tv Washington Journal CSPAN January 29, 2015 7:00am-10:01am EST
project. then we talk about the senate confirmation process. we also take your facebook comments and tweets. ♪ host: good morning, everyone, on this thursday, january 29. "if confirmed, i will be myself," that is what the red of lynch -- loretta lynch told the confirmation hearing yesterday. nearly eight hours, republicans repeatedly asked the nominee to differential rate -- differentiate yourself from attorney general eric holder. she said she supported the executive decision to ease the threat of deportation for millions of unauthorized
immigrants, coming it reasonable. -- colleen it reasonable. -- calling it reasonable. the phone lines are open and we will get to your thoughts in a moment, but first, here is the nominee up on capitol hill in the heart of the day one of the confirmation hearings and her answer about executive action on immigration. [video clip] >> senator demint i looked at the issues therein from my -- senator, as i looked at the issues they written from my perspective, i viewed it in the way in which the department of homeland security was seeking legal guidance on the most effective way to prioritize the
removal of large numbers of individuals. individuals, given that the resources would not permit everyone who fell within the respective category command that was a framework within which i viewed that. from that perspective, the department of homeland security's request and suggestion that they prioritize the removal of the most dangerous of the undocumented immigrants among us, those who have criminal records for those who are involved in national security and terrorism, those involved in gang activity, violent crime, along with i believe, people who have recently entered and could pose a threat to our system seem to be a reasonable way to marshal resources to live deal -- resources to deal with the problem. host: nearly eight hours of questioning theirre.
we want your opinion. from the "washington post," they write -- you just saw her answer to that. further down in the article, it says that senator david bitter republican from louisiana, plans to vote against lynch. also from "the washington times" the report" that senator jeff sessions said it goes way beyond
the law with the president did. -- way beyond the law, what the president did. take a look at what senator sessions had to say yesterday his argument against exam -- executive action. [video clip] >> two people apply as a truck driver, one a lawful citizen and the other is not. under the president's order, the one that is lawfully -- unlawfully here magically becomes eligible to compete against a not employed american truck driver. i think that is bizarre. and the idea that there are rights you might attach to someone who is here unlawfully to take jobs from an american
given the working conditions as they are today is antithetical to common sense. somebody needs to be asking themselves "who is protecting the american worker?" the people who are paying the salaries of view, the president, and all of us. the people who elect us are the people we are most readily accountable for, and that is citizens of the united states. i'm worried about that. what kind of claim -- have you thought about this? somebody who loses out to a person who claims they are legal to work now because of the president's order, and they did not become a drunk driver -- a truck driver, and a person who is recently legalized to get the job.
host: senator sessions yesterday. many of you will remember that senator sessions led the fight against the funding of government purity department -- of the homeland security department and says now he will vote against the nominee loretta lynch, to become the next attorney general. she needs three to clear the judiciary committee. we will talk to the chairman of that committee in about 40 minutes or so. but first, your thoughts. jim in chicago, go ahead. caller: good morning. i was shocked when she made that comment saying that illegals have the same right as american citizens. i know she is a bright lady, but for her to make this comment, i don't know where she's coming from. she is from -- pro-obama.
she's basically going to be a puppet for him. for her to make those comments she's anti-american. the lady is smart and has done a lot in the past, but those comments are really unconstitutional and my void her from being the -- might avoid her from being an expert attorney general. host: you think they should vote against her? caller: a strong know. host: joe, what you think? caller: i agree with the first color. i'm a construction worker. the white collar man seems to be making all the rules for the blue-collar worker. there is a good population out here that should not even be in the country, yet they've taken the price of construction and pretty much cut in half, the wages. there are not many construction jobs going on anyway with the economy being what it is. host: are you in construction joe?
caller: yes. host: and you have experienced that competition? caller: oh, absolutely, it ruins my business. if you use to get for items -- four dollars for items to work on any building, illegals came in at $.75. and if you don't go after the people that hire them, there is that will happen. if the companies that hire them that are making the money. and these contractors, enlightening, they are traitors. not everybody is going to be going to college. a good third of the population will be blue-collar workers. and just working of the latter forget it. it used to be in a lot of these trade good work up the ladder and within three years, you could be making $25 an hour. the top pay is $12 after two years.
it's because of supply and demand and to many illegals. host: from new jersey, go ahead with your thoughts. caller: yes, i don't agree -- host: you've got to listen to me through the phone. internet tv off. caller: ok. host: i'm going to put you on hold. hopefully, we will be able to come back to you. going to ray in california. an independent, good morning to you. oh, i don't think we have ray yet. let me go back to egypt. are you make -- to edith. are you ready to go? caller: yes, i am. i'm a black american and i was organist country. i don't agree with lynch's comment. i just think she wants the place of attorney general. i feel obama's presidency has
not made it better for americans. it seems like i've been doing better since the bush administration that i am doing now. i have nieces and nephews and children that have graduated from college that cannot find a job. they are working at foot locker. the young people's unemployment rate is like 20%. there are no jobs. they just talk about, you know that they want illegal immigrants to come in this country and take all the jobs. there are not enough jobs that -- for the people that live in this country. i just feel that obama has been a disappointment will stop host: did you vote for him -- a disappointment. host: as you vote for him both times? caller: i voted for him the first time. i went out and registered hundred something people to vote. i just feel like he is -- i
registered 600 something people to vote. i just feel like he is more into the politics than the american people and what our needs are. host: the tuesday home the second time? caller: yes. i was going to vote for romney because he's a business person but i was not really sure. but this time, i have to vote. even if i have to vote for the book and -- vote for the republican, i hope that they come out with clear issues and what they are going to try to do for this country. i just hope they get a business person, but because the political mess is going to far. host: is immigration a big enough issue for you to -- caller: i think immigration is the problem with the economy and this country. there are not in that jobs for the people that live in this country. they cannot have people come over here and the that they have jobs for them.
-- and think that they have jobs for them. host: all right, we get your point. grading california, independent, go ahead. caller: in europe, -- i'm a little -- i'm an electrician and i just retired. in europe, they did an experiment where they could kill a whole bunch of people with the grounding the way it is now. but i don't know if you know, but they are putting all of these power supplies everywhere and i got to do is connect this to your house -- all you have to do is connect with your house. host: how does this relate to what we are talking about? caller: all you need is people who do not have the american ice way as you will have faulty equipment, batteries burning a lot -- turning out. you will use a lot of equipment and you will have people not very educated. and maybe with the intent to sabotage. host: senator schumer democrat
from new york, came to his defense of president obama's nomination. here's what he had to say yesterday. [video clip] >> my friends across the aisle seem to be suggesting that the enforcement policies for the department of homeland security is tantamount to the announcement that we will not enforce our own immigration laws mother that is the third -- that is absurd. congress, this body, only allocates enough money for dhs to deport 400,000 of them. 11 million illegal immigrants kind of money to deport 400,000. obviously, you have to make choices here. host: senator charles schumer yesterday, day one of the hearing for the dreaded lynch -- loretta lynch to become attorney general.
unauthorized immigrants, the deportation of them needing to be prioritized. the nominee, she said she found it reasonable. those are what are making headlines in the papers this morning. we will get your reaction. james, north dakota. hi, james. caller: good morning. i haven't gotten through in a while. nice to see you guys here again. host: glad you got through. go ahead. caller: i came across the river to get a better paying job, like thousands of men have done in the modern-day grapes of wrath. the things that bothers me most, because a couple of earlier scholars have called about this --callers have called about this, because there are tens of thousands of blue-collar workers that are working as roofers and waitresses and believe it or
not, most of these people come from two places. most of them are lawyers corporate executives. they are not citizens like smith, citizen shopkeepers going to congress. they really believe this. they believe that the only people that work with their hands are brown people. i have blue eyes and blond hair. i grew up in a middle-class home, but i roofed houses for years. i have waxed floors. i worked with african americans italian boys, german voice. i'm sick and tired of this. we've got to stop the lily white progressives in power, like mike matthews and the scum like the morning joe show that says, these guys are not taking our jobs. sure, if you sit on your seat
and talk for a living. that will be a great job. they keep talking about global learning. their policies led to the amnesty and the chain migration of ted kennedy. and now the numbers will swell by 2060 and it will be a 100 million more cars on the road. host: new jersey, democrat, go ahead. caller: how are you doing? host: good morning. go ahead. caller: i agree with the president. everybody says, oh, obama is doing this and obama's dream that. the lady that called from orange , she clearly doesn't know what she's doing if she is going to vote for obama and then switch to romney. two different pictures.
