thank you very much. jamie horowitz, thank you with all the folks at the national press club. appreciate my having a chance to be with you today. i recognize a number of faces, former staffers and former colleagues in crime on the press side who i had a chance to work with a bit, so it's great to see you all. i know it's nice to say it's good to be back, but you get used to california weather and politics and it's nice to be back in california full-time. i do enjoy visiting washington, d.c. i'm going to try to keep my remarks brief, you will probably have questions for me, it's nice to be here to get to talk to you about federal issues even though i am a state attorney general. because so much of the work that i'm doing these days in california pertains to the work that is going on right now in washington, d.c. at the federal level. i think it's important because not everybody here used to work for me or is a former press person who i used to speak to. to give you a bit of background on who i am, as chris mentioned governor brown, jerry brown, a little bit more than a year ago nominated me to fill the vacancy by kamala harris, who was nominated to the u.s. senate, joined by diana feinstein. i have been on pretty much every roller coaster that i have had a chance to visit and this has been an extraordinary ride. i hope to get into some of that. what is important as my new experience as the new ag, what i find is that my 24 years in congress has informed immensely the work that i'm doing as the state attorney general as the largest and most potent state in the nation. it's important to understand what is going on in washington, d.c., and sometimes we can't make sense of what is going on in washington, d.c., because it not only informs what we're doing throughout the state and other states in the nation but will impact on a daily basis the people who live in california throughout. it is great to have 24 years of experience running through my veins as i try to make crucial decisions for the people of the state of california. it's also important perhaps to mention my route to become the attorney general was not the most conventional. i believe because of my 24 years in congress, two years before that in the state legislature, and previous to that four years serving in the very office i now run as a deputy attorney general that all of those things combined i believe gave governor brown a sense that perhaps this is the right time and the right place to have someone who brought together a number of very interesting qualities to the position. but i hope that governor jerry brown took into account that i'm the first in my family that had a chance to go to college. and i understand the importance of students who try to go to college and then get stuck with student loans that they can't pay because the for-profit university they attended negotiation undgoes under or never provided them with the material it was written on, i'm the son of immigrants. and recognize so much of what impacts the state of california impacts the families who came to this country and the state of california very recently. and perhaps because i'm the son of immigrants who has worked in congress for 24 years on immigration, as the person who convened, was principally responsible for working on the immigration, and working through 2013, had a lot of experience dealing with the law and policy on immigration but also personally lived his life as the son of immigrants. or perhaps it's because governor brown knew that i probably would not have a mother today were it not for the fact that my parents had health insurance, because my father was a laborer, he had only gone through the sixth grade but was a union worker, and because of that he was able to have health insurance coverage. and as a result of that, because my mother was hemorrhaging due to the loss of a pregnancy, was able to go to the doctor. i do know that today my mother is still alive. perhaps he understood that when i was in congress i was one of the people who worked the ha hardest on the affordable care act. and served for the democratic leadership. as a result of that perhaps he thought there was someone who would stand up and fight those efforts that would occur to try to steal from people the health insurance that they had gained under the affordable care act, and perhaps explains why we're so ready to defend it in court, and filing a case in the existing what was the house versus price, now it changed again, but still is a case before the courts. also we were within hours of the trump administration submitting their executive order that would deny women under the affordable care act access to birth control coverage. ready within hours to file a case against the trump administration's actions claiming that it violated the law. and so i hope that the governor in california believes he made the right decision in moving towards somebody who had the right decision, not because it's was somebody who worked in congress for 24 years, but because he grew up, the first in his family to go to college, someone who understood from a labor household the importance of having health insurance benefits, the work we do in the state. california is as forward moving as you can get. we are progressive because we believe in moving forward, not going backwards, and we intend to protect the 40 million great people in our state. what i find interesting, my job as attorney general and the enforcement officer for our great state has always required me to be ready to uphold the rule of law. to make sure the 40 million people in our state believe that not only they must follow the law but everybody up and down the state, regardless of their status and rank must follow the law. it's difficult to explain sometimes to 40 million people sometimes the most forceful actions i must take to defend the rule of law are against the very ones in the white house who are supposed to be helping us enforce the rule of law. perhaps what is most disturbing in trying to enforce the rule