you must be part of that 47%. everybody has to be accounted for, not just half of the people making the money. everybody don't want to sit home and do nothing. people want jobs. if you get up and look for a job, you can find a job. it might not be the best job but there are jobs out there. you've just got to find one. you cannot say that everybody is taking your job. host: more thoughts on the nominee, loretta lynch, on her first day of confirmation hearings on capitol hill calling the president's executive action on immigration reasonable. the phone lines are open, so keep dialing in. but some other news, "the financial times" has put together the next policy twist that this congress faces.
they have put together a chart of what those different issues will be. the deadline is february 28. the issue is, department of homeland security funding is uncertain, despite a six-month extension. another deadline is march 31, dr.'s fees. doctors working under medicare will receive a pay cut. unless lawmakers find money for them. may 31, for anything for roads and bridges dry up as a key fund is replaces -- replenished. and on june 30, the exit bank will be shutdown of its charter is not reauthorized. -- the ex-import bank will be shutdown if it is not the authorized. these are the fights that are
happening on capitol hill as we continue in this 114th congress. speaking of that today, the new majority leader, mitch mcconnell , sat down with a paper and said he is unyielding on iran sanctions, legislation to bolster sanctions against that country, and defined on the coke spending -- koch spending. and then in the "new york times" this morning, the headline is john boehner's decision to invite the israeli prime minister.
and then in "the washington post" this morning, democrats have left washington for their annual retreat and they will hear from president obama tonight and then vice president joe biden on friday. according to the headline, they will be looking for ways to rebound at this retreat. and finally, the rampage of "the washington times" this morning has this headline. hillary clinton, apparently was pushing for this country to go to war against libya. the washington times as tapes -- has tapes. joint chiefs and a key lawmaker saw no need to go to war and how their own talks with gaddafi.
those are some of the front pages this morning for you. we will give you more as we go on, but first, back to your calls about day one of the confirmation hearings for loretta lynch to become the top enforcement officer in this country. denise in kansas, independent color. go ahead. caller: i watched the hearings yesterday and i thought mrs. lynch conducted herself very professionally. she was very composed. she was very intelligent in her answers. i particularly like how she did not allow herself to be bossed in those hypothetical questions that were posed. i really commend mr. grassley on how he conducted the hearing. it was very civil. i was very disappointed, however with ted cruz and mr. sessions.
and the fact that they continue to perpetuate this lie on the american working class and middle class about jobs being taken away from them by illegal immigrants. and that the president is -- acted illegally. the fact remains that if they continue to tell these life, the american working class people are going to let the employers off the hook -- tell this lie that the american working class people are going to let the employers off the hook, and in fact, a large number of persons to invite illegal immigrants here to take jobs. i'm hoping that the american middle class and working class will begin to pay more attention to that side of the immigration
issue and press their congressman to do something about a comprehensive immigration bill. host: you mentioned senator ted cruz, that you are disappointed in the way he was conducting himself in that hearing. here is wrote called piece this morning. -- here is role calls peace this morning. that's what the texas senator said in a brief interview with cq will call as the daylong judiciary committee hearing went
robert in alaska, republican color, go ahead -- republican c aller, go ahead. caller: good morning. host: we are listening, robert. go ahead, please. caller: oh, i'm sorry. i'm an old field -- oilfield worker in alaska. so far, we have not seen a bunch of immigration taking over because we are a union. but i've been down in texas and in florida and california, oregon washington, and this is the problem right now. there is not enough work in this country for all of us. there is not. what is happening, these people coming over have been given social security, free housing, food. why don't we just leave them over there, send them money over there, bill them hospitals
schools, where they got plenty of land and need the work. why don't we leave them over there? is causing chaos and confusion. that is what is happening. host: what about the drive to come here to better their lives? caller: i understand that and i feel bad for them, i really do. but what they are coming over here and finding is not that will stop -- not that. a lot of these people are not getting decent jobs. they are still having to be on food stamps, housing assistance, free medical. and like, the obama deals on tv they come up and say, this medical is free. nothing is free. somebody has to pay for it. host: ok, robert. listen to what the chairman of the judiciary committee has to say, chuck grassley of iowa, talking about loretta lynch's duty as attorney general. [video clip] >> on november 20 last year,
president obama said he would refer deportation of millions of individuals in the country and documented. not only is this dangerous -- counter to our laws, but a dangerous abuse of his authority. if you are confirmed as the next attorney general, you will take an oath and raise your right hand and swear "support the constitution of the united states and to bear truth and allegiance to the same." your duty to the attorney general is not to defend the president and his policies. your duty is your oath to defend the constitution. host: the chairman of the senate judiciary committee there republican from iowa, chuck grassley. he will be our guest in about 15 minutes. we will ask him about loretta lynch's testimony, day one, and what is ahead for day to of -- a
day two of the coverage. our cameras will be in the hearing room leading up to the gaveling down, the beginning of the hearing. we will continue to talk about that on this morning's "washington journal pick up "the -- "washington journal." "the new york times this morning " -- she would need three republicans on the senate judiciary committee to confirm her to clear that hurdle. and then of course, it would go to the floor, where senator ted cruz, as we just told you, is calling on the majority leader not to confirm her nomination
will stop also -- her nomination. also beaker of the house, john boehner yesterday -- speaker of the house, john boehner, yesterday said there's not much they could do. the move is seen as an effort to appease conservatives after leadership told controversial border security bill and some republicans will before stern except -- will be forced to accept a bill from democrats.
you are on the air. go ahead. caller: the gentleman leaving the senate hearing for her, he should ask himself what he just asked her about her own oath. he is supposed to uphold the laws and do every aspect of your job. it seems to me that congress does a lot of crazy stuff and just appease big-money people. as a man of color in this country affirmative-action tells it all about why we had to have affirmative action. it's always been a problem if you were not a man of european descent. i've been to a lot of jobs where that made a big difference, who i was. and the lady that says she voted for president obama i don't
think she knew what she was even really saying. get up and go out and get a job. there is plenty of work out here. there is plenty. host: "the new york times" this morning says this about loretta lynch. one area where loretta lynch agreed with the president, that was on marijuana. she disagreed with the president and said she does not support legalization of marijuana. diane in pennsylvania, and independent. go ahead. good morning to you.
caller: yes, good morning. the primary duty of government of the united states of america is to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the american people. the politicians today are politicians only. they are being treated as celebrities. we looked at how a nominee for attorney general, how she conducts herself, how she presents herself. her charm and her graciousness, etc., etc. the question is not about individual politicians and celebrity politicians. it's about the people of this country, the united states of america. high unemployment among our educated young people. i'm not going to talk about
race. i'm going to talk about country, nation equality, job opportunity. this president, this congress, are guilty of treason and i do hope that boehner and whoever else signs on files a lawsuit against an imperious president who is behaving as a king, disregarding the majority of the america people -- american people. host: all right. gary in georgia, you're next. caller: good morning, greta. i watched most of the hearing yesterday. as a republican, i really thought ms. lynch was an outstanding spokesperson for you know, the office in which she's applying for. just underneath all of that, you can see where she's almost bound
to have to rule, especially on this hot button immigration thing. we just can't allow it. she's unfortunately going to come down on the same side as the president, i feel, on it. whether she feels obligated to -- and as long as they can squeak through and find a legal way to say it's appropriate then that's what i feel she's going to do. it's such a shame. she was a class act. i just feel like she is unfortunately going to rule in just about whichever way he decides to go. host: did you watch almost eight hours of the hearing? caller: i watched about six. it doesn't say much for what i do all day. i had to be home yesterday. i enjoyed it. most people were fair, you know
what i mean. there were a couple of people that made some stats at her. --stabs at her. i watched just about all of her, and most people treated her with respect. host: will you watch day to today -- dave two today? caller: yes, i plan to watch. and this second day, that's not going to be her, right? that will be some other folks. host: no, she will be up there again. caller: oh, she will? i wasn't sure who was going to be up there. i do plan to watch it again. thanks for what you. i appreciate it. host: all right, gary. let's go to our next caller, democrat. caller: i'm a first-time caller
and i believe your program is so great, because you have a diverse group of people who get to come in and share their opinion. first of all, i saw most of the coverage of your show this morning because i don't go into work until 6:00 and i believe the coverage of ms. lynch was great. she did a great job of answering most of the questions. one of the questions i would like to pose to all of the public tonight in regard to all of these immigrants is, what do we do with their kids? where do these kids go? this is going to be something that republicans will pay very dearly from 1916. thank you, greta. host: in other news, front page of "the new york times" this morning, state change's tactics
-- i know that is an issue that many of our viewers follow closely. senator rand paul reintroducing that legislation. and staying with the headline the anniversary of selma republicans trying to put it -- to put out a big turnout for that anniversary. so trying to get republicans to turn out for that, the front page of "usa today." also from "usa today" --
also new to and that he is considering a run for the senate. mac, and independent from cambridge, massachusetts. good morning to you. caller: good morning. mrs. lynch, her confirmation should not be based on one topic. it should be based on her making decisions. that is fear for the country. and to follow the constitution and the law. but i have a problem with c-span. i think this band -- c-span should do a program on immigration, real immigration from the beginning, who were the first illegal immigrants in this country. they are the people making the
laws in this country now. native americans have not been a part of this government from the beginning. host: thank you for the suggestion. you can send us topic suggestions. you can send us a tweet or an e-mail. we take your suggestions and we have covered immigration a lot here on this show. you can go back into the c-span video library at www.c-span.org and find several different angles of conversation we've had on this issue. we will go to surely next in stratford, connecticut stop a democrat -- stratford connecticut, a democrat. caller: good morning. i'm just here to focus our nation on the items at hand. mrs. lynch, this is a confirmation on her ability to be attorney general, not on her becoming president or having
comments against the president or against the former attorney general. it's about her and her qualifications. but none of her qualifications have come into question. i'm really amazed at how confused individuals in our nation are when they don't understand what the focus is our. -- what the focus is. and those calling talking about jobs being given to immigrants, when they out jobs. no one is taking jobs from anybody -- they outsource our jobs. no one is taking jobs from anybody. we have to focus our minds on the task at hand. we want to know whether she can job, not whether she's going to be the president of the united
list that the office of patrick leahy has put together of he believes she should be confirmed. anna, go ahead. caller: hello? host: go ahead, and a -- anna. caller: i just want to bring up the point that loretta lynch is black. she will first represent her race, and then are standards and whatever else she believes in. blacks in america, they vote one way or another. it is either, i'm staying behind by color or i'm standing behind my principles. and she is getting the color. i can guarantee you that. i wish her all of the luck, but we don't need her there. we need someone who goes behind -- beyond the white and black issue, like eric holder.
he is another one that stands behind his color first, and then his job. just like the president. his color comes first, and then his job. america, let's look at the reality of what is going on. this country is being turned around. it's going to be an issue of black is going to be in power and the white, it's time to pay. i'm sorry i have to say this but host: this is exactly where we are going. -- but this is exactly where we are going. host: all right. debbie, from princeton. caller: my husband and i had been flown to washington, d.c. on an issue because my husband had to illegal immigrants a social security for several years. they are able to buy homes, get credit cards, get credit reports. i actually obtained information from ars and got in trouble and
was flown -- from the irs and got in trouble and was flown to defeat by the irs -- flown to d.c. by the irs and was shown records that show they were using social security numbers since 1992. wie could never get credit that was ours and we were stuck with bills that we had to pay. they are very well-documented, because they are using social security numbers that often belong to real americans. and yet, we don't get to stand next to the president. he knows our case. he ignored it. the u.s. justice department won't prosecute any illegal aliens for using fraudulent social security numbers. and in the new immigration plan, they say they cannot be charged with any kind of social security
numbers. there is no restitution. my husband still get bombarded with creditors, even a we have proved to countrywide, citibank, american express, ford motor credit -- i mean, the list goes on. trying to fish -- fix the damage when you don't know that someone is using your social security number for over 12 years, it's a most impossible to fix it. they are treating the illegals as though they are the victims because they come from a poor country. you cannot convict -- commit a crime to better yourself on someone else's personal identifier. host: all right debbie, we will leave it there. the conversation is going to continue to come up here. dave two of the confirmation -- day two of the confirmation hearing is coming up and we will
learn on more -- of more of what we will learn today when we talk to the chairman of the judiciary committee, chuck grassley, who will be joining us. and later, proposed changes to the criminal justice system, including mandatory criminal said a thing, the death penalty the record number of u.s. exonerations in 2014. in case you missed it yesterday vice president biden, president obama, and joint chiefs of staff with outgoing defense secretary chuck hagel. here is a little of that ceremony. [video clip] like i want to suggest your greatest impact, the legacy -- >> i want to suggest your greatest impact, the legacy for years to come has been your own example. it's not simply you were the first combat veteran to serve as secretary of defense. it is how you dealt with that
experience, being down in the mud, bullets flying over your head, which is allowed you to connect with our troops like no other secretary of defense before you. you have welcomed our junior personnel to lunch in your office and made them feel at home, and they told you what was really on their minds. when you spoke to our newest sergeant majors about the true meaning of leadership and responsibility they knew they were learning from one of their own. and in those quiet all its when you paint a purple heart on a wounded warrior, you were there not just as secretary of defense, but as an old army sergeant who knows the wages of war and still carries the shrapnel in your chest. these are not fleeting moments. they reflect the driving force of chuck hagel's service, his love of our troops, and his determination to take care of them after more than 13 years of war. today, our military hospitals are getting stronger. our women are more integrated into the force than ever before. we are making progress in
combating sexual assault. we will bring home the remains of fallen heroes faster, and more vietnam veterans will finally be eligible for the disability pay they were eligible for all of along. and check, that is because of you. i am grateful to check -- chuck on a personal level. exactly 10 years ago this month, i joined you in the united states senate, along with the vice president. i was new and green. you are a veteran legislator. i was a student, and you shared lessons via your service. i was young, and you are -- well. [laughter] and though we came from different parties, we often saw the world the same way including our conviction that even as we must never hesitate to defend our nation, we must
never rushing to war. -- rush into war. we both believe that america must only send her sons and daughters into harm's way when it is at the lyness her, and when they do, we must do everything -- when it is absolutely necessary, and when they do, we must do everything to make sure they succeed. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are back with chuck grassley from iowa. you led the confirmation hearing of the red a. and you are quoted in the papers as saying, "i, for one, need to be persuaded she will be an independent attorney general." did she persuade you yet? guest: not yet, but she will respond over the next week or so. we will look at the entire record. we have one more day of hearings
today. five people that the republicans have chosen and for that the democrats have chosen. we will is to them, and they will probably not mention much about her qualifications, because there is no question about her qualifications, her confidence. she has a record of being a vigorous prosecutor in new york city, two different times being appointed by two different presidents. she is just very eloquent. what we are probably going to hear today is the same thing i tried to bring out in my opening date me yesterday -- my opening statement yesterday, and my questions. we republicans more than the democrats feel that we have politicized the department of justice, and that we have a department of justice that is broken. the question comes back, can she fix it? you have to feel somewhat sorry
for her going into a department where a lot of us feel the president made some unconstitutional decisions, and immigration is not the only one. in fact, he made a decision on nlrb, and 9-0 his own employees overturned him. but the point is, she's in a situation that is broken and politicized and she's got to fix it. that is what is important. host: why don't you have 100% confidence that she can fix it? guest: she gave answers yesterday and did not really answer it. that is not just loretta lynch. a lot of democrats and republican nominees come before us and waffle around and don't really answer the questions. if you heard her and were outside the political system you might not detect that. but when you have strong feelings for my let's say --
let's just say, on immigration. we are not arguing the immigration issue. we are just saying that the president acted against the will of congress in that area and the president does not have the authority to act in that area. she has to defend that. and it was difficult for her to straddle the fence on that. host: how do you plan to vote on her, her mission? guest: oh, you'll have to ask me in a couple of -- on her confirmation? guest: oh, you will have to ask me in a couple of weeks. we were there with her for nine hours just say, but you don't get all of the questions out. maybe in a week he would not even get all of the questions answered. we will look at the entire record. and today's hearing will be important. we will be hearing from people that were treated rudely by the irs and the justice department prosecuting people there that broke the law. we will hear from people never
-- that were not treated well by the justice department when they were trying to get information on the fast and furious. and we will hear from people who will defend the justice department, and defend loretta lynch as the person who can fix it. but i think we did not release you from her yesterday that the department was politicized. we did not hear from her that there was a broken. -- anything broken. you expect everybody that takes the of the profits to abide by the constitution. -- that cap. office to abide by the constitution. -- that takes the oath of office to abide by the constitution. host: chairman grassley, do you think she can get three republicans to clear the judiciary committee?