of law is to find how unwilling the adversarial party is unwilling to give us the information about why they have taken the actions whether it is to undermine the health care, the immigrant rights or the movement towards criminal justice reform that we tried to implement for the 40 million people in the state of california. what is this administration trying to hide when it doesn't want to reveal to us the basis for its decision to try to deny 200 daca dreamers in california, or the 800 throughout the nation to remain? we have not been able to get them to provide us the documents that prove the basis for their actions to repeal the daca program. what is it in this administration that forces the administrator for the epa to fail to reply to a simple freedom of information act request, by the california department of justice? that is a request that anyone in this room could file today. yet we have had to now go to court to force administrator pruett to simply provide us information that we're entitled to by law, not just because i'm the attorney general of the state of california, but because i'm a member of the united states of america and a citizen entitled to under the freedom of information act to this information. so i will tell you that that roller coaster ride has been an interesting one, and we're going to continue to fight. and whether this new administration in washington, d.c. wants to enforce the law or protect the rights of the people of this great country, at least in california, we're going to pick up their fumbles and run with it. we don't care if someone wants to abandon the playing field right when people are counting most on our leaders to stand up for them. we'll be there. and i've said this to the people of the state of california. if you play by the rules you should be able to expect fair play in return. that is the way i saw it growing up as my father with a sixth grade education was able to see his kids go on to college when he himself could not have walked through the doors of a university. let alone the doors of a restaurant because of the signs that were outside those establishments in those days that said no dogs or mexicans allowed. here we are today, ten months into this term. i feel pretty good that i got on the right roller coaster and i'm going to ride this baby as hard as i can because there are so many people on that roller coaster with me who have to survive. and if we do this the right way not only will america survive but the economic engine for our country which is the state of california, the sixth largest economy in the world will continue to thrive as well. and everybody deserves a chance to say that if they work hard, whether you're the construction worker like my dad a generation ago, or the clerical worker like my mom, that if you work hard you too will have a chance to own a home, send your kids to college and retire in dignity. that is the american dream. you give them that they will do the rest. and that is what my folks did and every construction worker, clerical worker in america should know that if that is still the way we play the game here in america then the class is only half full. we should be optimists, i'm the son of immigrants, and we're going to move forward. i thank the great governor of the state of california, jerry brown, giving me the chance to work for the great state of california. >> also if you're watching on line, e-mail your questions, and when i call you just please identify yourself, say which news organization you are with. and we'll get started. so -- >> [ speaking in a foreign language ] so the question relates to the issues of immigration and how we move forward given a number of circumstance s that have occurred. i will simply say this. california didn't become the sixth largest economy in the world because it just sat around and waited. and california has the largest number of immigrant families in the country. and each and every one of those families has contributed to making california the high potent economy that drives the american economy. without those immigrant families we would not be number one in manufacturing. we would not be number one when it comes to the tech industry. we would not be number one when it comes to everything we do in the entertainment industry. we would not be number one when it comes to hospitality. we probably would not be number one in the number of graduates coming out of our universities. we would not be number one in beautiful people and probably wouldn't be number one in the ability to say that there is a future in the great state of california. so immigrants have proven a life blood to the american economy and the california economy. immigrants have proven that they revitalize communities. and immigrants have also proven that they commit fewer crimes, use the health care system less than americans born in this country. and so when people try to point the finger and direct all the ills that we see in front of us and give responsibility to immigrant families, i say not just as the attorney general, not just as a 24-year former member of congress but i say as the con son of immigrants that better read up your facts. because the revitalization and the constant rejuvenation comes from people every day using their hands and brains who are from immigrant stock who are replenishing the stock of good will and good future. so we'll continue to see that happen, it's clear, in california, and in the rest of the country as well. [ speaking in a foreign language ] >> with the daily caller news foundation. cyber security obviously a big issue we face these days, there was an issue before you left congress last year where your server was the site of issues, where people made access to your server, 6,000 times logging on multiple times. it appeared that there was other news moved to your data. sources say you learned about it in 2016 and banned the i.t. guy, but replaced him with his wife. it says your physical server itself which was evidence later disappeared. this