guest: i think there is a feeling among most people to give some deference to view president of the united states -- to the president of the united states. and with the attorney general's vision even if there was not a majority to vote for out, it would still go to the senate floor, not just to have 20 senators decide her fate. let hundreds -- all 100 senators decide. and it's not just president obama i'm talking about all presidents. i'm reading about calvin coolidge. he had attorney general's voted down twice and he finally picked someone who passed. this is something that the senate ought to deal with like it has historically. host: you want someone you can clear the jet it -- the
judiciary committee. guest: you want me to read the record even before the record has played. i'm telling you how i normally do things. and you are about a week or 10 days ahead of time. host: we will wait and see. one of our collars c --allers has said he opposes her. they disagree with the executive action on immigration. do you disagree with them? guest: whether she is confirmed or not confirmed, what is going to stop the president on his actions on immigration is one of three things. either stop money going for that , and we will take that up next week. the senate and the united states house passing an immigration
bill that will override the president. or like several states have gone to court now to have the judicial branch to hopefully say he acted constitutionally. there are more balls in the air than just loretta lynch. and stopping loretta lynch is not going to cause the president to turn around. it's going to make a statement that we can all make any time on the floor of the united states senate. i have made the statement that i think the president acted contrary to law, contrary to the constitution. more important, dividing the spirit of this is -- the separation of powers. what is this all about? the colonies were tired of george the third making all of this decisions for them. we set up a government divided so wondrous and did not have all the power. we cannot -- so one person did
not have all the power. we cannot let the president have all of power. that is what this is about host: -- that is what this is about. host: let's get to the callers. mississippi, democratic dollar. --caller. caller: i have been watching use in 1992. i believe, mr. grassley, the people that cut your grass and work on your forms are illegal. you don't want those guys to come in -- you don't want those guys to be known, because they are working for you guys. don't tell me that none of you politicians don't have illegals working for -- for them. host: let's get a response. guest: first of all, can i look at you incident the camera?
host: absolutely. guest: he said i hire people to cut my grass. i hope you will read the march edition of "virginia farming," that shows me on my john deere. i'm oh -- i mow 100 inches at a time. i don't hire anyone to mow my lawn. he could be right in this sense that i say there are two groups of interest groups in this country that don't mind having porous borders. undocumented workers coming in. people that want another generation to vote democratic so that is a political reason. and then people that want cheap labor, and that is a lot of business interests in this country that do not mind a porous border because of cheap labor. that i am not one of them and
most members of congress probably are not. host: chris republican, you are next. caller: thank you for c-span. i am sorry, i have a little bit of a fluke. i would like to say thank you very much for your service. i have been watching c-span for a long time. you are a great guy even though you are just a farmer and not a lawyer, as was said last time. every year, 20,000 people come to new york to take my job as new lawyers. illegal areas -- aliens in california -- i do not need that kind of competition. but my question to you is, can you please press her on the executive issue? i understand eric holder is claiming that e-mails between himself and his wife, executive
privilege, it is a very important thing, sir. the democrats did that to robert john, the secretary of defense. thank you for your service, sir. i like farmers and thank you again. >> yes. executive privilege in one of my latter question yesterday. i am not sure i got an answer, but i darted out my congress nation with nonlawyer language. but i think you will appreciate i am trying to understand there is a client lawyer relationship that seems to me would be very limited, but when you go from the white house all the way down to the justice department, and 60,000 something pages, the
declared executive rivulets, then it seems to me, it is ridiculous. i did not get an answer to that pair that is what we will press her on. i agree with you. i never thought the president had anything to do it fast and furious and i do not want you to to -- to conclude that i have concluded he does. for the first time, when he says there is executive for a voyage to some 65,000 pages of documents, then i have to say to myself well, was the president involved with fast and furious? i do not think so. i just there was a sweeping use of executive privilege, and unconstitutional use of the active privilege and a violation of separation of powers when we have a constitutional ability to do oversight. we have to get information and then we do not get in her mission now. they did not even argue that was executive religion the courts just before or just after the
election, they dumped 65,000 pages on us they had been holding back. so here we are. i do not know what the answer is on executive average. i may get an answer on the written response. >> to let our viewers know, loretta lynch will you meet with her behind closed doors? how does it work? >> if we want to meet with her, one-on-one or a group of us, she will come. she tries to avoid answering the questions. >> ted cruz said yesterday it is up to the majority leader mitch mcconnell whether or not he comes to the floor. he -- he called what she said yesterday dangerous when it was said the president positive action was reasonable and that
the majority leader should not allow confirmation of a or. >> that is a decision the majority leader can make. he has recognition. he can do for the caucuses he wants to and he can do for the individual members. i probably will not have such a discussion with them until he gets out of committee. >> with that point, if he gets out of committee would you push the majority leader to have a vote? >> i would look to history and the history would show -- this would not may be applied to a subcabinet, but a cabinet position. i would not want to say there has never been a buddy -- somebody, but usually the the president might withdraw it and use a new name, if there is a
legitimate reason other than politics. >> why would the senate not confirm her for this? >> there is a heck of a lot of difference. nobody questions that she is a good prosecutor. we have got a broken department of justice. can she fix it? we have been looking for answers yesterday. was she fix it? the lines of better cooperation on grass. if that happens, that is a good step and it helps us with our oversight work. what about the office of legal counsel? it ought to be the crown jewel agency in that department. it has given political decisions, we believe. worse than that, they will not even make public their decisions
of why the president can or cannot do something. they did kind of relief that one. for instance, they have not released the opinions on why the training guantanamo prisoners for one person who presumably left the military. >> cori, an independent, you are next for the judiciary committee. go ahead. caller: my statement [indiscernible] a question to the senator i will save my question for last. however, i guess my statement is we have not heard of the president or anyone in the executive ranch levying a case
-- or the judiciary branch for all senators and/or congressman that except these bribes and things of that nature for 5000 plate dinners and the judicial bank -- the judicial ranch ready to sue the congressmen or senators. we are threatening to sue our president, the leader of our free world, which we elected for a second term. my question, i guess, is when will we start governing again? i am sad with the politicians we have an office. we turned this into a bickering match as far as whether or not she is actually acceptable for the position. when you apply for a job, your resume speaks for you whether or
not you get the position. her resume has hoping for her already. host: i will have the chairman jump in. guest: nobody is questioning her competence. i made that clear when i first started talking to you. good answers. she is well educated and competent. the question is, would she change things from the way eric holder ran those things? the other thing he said, when will he start crossing it in congressman? there are congressmen in prison right now. a couple in california had been there for five years because they did something wrong. there was a louisiana congressman who was evicted. he needs to know the executive branch is checking the illegal activity of congress here the
other thing is, when will we start governing? i'll give you a perfect example of when the last few weeks -- of in the last few weeks when we started covering. democratic majority leader allowed 17 18, maybe as many as 20, but no more than that, votes on amendments. basically, he shut down the united states senate being an amending body because the house of representatives does not have to find consensus. we are the consensusbuilding body under the constitution. in one week, we have had more than 20 roll call votes on one bill, one amendment, that includes half of republican amendments. you would not even let bipartisan amendments, in some instances. you can see we are governing
now, whereas in the last four years, the senate was shut down from being a nonproductive ranch of government. wesley will go to chicago next democratic caller. close good morning. i was listening. you guys are doing too much argument amongst each other and not getting much done. i washed and her answers were very intelligent and i believe she will get the job done. when will congress get the job done and pass laws for the
american people. we sent you to do a job because we believe you care about us. but on the news and what we're hearing from you guys, it is despicable. when is the fighting going to stop? guest: she obviously was not tuned into my last comment. all last year, the senate -- i can quantify that for the most recent caller, about 20 times, we had roll call votes on amendments when normally, you would have maybe 200. with the new leadership of the united states senate, the senate will govern, unlike senator reed ran the united they senate. already, we have had debate -- last week, 23 amendments and yesterday, 14 amendments. else invited have a tween republicans and democrats.