kind of thing doesn't happen every day in congress. you didn't mention this to the members whose data may have been affected. and shortly before you designed, the server disappeared. so what happened to the server, especially given your law enforcement background? are you seeking to press charges against the i.t. guys, and the rules being violated in pretty strange ways. >> is it luke? >> yeah. >> go back and you should research your facts. you've got them wrong. i understand that this matter is still under investigation. and we have cooperated with the authorities, both within congress and within the federal government on this one. but you should check your facts because you stated a number of things that were incorrect. >> what have i said -- >> i would just urge you to go back to the folks on the investigation, check your facts, you cited a number of things that were not correct. >> i would like to comment on the facts of california for the tax reform. will it increase taxes for california, for new york, and is there anything that you're thinking about doing? and also today, the house is voting the project that the reciprocity carry permit that it would allow people to use their carry permits for guns anywhere in the u.s. if this was approved, do you intend to challenge this law? think about it. >> so having served on the tax committee in the house for 20 years i'm familiar with most of the different provisions that were in this bill, except for those of course that nobody had a chance to read because they were added at the very last moment and handwritten on the cites of the actual legislative bill. but what i will tell you is this, everybody is always told in america that we're going to tackle our tax code, so we can make it simple, fair and competitive. i find it hard to believe that the product that has now surfaced out of the house or senate is either simple, fair, or competitive. and certainly if you are in the middle class in america, you would be very hard pressed to believe that increasing your taxes while decreasing the taxes for the highest and wealthiest americans and for the largest corporations is what most people would define as making things fair. it certainly doesn't make it simpler in the sense that while you may have -- you may see the number of documents reduced, the chances are that for you to be able to come out paying no more taxes than you paid today you probably will find it will not be a simple course that you take, trying to navigate, figuring out how you would pay less in taxes than say the wealthy folks that are getting to pay as a result of this bill. and i would tell you this, competitive, most companies in america are small businesses. they are not mega corporations. most americans work for small businesses. not mega corporations. yet the lion's share of benefits in these tax bills flow to mega corporations. and those who are wealthy enough to own a lot of stock in those corporations. how competitive that makes us is yet to be determined. i will tell you this. that if you're lowering the statutory corporate income tax from the mid-30s down to the low 20s, that may sound good. but for many companies in america, they're already paying below the mid-20s in corporate income taxes. and so it's a really interesting dynamic in play. i think one fact is indisputable. at the end of the day these versions of the tax cut bills are going to increase the size of the deficit, which will put more pressure on budget as we're going to see over the next two or three weeks, the same movie is going to play out again where we're going to go to the brink of shutting the government down, trying to come up with a budget to keep the operations of the federal government going. and the result will be that fewer people will get the resources they need to have their research done on cancer at the institute of health. fewer needs, in the way of support because pel grants and student loans will be harder to get with federal help. and what we will find is that we've made it more difficult to sustain the lifesaving programs of social security and medicare and medicaid because there will be those that claim that the budget deficits are putting pressure squeezing those very programs, making cuts to them all because deficits have been increased to provide tax cuts to very wealthy corporations. >> you're the respondent in the national institute of life advocate's case at the supreme court. i wonder if you could just briefly talk about what evidentiary basis the state felt it had this is a case that requires certain disclosures and signage regarding so-called pregnancy and crisis centers and is being challenged. could you talk about the evidence the state is relying on? >> when you hear pregnancy crisis center, what comes up in your mind? and while you and i can't do this because we can't imagine what a woman must go through as she is seeking out guidance counseling, what goes through your mind when you hear pregnancy counseling center? you would hope that that place, that center, would provide you with all the information you would need to be able to make the best decision you can about your course of conduct, because it affects you as an individual. it could affect your health and it will affect your future. we don't believe that anyone should be out there marketing their services without fully disclosing what they do or on top of that, what a woman who is seeking that counseling and that service can receive or is entitled to receive. and so california has a law that requires these centers, many of which are not licensed to provide health care services that require the services of a licensed professional. we simply require them to provide full disclosure on whether they are licensed or the types of services that a woman would be eligible for within the state of california because those are her rights under state and federal law. and so we're defending that law right now because we believe that every woman in america and certainly every woman in california under