now if our running the senate, taking up half the democrat amendments and half the republican amendments is not finding consensus, i do not know the name of the caller and what he wants, he needs to compare this last two weeks with the way the democrats ran the senate last year. >> jerry in alabama, independent caller. >> first of all, thank you for c-span. senator grassley, it is good to see you. >> thank you. >> here is my question. on november 11 of last year, loretto valid she would challenge all of the voter id laws. i never understood why a voter's identity process why does
anybody have a problem with that? the excuse you usually get is it she's people out of their right to vote or it is too expensive to get a government issued photo id card. that is ridiculous especially when you have provisional ballots when you do not have to have anything to vote, you just come back later and verified who you are. has that come up in the hearing and if so, will it? i will take your answer off the air and thank you for being a solid patriot guest: -- patriot. guest: on three different occasions yesterday, he had three solid questioning -- he spent a great deal of that time on voter laws and asked her very pointed questions and got answers like, probably in this
case, a legitimate answer -- it is in the courts, maybe it should not be there. what you say that's what the senator will tell us. speaker of the house in north carolina was one of the people brought to court, i guess. anyway, she says it is in the court and we will have to let it play out in the courts. you might have a hard time winning that because it has been a recent 6-3 decision by the supreme court saying that certain changes of certain laws in certain states have not violated the voting rights act. i think -- yes, it came up, and the senator did a very good job of going deeply into that. host: our caller from connecticut. the line for democrats. go ahead and talk to the senator. caller: thank you for the
opportunity to speak. i want to go from a historical perspective. grassley mentioned -- at that time, african-americans were basically marginalized and it was white men who basically had control of the power. dna, everything is passed on. the problem we are having is asking questions relative to the safety of this country, ok? that is the issue. these people in congress, i wish i could get rid of all of them. they're basically bought and paid for and they do not represent us. this test only represented a portion. if they got all the voters, we find the percentage of people who voted it was not the majority of americans. it was the minority of americans who put the senators in power.
classes you will wait until 100% of americans vote, you will never have any legitimacy of government. you have got to go by what has been the case. would you mind repeating for me his main point so i can comment on it? he rambled on. host: i apologize, i do not know what he started out with for you to answer. i think he was just making the point that you are saying republicans now control the congress and we will govern, and he is saying, this last election, not enough google showed up for you to have a mandate. >> i could repeat the number of amendments we worked on equally devalued between republican and democrat, when we only had 20 roll call votes all last year where we would normally have maybe 200 or 300. host: one issue not talked a lot
about in the hearing was the decision in ferguson, new york in those cases. why is that and what should be the focus of the justice department on those issues? guest: there are laws, that if law-enforcement people violate the laws, they could be sued. and the justice department has plenty of authority to go in there and do investigations to see if the civil rights of people have been violated. they're doing that now in ferguson. they're doing that in staten island. also, i even initiated something ford island to visit, just one individual. it does not deal with the racial issues of whether or not there should be a federal
investigation. in the case of a person arrested in a boat, handcuffed, did not have a jacket on the way he -- the way it should be on, he drowned. they are up in the air about it. they are pursuing that both that the state level and adjust his level. >> do you think there needs to be a reform to the grand jury process? question would be very difficult for me, --guest: it would be very difficult for me not being a lawyer to study that -- without studying that. i do not think there is a reason for changing the grand jury system. let me say historically, i do not think there have been very many questions raised about the grand jury situation. you have got staten island or ferguson and is that a reason to do it? it is a reason to look at it again, but i do not think you
ought to take a position right now but you have to dramatically change things. >> frank. you are next. caller: it is a great day in south carolina. republican here, i am looking for my sheet now because you caught me offguard. anyway, i will not be long. i am in the hospital right now. i had three back surgeries. i had an injury. but i worked at the first two and i am not sure if i will be able to go back to work this time. but i want to go over a couple of things real quick. one caller who said he had not been working and he is talking
about people from other countries working in this country and talking about wealthy people using them, everybody uses them. a big reason is, issue people do not want to talk about. that is, a good job was done. try to get a job if you are on welfare. in our county, and is industry based county. tourism. all the service workers now tend to be of foreign descent whether legal or illegal. the reason they are there is we have got people, you can go down to any city in the country 10 times as worse -- host: frank, i need you to get
to your point. caller: the point is americans are not worried about immigration. they are worried about their country. they want welfare reforms. health care reform, american people were against it and a bill was passed and that happened. host: frank, i have got to run at that point because we need more voices. guest: i do not think so. he did not ask a simple -- a question. host: let me go on to jim in michigan, independent caller. are you there? caller: yes. thank you very much. senator grassley my perception of yesterday is that there was
an all-out effort to get your guest to commit to being a part of an attack on the president. i do not understand why your committee did not ask her if she will be keeping an i out on all branches of government. i am especially concerned about lobbyists who can go to the offices of members of congress and have unlimited access to members of congress, and yet the american people do not have that. they are not privy to that access to congress feared i think if you're going to be fair you will ask if she will investigate all branches of the government, and not just focus on attacking the president. guest: she will do that.
she is an outstanding prosecutor. you do not have to worry about anyone violating the law and she will take care of that. i cannot speak for 99 percent of centers, but monday through thursdays, the 42 weeks we are in session and not holding town meetings, i reserve 3-5 four 815 minute appointments and the iowans have priority in that time. a lobbyist in this town gets paid a lot. if they're doing their work right they are not coming to bother chuck grassley. they have their members in iowa. the manufacturing association. power windows, or premier manufacturing in iowa. have those people contact me. they are my constituents and
obviously, i will pay more attention to mike and issuance because there is not a lobbyist in town who could both meet. host: danny, alabama, democratic caller. caller: thank you for taking my call. i would like for you to clarify something for me about who was obstructing congress, the senate . you also a bus or it about 400 different bills. senator mcconnell filibustered one of his own bills that he put in their. as far as loretta lynch, she asked the question pertaining to the law. she stated what the law was saying about whether or not that was reasonable. i would like for you to clarify that for me. >> let me ask you the first
point and then clarify what you meant on that point. clarify this, 400 filibustered. let me tell you why there are not 400 filibusters. because senator reed, when he was majority leader for six years, he stands up he says he will bring up bill 100. he immediately files a motion to stop debate even before there was a debate. he calls that a filibuster. no. you have not even had debate and he follows a motion -- files a motion. then he fills an amendment can i will not going to that process. when you feel that, no one can offer an amendment unless harry reid will offer you an amendment. that is why we only had 20 roll call votes on amendments last
year. that is not the way the senate has operated 200 years and i hope i clarify for you, if you have been watching the rest of the hour, the republican majority under mcconnell has already had 35 amendments, half republican and have democrat peer the senate is doing what the senate is supposed to do being an amendment body, and citing consensus, because the house of representatives, a majority that is republican or democrat, they can ignore the minority. the senate did not function now under new leadership. >> the second part was about loretta lynch's answer where she said "the homeland security department was looking for guidance on how to prioritize deportations of unauthorized immigrants, and that she found the guidance that it got from the president reasonable.
guest: i would disagree with the second part that it is reasonable. lawyers and nonlawyers feel like it violate the constitution. that will be a legal issue and will be cited by congress if we pass immigration law, override him. on the other question, her answer is legitimate. the department of homeland security has not figured out exactly how they will process 5 million people the president has presumably legalized or at least given some protection from deportation, because they are undocumented. doing this on prosecutorial discretion, which typically is looking for this person how should they be handled, versus this person.
it is practically impossible to do it with five my people and that is the point we are trying to make. she is right they still do not know exactly how they're handling it. host: it was said, congress only give the department of money to deport the millions of -- thousands of the millions of immigrants here. they have to make decisions that have to prioritize. as part of the burden way with congress? >> don't call it prosecutorial discretion. call it amnesty. 5 million people on a case-by-case basis, how are you going to process them? that is the excuse the president gave for his unconstitutional actions. host: a couple more calls for you. janice. caller: good morning. good morning to you.