the fact act which is the legislation that has been challenged deserves to have all the information to make her decisions. >> i just have one quick question and we'll turn it back to the audience. under president obama, texas was a state that was always suing the federal government. and now democrats have kind of come back around to the idea of state's rights. how do you compare what you're doing in california to what texas did under president obama, you know, why should states have this autonomy that the obama administration did not want them to have when he was in charge? >> chris, i would distinguish from what california is doing to what previous states have done, whether it's texas or the states back in the '60s using state's rights within the constitution. when we go out and assert our right as a state under the constitution and the tenth amendment to proceed in a forward-leaning manner, it's because we intend to be inclusive in the way we conduct our affairs. we're not trying to separate families simply because they're of immigrant stock. we're not trying to deny students a chance to reclaim the monies they paid for a student loan from a for-profit university that went under or never provided a real education. we're trying to be inclusive of the people of the state of california. if you take a look at some of the actions of the states previously that you have mentioned those actions in asserting state's rights was for the purpose of excluding. and of course, in the '60s it was very clear federal government stay out of our affairs. we'll decide who can attend what school or university based on color of skin. federal government stay out of our hair. well, l'l we will let our people decide who gets to sit at the lunch counter, and federal government, we'll decide which bus a person in our state can take. recently, texas was aggressive in saying federal government stay out of our hairs. we'll decide how to treat the people in our state. the approach is very different. we're simply saying we should not allow the federal government to exclude people simply because it doesn't fit the political leanings of those in government. we believe the constitution is there to protect everyone equally. and we're going to use our right as a state to make sure that where we have the power we enforce the constitution. >> in the back? >> hi, you mentioned filing a foya regarding the conflict of interest, and most recently filed intent to sue over the designations with new york and massachusetts. i was wondering, given the emphasis on the corporate federalism, the current epa, what is your take on this? what do you see that are the biggest environmental issues that states including california face and how are you building allies with other states? >> so we have been working with other states from the very moment i took office. in fact, before then i was already communicating with a lot of other state ags, talking about what we would do together, and once i got sworn in i had the actual official powers to do so. that is one of the really redeeming features of this job that i have assumed is to be able to work in concert with so many other talented leaders in the country who are attorneys general. let me separate the question, because the issue of the administrator of the epa refusing to provide documents under the freedom of information act as he is required by law is i believe an absolute abuse of power and discretion. because i'm not requesting that as some powerful elected official in the biggest state in the union, i'm doing it because every one of us in the united states of america has a right to request that our government be open and transparent. and the fact that i have to sue the attorney general of the state of california, has to sue, the environmental protection agency and its administrator, mr. pruett, simply to get access to documents which are public record is an outrage. it's unconscionable. it is almost as if they believe they're above the law. on the issue of how we've handled these various cases which by the way, we have not lost a case yet against the federal government on these environmental matters. what we're simply doing is defending the rights of our state to move forward under the law and with the support and previous partnership of the federal government to take actions which not only benefit the state and environment in california. but also benefit the entire nation. and we will defend them vigorously, those actions that we've taken because we did them not just under the law but with the blessing of the federal government. if the federal government wishes to change course there are ways to do that. but once again, the federal government is not above the law. and it has to go through a process if it wants to make legitimate changes to legitimate policies that are in place that states like california have relied upon to make major decisions, consequences for major decisions on how we move forward. i don't care if you're talking about energy efficient bulbs or what we do to the ozone, whatever side of the spectrum you're on it's all important. i can show you the investments that businesses in the state of california has made to make california a cleaner state and a clean energy using and producing state. and we're not about to let somebody because they think they have a right to change things all of a sudden impact consumers and most importantly our businesses and puts them at a disadvantage as somebody who doesn't want to be as clean, relying on energies, to move forward forward. >> hi, peggy orchowski, i'm from santa barbara, california, 50 years. we cover higher education a lot. i'm going to ask you, really ask you for an honest answer here about -- >> as opposed to the others, you mean. >> well, substantive, let's say that. well, about what do you see is the leverage that daca recipients have to number one, close down the government, or number two, to even be fully legalized? and let me just give you a little background. i'm seeing a diminishing of the latino voice in congress. you're gone, gutierrez is now a lame duck. and elena, and kamala harris actually beat one of the leading latinas in the nation you know to get the senate. immigration is more and more seen now as a national security issue and based more and more on immigrants from muslim countries. and even the daca kids have gotten so aggressive they shouted down nancy pelosi. you know, it's not a good image. so what do you see is the leverage to get them legalized completely? and to even shut down the government? i don't see it. >> good thing i'm an optimist. i would say this, yeah. i firmly believe, and i've said this for many years in congress and as an attorney general, i believe the daca dreamers are here to say and i believe they will be some of our greatest leaders in the future. because then tested. for them to get out there. and i love them saying undocumented and unafraid. that is powerful. because they put everything on the line. by the way, they used to shout at me, too. but you know what? that is the american way, that they're willing to get out there and say i'm going to get out there and fight for this even though at any moment i may be subject to apprehension and deportation. that is what you want. i believe during the revolution the founding folks were looking for people just like them to say we want you in our fight. i may get deleted on this. but they're bad ass, as i think a lot of folks would say. they just really are. they're tough. there are some politicians who would need a little bit of spine like this. so i would tell you i don't believe the role of latinos in this country is diminishing. i believe it's increasing. i believe that there are new leaders emerging throughout the country, not just in the latino community. but throughout this country who will understand what it means as my parents had to do, fight for everything they could who even though this country wouldn't let my dad walk into a restaurant because of the color of his skin, he never once complained because he knew that there would be a future if he worked really hard for his kids. and by god, when you come to my office and i show you that photo of the president of the united states standing in between emmanuel and maria, you will understand how they were rewarded for their dogged fight. just as i believe the dreamers are going to be rewarded for their dogged fight. that is what this country is about at the end of the day. and so i feel very optimistic not just in terms of the dreamers. not just in terms of latino leadership moving forward. by the way, california i believe on -- in every single race in our statewide election coming up next year there will be a latino on the ballot. and there are -- there is change amidst. and i believe you're going to find that diversity that is going to make us a richer country and a richer politicly prepared country as well. but get ready, because those dreamers are coming. >> so we're getting towards the end of the program so we have time for a couple more questions, but i just wanted to mention a few things coming up at the press club. next week on december 12th, the speaker will be agriculture secretary sunny perdue, next, donna brazil will be here. and lawrence o'donnell from msnbc will be here to talk about his book. on december 18th, walter isaacson will be here to talk about his new book on da vinci. so a couple more questions, i know you had one in the frontal he -- front here. >> hi, i'm paul marion. there is a lot of events happening on behalf of the administration. is california, or do you know if other states will weigh in on behalf of the other acting director? >> i know a number of us have worked very closely with the bureau. and mr. cordray, when he was there as the director. we'll do everything in california to make sure that consumer financial protection bureau continues forward in a robust fashion protecting the rights of consumers. and whether it means defending the provisions in the statute that would prescribe who would take over with mr. cordray's absence. or whether it means making sure that it's not an agency that leaves the playing field when people right now need people who know how to quarterback on so many good issues. we're going to be there. they're just too important an agency, we work hand in hand with them on so many cases and we have had success working with them on any number of matters in court and outside of court. so we're going to continue whatever form that takes. >> the court briefs are due friday. are you going to file a friend of court case? >> stay tuned. >> question in the middle in the back. >> i wanted to piggy back on her question. like what leverage do you think that the dreamers have to shut down the government? like what do you think they can actually do? >> so the leverage is not with the dreamers. the only folks that can shut down government are those who have the votes to keep the government from securing the monies it needs in its budget. the only folks who can do that are in congress. and quite honestly because we have a party system the only people who can shut down the government are the folks who are part of the party in power. when you have a jormajority of votes you determine what fails and what passes. the minority party can never kill a bill because a minority party doesn't have enough votes to kill a bill. you always require a membership in the majority to participate in defeating legislation. that is by definition democracy, right? if you're in the minority, you don't have a majority. so remove the fog, it's very simple. in congress, we will have a budget and our government services whether it's for social security, national defense, homeland security will not shut down if a majority of members in the house and the senate vote to pass a funding bill in the budget. if they can't get a majority of the votes, then the government shuts down. the majority party is going to run its bill. nancy pelosi and chuck schumer are not being given the chance to write the bill to keep