>> good morning, janice, how are you doing? caller: i am doing fine. i have a few questions. host: can you pick your top one question because we only have a couple of minutes left. caller: ok. the president, what is that all about? i would like to know where it come from. you talk about immigrants making laws. i am against anyone being in this country illegal. guest: suing the president kind of force this way. the house of representatives and i feel the same way, the house voted to sue the president on actions he has taken that they feel is either illegal or unconstitutional that he is doing something congress ought to do, so you sue the president
to get it into the judicial branch of government, an independent referee to make a decision of who is right, the congress or the host: one last call. a democratic caller. caller: good morning, greta. host: good morning. caller: i have a question. let's see. i have a very hard time respecting where you come from. you are a rancher, farmer whatever. and you get subsidies from the government. i have seen this before on c-span, and i -- that is so wrong. host: ok, that question. guest: i'm a farmer and i'm treated no different than any other farmer in the united states. he is right, i do, and i could avoid those by cash writing my farm and being an absentee land owner, but i think as a family
farmer, representing i will farmers -- representing iowa farmers that i would appreciate the position of iowa farmers if i am at risk and farm on a share basis. in iowa, we call it 50-50. i divide the land. my son provides the machinery, and i do some of the labor, but most of that is his responsibility. i pay half the cost, he pays half the cost. it seems to me that out of 89,000 farmers, i am one of them. i'm going to better appreciate the farmer -- positions the i will farmers are in if i participate, rather than being an absentee land owner. host: how much subsidies does the landowner get? guest: well, it depends on the present of corn. now, the price of corn is below the cost of production.
host: let's get back to the senate judiciary committee. i want to ask you about updating the voting rights act. where does that stand? guest: i believe that there will not be legislation out of our committee for this reason when the democrats controlled the senate, senator leahy do not -- do not bring it up. if he had the votes, i doubt there would be votes in the republican congress to do that. but by the way, just for one of the callers said something about the voting rights act. and the accusation is you cannot have order id because it is going to suppress minority voting. minority voting is up in both the presidential elections and even most midterm elections. so you cannot a cue the lack -- accuse the state legislatures as depressing voting.
host: we will have to leave the conversation there. chairman grassley, thank you very much for your time. guest: thank you. i'm very glad to be with you. host: next, we talked to marc mauer. later on, more on loretta lynch is -- loretta lynch's nomination. we will be right back. >> this sunday on q and a -- discoveries about the teenage brain. >> they do not have their frontal lobes to actually reason , the cost and effect of consequences of actions on not very clear to them because their frontal lobes are not as readily accessible.
they have the frontal lobes, it is just that the connections cannot be made as quickly. also, all the hormones are changing a lot in the bodies of young men and women, and the brain hasn't seen these yet in life until you hit teenage years. so the brain is kind of learn to how to respond to these new hormones which are rolling around and locking onto different receptors. so they're trying to -- it is sort of trial and a are good and i think this sort of contributes to the roller coaster experience that we watch as parents. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern and pacific. here are some of our featured programs for this weekend on the c-span networks. on c-span twos book tv -- white house correspondent , april ryan , on her more than 25 years in
journalism and her coverage of three presidential administrations. and sunday at noon, a three-hour conversation with walter isaacson, whose biographies include ben franklin, albert einstein and the international bestseller on steve jobs. and on american history tv on c-span three, saturday at 6:00 p.m. eastern, on the civil war. on how the cowboy, during reconstruction, became symbolic of a newly unified america. and sunday evening at 6:00 on "american artifacts,", we will learn about the founder. find our complete schedule at www.c-span.org. e-mail us, or send us a tweet. join the c-span conversation. like us on facebook, follow us on twitter.
>> washington journal continues. host: and we are back with marc mauer, the executive director of the sentencing project. what would you like to see? what changes would you like to see to the criminal justice system? guest: well, i think one of the main challenges we see is the problem with mandatory sentencing in the federal system. i think there is growing concern that mandatory sentencing particularly in drug cases produces far too many cases, so i think the attorney general could work with congress to try and reduce the severity of those sentences to give judges more discretion. also, working with general prosecutors to use their discretion. whether the charge offenders with a mandatory penalty, or charge something that doesn't require the judge to have his or her hands tied in such a case.
host: do feel there is widespread support for such an idea? in a recent poll -- would you favor or oppose eliminating a mandatory minimum prison sentence -- 81% of democrats agree with that. is there legislation? if so, explain what it would do. guest: well, last year in the senate the judiciary committee on a bipartisan vote approved the smarter sentencing act -- which give judges more discretion and many of those drug cases to look at the individual circumstances. it did not reach the senate floor, but it did have bipartisan support. so there is interest in seeing that move again this year. there is also another bipartisan bill that would provide more rehabilitative programming and
powered oh prisons -- and federal prisons to try and reduce that an increase incentives for inmates who complete that successfully. so we are seeing it come from a variety of directions, and i think it is encouraging that we are seeing it from both parties. host: loretta lynch test on this yesterday in the confirmation hearing talking about howling to lower the rate of research to visit them. [video clip] >> you have raised the next challenge -- which is, how do we help people who are going to be released return to the communities from which they came, and be productive citizens. as opposed to returning to the prior behavior that not only landed them in prison, but creates new victims. and that will certainly be an important part of my focus
within the eastern district of new york --we have very strong participants sponsored by our colleagues at the brooklyn attorneys district offices. we work extensively with those reentry efforts, and those reentry efforts work exactly as you said in focusing on job training, building skills so that those coming out of prison can become productive members of society, as opposed to those who will continue to harm others. so you have certainly raised very important issues, and i look for to continuing the discussion with you and people on this committee and throughout this body on those issues. host: loretta lynch yesterday at that confirmation hearing. what did you hear? guest: we had a so-called tough on crime year when members of both parties were promoting very harsh penalties. now the thinking has begun to change.
i think if there is growing recognition -- 95% of the people we send to prison are coming home one day. we are all going to be better off if those people are better prepared to make it back in the community when they come home. which basically means two things. first, we had to provide programming in prisons to address the deficits many of them have in terms of education. and secondly, make that transition home much more productive. in the oldest, you got a bus ticket and $25 and someone would say good luck to you. so we need to know what is the person going to do for employment? is there a supportive network of people in the community to help them? there is much more focused now on making that transition much more successful. host: what about the message to potential criminals, those that may violate the law that if you do so the criminal justice
system will come down on you. what about that as a deterrent to crime? guest: unfortunately, what we know from a lot of research is that it is the certainty of punishment, not the severity of punishment, that makes a difference. some of them are going to think twice, but just saying we are going to up the penalty from five years to 10 years does not do much for a person. unfortunately, i think too many lawmakers are focused on the severity part of that equation. that is why we and up with this very obsessive sentencing structure, which in many cases is a one size fits on system. host: what happens then -- what goes on with the prison system been in this country? guest: well, the problem is we have a record number of people in jail. 2.2 million today locked up behind bars. as the system has expanded, the
prison system was always limited , and it becomes even more difficult to keep up with that. because we built prisons at a record rate. so it means that prisons have always been very inadequate in many areas. the have been high rates of assault and violence, and far too many prisons -- in far too many prisons. despite the best efforts of many corrections officials would like to run more efficient systems. host: and what is the cost? guest: we spend about $80 billion a year. per person, it is about $25,000 to $30,000 a year to keep somebody locked up. if it is a lower-level drug seller who gets a mandatory penalty of five years in prison then we are talking about $125,000 for that person, with
very little impact on the drug trade or that person. host: "wall street journal" this wedding has the story. they writes that criminal justice experts often attribute the older population to drug laws in the 1980's. can you speak to this? guest: i think that is absolutely true. we are seeing the prison system come to great costs.
into many cases, lower-level offenses have been a part of it. but for many people, they have been cycling in and out because in a large part, we didn't do anything for them when they came in to the system. now they come out of prisons with a few prospects, and they cycle in and out. host: they notes that the average inmate generally costs $20,000 to $30,000 a year. elderly prisoners cost three times amount. a democratic caller. you're up first in this conversation. caller: hi. host: you are on the air, sir. go ahead. caller: i was just wondering why do parole officers keep track of people? guest: well, the reason we have a parole system is that we know we have people who violate the law.