the government open. they're in the minority party. it's the majority party that will draft the bill on whether or not there are up or down votes enough to keep the government running. and so if it shuts down it won't be because democrats nancy pelosi and chuck schumer, and it surely won't be because of folks who don't have a vote in congress and don't have a vote in america, the dreamers. it will be because the majority did not put together a bill that could secure the votes necessary. and so a government shutdown, that is in the hands of the republican majority in the congress. house and senate. let no one else take responsibility. if you're a parent, you don't let the kids make the decision on household matters, who goes to school one day. don't shift the responsibility where it doesn't lie. you get elected to do your job. and when you get a majority in your party to govern, by god you should govern. and if you can't, don't point the finger at somebody else, especially somebody who doesn't even have the ability to vote. dreamers are powerful. they're just fighting for what they can. and don't expect them to stop. but don't blame them when the majority party in congress can't come up with the votes for its own bill to keep our government services moving forward. >> so there is one other question i wanted to ask as well, having worked in d.c., now working in california. california is often viewed as the outlier, news doesn't always make it over the rockies. and you go to a place where they have almost no power, democrats control. what lessons do you think are not reaching, these political lessons that may be worthwhile to consider? >> they will reach the rest of the country. what happens in california ultimately happens in the rest of the nation. as goes california, so goes the nation. just sometimes it takes a little while. we were in the throes of this immigration debate a couple of decades ago. proposition 187 in 1984, as anti-immigration as you will find. it passed. it propelled republican governor pete wilson to re-election at a time when he was losing in the polls. so we were there, been there done that. but that is past tense. i think the rest of the nation will get there. and once they do, they will find it's better to have clean energy jobs. in california, we have ten times more clean energy jobs than there are in the entire coal mining industry. why would we want to go back to the old days? and what we want to do is explain to the other states who think if they lose a coal mining job that they lost a job altogether. no, there will be replacements, everybody has to work. my father will say to you, he said i need to work, i have to build something in order for me to take care of my family. california may look like an outlier, but we're one of every eight as you mentioned, chris, hard to be an outlier when you're so big. and without the economic engine of california, every other of the 49 states and all the district of columbia and all the territories would suffer as well. so as much as california needs to be a part of the u.s., the u.s. needs california to be part of america. and we'll be in good shape. watch what we do, because you will be doing it soon, too. >> all right, thank you for coming. just want to make sure, i grab one thing down here. and can't let you go back to california without this extremely important national press club coffee mug. >> thank you. >> here you go, thank you for being here. >> thanks very much. [ applause ] [ speaking in a foreign language ] m announcing that in the coming here is part of what senator al franken had to say on the senate floor. >> i will be resigning as member of the united states senate. i, of all people, am aware that there is some irony in the fact that i am leaving while a man who has bragged on tape about his history of sexual assault sits in the oval office. and the man who has repeatedly preyed on young girls campaigns for the senate with the full support of his party. but this decision is not about me. it's about the people of minnesota. it has become clear that i can't both pursue the ethics committee process and at the same time remain an effective senator for them. let me be clear. i may be resigning my seat but i am not giving up my voice. i will continue to stand up for the things i believe in as a citizen and as an activist. >> that was just part of what senator al franken had to say earlier today as he announced his resignation from the senate due to allegations of sexual misconduct. see his entire comments tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. friday on c-span, at 8:00 eastern, this week's supreme court oral argument in the case of masterpiece bake shop, on whether a baker can refuse to bake for a couple based on preferences. >> have to subvert your ego to the greater good. i'm not here to read about myself or think about myself, i'm here for something so much bigger than me and that is a lesson that a lot of folks understand. it was said there are only two people who work here, who were elected to anything. and their names are donald trump and mike pence, so if you're not with the program you ought to get out. >> watch on c-span, and c-span.org with the radio app. earlier this week, a ninth circuit court of appeals heard the case of hawaii versus trump. the case focuses on the legality of the third version of the president's travel ban, with this latest version issued last september, placing certain restrictions on nationals from chad, north korea, syria, venezuela and yemen. the fourth circuit court of appeals hears the case tomorrow and will show you that based on the senate schedule. this is an hour and ten minutes. >> all rise. please be seated.

Related Keywords

New York , United States , Texas , Washington , Brazil , Yemen , California , North Korea , Syria , Venezuela , Hawaii , Americans , America , American , Chuck Schumer , Nancy Pelosi , Al Franken , Greta Van Susteren , Los Angeles , Jamie Horowitz , Diana Feinstein , Paul Marion , Jerry Brown , Kamala Harris ,