they're are trying to supervise the person to make sure that they are abiding by the requirements of parole and the various restrictions. and secondly, to try and provide support to that person. it is very difficult to get a job if you have a criminal record on top of all the other challenges they may have, so whatever they can do to help them maintain employment, to make sure they have a secure housing situation. in the best of all worlds, april left there should be working to make that is smooth transition. host: anthony and and -- in alabama. a republican color. caller: hi there. in terms of the criminal justice system, who do turn to when the criminal justice system comes after you? you have the right to equal protection. you know, when the come after you like that, and it gets real bad and they violate her
constitutional rights, the next thing you know, they can throw term out there like terrorist or whatever they want. then the next thing you know, national security -- you can't talk to nobody because you are a threat to national security. it is a situation you get in, and they are in control. who do you turn to to stop it? guest: well, it basically comes down to the importance of having a good lawyer. people with means who feel they have been unjustly accused or tried can have a good attorney and a good representation in court. one of the main problems we see in the system today is the terrible system of defense, and far too many -- in far too many parts of the country. there are also many parts of the country where if you don't have resources, you may not meet your assigned defender until your first day in court. they will not have the resources to do a thorough investigation.
in far too many cases, we have victims of justice. host: in illinois, a democratic caller. caller: yes, i have a problem, you know, the inmates they work for these corporations while they are inside for pennies. but when they come out, they can't get employment. you know? guest: yes, you point to a real problem. there are hundreds of statutes in the book in every states that restrict the ability of people coming out of prison to make it in the community. now, some of the restrictions are based on public safety considerations. for example, if you have been convicted of being a pedophile you cannot work in a day care center. far too many cases though, just having a fennelly can -- felony
conviction itself can prevent you from also took jobs. it doesn't matter if the conviction was from 30 years ago. your application is immediately tossed in the waste basket. so there is a movement now the equal employment opportunities commission, basically asking them to take a more nuanced approach to this, and not automatically disqualify people from employment. but if we want people to succeed, we have to reconsider how we approach all these issues . and not just say one-size-fits-all. you have a conviction, that is it for you. host: what is your reaction to the supreme court's recent decision that they're going to take a look at the oklahoma lethal injection procedure? guest: well, this is an issue that has been brewing for quite a number of years now. avenues -- as states have moved to lethal and action -- lethal injection, there has been a lot
of experimentation going along -- going on. the problem is that most of the drugs were coming from europe. so the manufacturers are not permitting use of the drugs, if it going -- if it is going to be in an execution. we have seen in the last year some her and his cases of executions taking an hour or more. inmates clearly in great pain great distress. what the supreme court is not going to be looking at is is there a case that the states can make that the drugs actually work. we certainly should not be using the inmates as guinea pigs. there is no scientific evidence to show that this can ask a be a meaningful way that states can employ this procedure. host: what is happening until the court kate -- takes this case up? guest: one of them has since
been executed before the supreme court made the decision to take on the case. the governor of the state can only give a 60 day reprieve, and that is why this is now come to the supreme court, which is now -- which has now put the case is on hold and will not hear it until april. but it has considerable relevance for many states now who want to do executions. this is increasingly the way they are doing it, and we have seen, as i said, just her and does outcomes and many -- just her and his outcomes in many states. host: will we see this happen with the three drug procedure? guest: well, it is already changing. the number of death sentences handed down and essex reasons -- and executions handed down -- a
two third decline from recent years. what we are seeing that is except for very small handful of states, is declining support and enthusiasm. i think far too many instances innocent people are ending up on death row. we see through dna evidence and others all these cases of people coming home after 20 or 30 years for a crime they did not commit. and that strikes many people as fundamentally not the system we want to see. host: california. a republican. good morning to you. caller: good morning, miss. i'm in next con and off parole. i have been off parole for many years now. one of my main concerns about entering back into society was not the inability to find a job. what is happening is there is a lot of -- you have to put in an application, you have to check that box that you are in a con
and it is very difficult for us to reenter back into the community and be a positive person in society - pay our taxes like everybody else if we cannot get our job. for convicts to come out of -- out in society and obtain a job, we are going to have a very high reticent rate. guest: welcome your absolute correct. many states and cities in recent years have adopted a policy in recent years. it refers to the box on the application that says do you have a conviction? ban the box means that if you apply for a job, they cannot ask you on the initial application whether you have a conviction because we do not want to screen out people without even considering their credentials. if you get called in for an interview and you are being considered then they will ask you that question about convictions.
but it at least allows the person to make the best case to show that they are not just a function of the worst crimes ever committed, but they have many strengths, they have changed, they are different people. yes, they can also consider your conviction in the interview. i think it is a very encouraging development to try and find some middle ground between deciding when a conviction is relevant to the job, and also giving a person a job -- a chance to show who they are today. host: from maryland, a democratic caller. caller: good morning. i would like to ask your guest is there anything being done to stop the process of charging so many of our young people as adults? the second thing is youth coming out of the foster care system. is there anything being done to provide a safety net for those who turn 18 with no family and no one to care for them.
they end up in the streets and they create havoc throughout society. i just need to know if there's anything being done to help that particular population. guest: sure. unless you are familiar -- teenagers being tried as adults, there is a push -- particularly in the 1990's -- over the years, that is how we have ended up with, in some cases, 13 and 14-year-olds being sentenced to life without parole. just really extreme sentences. there is now a reconsideration going on about those policies. the number of kids who have been sent to adult court has an declined. the juvenile the court was established to provide age-appropriate rehabilitation approaches to kids. yes, they may have considered --
committed a serious crime, but they are still children. the adult court is not the place to take that into consideration. we also know that the supreme court has said in the juvenile cases that children are different. they lack the maturity. they do not have the same degree of culpability as adults do. it does not mean we condone their behavior, but we have to look at them differently. i think there is growing sentiment in this direction. host: randy is watching us. a republican. caller: yes, good morning america. my name is randy. i live here in williamsburg, virginia. i operate a small business that is recognized -- a recognized public health program. i operate local health facilities that work with public housing, schools, and any organization that wants a fitness component. over these last 14 years of
operating, i have been speaking with my local sheriffs in charge of the local jails and regional jails, and what i have offered is free of charge my services to come to the jails and involve the incarcerated mother or father or extended family with the children that come to visit them, and to do a healthy activity where they can spend an hour riding one of my bikes -- stationary bikes inside of my trailers in a very safe and enclosed environment that can park on the premises. so when you go in here in and year out and continue to donate services in public housing and schools where the majority of these kids are coming from, i don't hold much hope. it seems like the sheriffs and the police chiefs and everybody involved want to be some sort of celebrity at the local level.
host: i'm going to jump in at this point. we also have a treat on this from one of our viewers wanting to know -- or to discuss -- the pipeline that randy was sort of getting to there. does that atheist -- that exist? guest: well, it does. we have had this problem in schools for a long time. teachers. with it, parents dealt with it. in recent decades it is much where likely schools have adopted a zero-tolerance policy, which means that when there is a disciplinary problem, they send it directly to the police. now, there are times and places where that is appropriate, but what we have seen is that it has been overused. cases that used to be handled in school now go to the court system. and the problem with that is that once the kid acquires a record, it is almost a guaranteed ticket of admission to an adult court not very far down the road. so we have seen a real push in
this election. we have seen real racial disparities and how this has been carried out. i think there is increasing concern that we need to consider this. host: myrtle beach, south carolina. tony. in independent caller. caller: i question is this. i would like to ask if you could explain to us how these for-profit prisons are working? you hear some horror stories coming out of these places, as well as the fact that they pad the pockets of senators and congressmen and stuff like that. thank you. guest: well, most people in prison are not in a private prison today. but there are 100 35,000 people incarcerated in a private prison. the research on private prisons you know, they promote themselves on saving money for taxpayers. the research shows there is no significant difference. one of the many problems is the
issue of oversight of private prisons. what happens is you could be convicted in the state of connecticut, they are overcrowded, they sent you to a private prison in virginia, so your hundreds of miles of way which mean that the officials in connecticut do not have real direct oversight into the conditions of your confinement. it means that your family has difficulty visiting you. if you have a legal appeal, you cannot visit with your lawyer. it doesn't mean that every private prison operator is out to do dastardly thing, but just the very nature of the structure means that it is going to be very difficult to maintain constitutional standards maintain the programming that people need, and they cut corners. if you want to make a profit the profit is going to come from less training, less experienced guards, things like that. we have seen far too many cases very shares problems coming-out of these situations.
host: sean in detroit, a democratic caller. go ahead. caller: yes. i'm trying to find out -- i'm previously home from prison. why is it so hard for a guy to come home and make it to where we can get jobs? it is hard for us. inside a prison, and outside the prison. why can't we get jobs? guest: well, you know, i think that is a problem with what we call mass incarceration. we have devoted so many huge resources in building and filling prisons. it doesn't leave much left over to do programming and prisons, to help people get jobs when they get out, and the like. we need to substantially reduce the number of people in prisons. we could reduce the prison populace and quite substantially
with no adverse effect on public safety, and then redirect resources first to those communities where people come from, where he need to create more economic opportunities to steer young people into constructive activities. and secondly, to provide real services and real support to people coming home. it is extremely difficult. we have long's banding - now we have all these other structural barriers as well. host: marc mauer is the executive director of the sentencing project. you can find more information at sentencingproject.org. guest: thank you for having me. host: up next, we will take your calls and your e-mails and your tweets. what you make of what loretta lynch had to say yesterday? we will take your calls and thoughts on that coming up. we will be right back.
>> here are some of our future programs this weekend. on c-span two booktv, saturday night at 10:00. white house correspondent, april ryan, hunter more than 25 years in journalism, and her coverage of three presidential administrations. and sunday at noon, a three-hour conversation with walter isaacson, whose conversations -- autobiographies include the international bestseller on steve jobs. and on c-span three, saturday at 6:00 eastern, the civil war and how the cowboy, during reconstruction, became symbolic of the newly unified america. and sunday evening at 6:00 on "american artifacts," we will to her the house and learn about the life of its founder. find our complete television schedule at c-span.org.
and let us know what you think about the programs you are watching. call us, e-mail us, or send us a tweet. join the c-span conversation. like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. >> keep track of the republican led congress, and follow its new members to the first session. new congress, best access. on c-span, c-span two, c-span radio, and c-span.org. >> washington journal continues. host: and we are back this morning, for the next hour wanting to get your thoughts on what you heard from the nominee for attorney general, loretta lynch, yesterday in day one. calling the president decision on immigration to stop the deportation for a certain number of unauthorized immigrants. she called it reasonable, saying the homeland security department
was looking for guidance on how to prioritize the millions of illegal immigrants in this country. so what are your thoughts on that? the phone lines will be on your screen. you can also join the conversation on twitter. also send an e-mail - email@example.com. first, joining us from the hearing room up on capitol hill -- joining us there is seung min kim, a reporter with pol "politico." how do you think loretta lynch did? guest: she did pretty well. i think that she was really, you
know, kept her composure. she answered, and maybe not so much answered some of the senators questions but obviously all democrats are going to be supportive of her. there were praising her all day yesterday in terms of her credentials, her legal expertise. and i think you saw some warm words from republican senators. i remember one senator telling her that you have really impressive qualifications and i hope i will be able to support your nomination. senator blake was a little bit more in the middle, but he seemed very, you know -- lindsey graham said you acquitted yourself very well through the confirmation hearings. some of the other republicans were not so happy. you can definitely expect senator ted cruz of texas to not support her confirmation. he was not complete with the
type of answers she gave, particularly on the immigration action. but it wasn't really a surprise. we can expect those members to be able to vote in favor of her confirmation. so, i think from her person there, she did exactly what she was supposed to do. host: and another senator also said he would not support her nomination. will she have republican votes to get out of the senator judiciary committee? guest: i think so. looking at what he had said previously, and i don't think the hearing yesterday would have changed our minds -- but we saw senators -senator grassley is the big? here- -- big question mark here. but he was also very warm
towards her. he was impressed with her qualifications. he said, look, there is nothing i find in here that would initially disqualify you. that was a very interesting comment. but she should have enough to clear through the committee in the next few weeks, and i think everyone does expect her to see -- to be confirmed. host: they are about 10 days out for making that decision, when the committee will vote. then what happens after the committee vote? let's assume she makes a through the judiciary committee, when is her confirmation vote on the floor likely to come? guest: i would expect that it is likely to come. it is hard to tell because we see, under the new republican majority, they have been spending a very long time on different legislations. they're just wrapping up keystone legislation. next week, they will move to the funding bill for homeland
security, and that is expected to take several weeks. presumably, if they run to the entire month of february to do that maybe you could see the attorney general nominations vote in march, but it is unclear right now. the floor schedule is always in flux. but you already have some senators, such as senator tom cruise saying look she is not a good candidate. it is really up to the majority leader, mitch mcconnell, to decide to the schedule this -- to schedule this vote or not. but a lot of republicans are they don't want eric holder as the attorney general anymore. she seems like a good replacement for him. host: so day two kicks off here in about 50 minutes. who do you expect to be there today? who will be testifying? what topics are likely to come up? guest: there are several witnesses on tap today.
there are many called by the republican majority. i think the big name for today's hearing is sheryl atkinson. she is the former cbs news investigative reporter, who has written extensively about the justice department. most specifically about syria -- which is really been a controversy. it has exley even led to a charge against mr. holder back in 2012. she has written extensively on the scandal. she has been a highly profiled twitter -- profiled click on the obama administration. the republicans have also invited a lot of other high-profile people who have been very critical of what they see as executive overreach by the obama administration. in contrast with democrats, the democrats have invited mostly people -- all but one -- who
know loretta lawrence -- loretta lynch personally. see you can kind of see the two sides that each party will focus on here. democrats want to focus on her. they do not want this to be about any extraneous issues. republicans, like they did much of yesterday, want to make this a broader referendum on the obama administration. you know, looking at -- immigration was a big thing, but there were other policies that they raised. host: ms. kim, thank you for your time this morning. guest: take you for having me. host: and now to all of you, and your thoughts. on the hearing yesterday, and also on the president's act to -- an independent from georgia you're up first. caller: yes, are you there he?
host: yes. caller: illegal immigration is destabilizing to the economy and the country, and it is illegal. it is not undocumented, it is illegal. the attorney general need to -- needs to take a stand to support the laws of the land. especially given current national security issues, the open borders are absurd and a disservice to the people who live along the borders. so, yes, we need to encourage immigration, but i strongly disagree with the president using his authority to -- it is destabilizing and a disservice to the american people. thank you. host: ok, we will go to eric next in jacksonville, florida. caller: ok, thank you. first, i want to say -- there
are two questions you'd didn't answer -- you didn't answer. i would also like to see obama stop bullying the african-americans to go along with it because there are those coming to the country. stop trying to will the african-americans into going along with it. host: eric what would you make of it? hispanic group leaders were joined by african-american leaders, saying that they agreed with the president decision. what you make of that? caller: well, i think they're going to get the agenda passed. and they know better than us. they know how to vote and how to cut a check and fund the campaign. we will vote for them, but we didn't cut the check. host: steve.
a republican color. caller: hi. i just had a quick question. this whole immigration think they want to keep saying that they will pass laws to get it fixed and overthrow the amnesty bill and all that. all my family came through ellis island. we had completely closed borders back then. you had to go through the proper channels to get immigration. if you didn't have a job at a certain time, or you failed the background check, you're kicked out. we need to stop worrying about people's feelings, seal up the borders, reopen ellis island, reopen the golden gate immigration systems, and tell people you want to come in? come in their people -- there.
if you are illegal kick them out, and come back the right way. and if you have a criminal record, you are banned from the country, period. you took the citizenship test, and you became a citizen. this way, it is just an utterly financial mess, and it is going to be worse. host: steve, take a listen to what loretta lynch had to say yesterday during her confirmation hearing. she was testifying for nearly nine hours there. and she was asked, right at the beginning, about the president's decision to take action, by himself, on immigration. [video clip] >> as i look at the decision, some of my perspective in applying those principles of the exercise of discretion, i viewed as a way in which the department of homeland security was seeking legal guidance on the most effective way to prioritize the
removal of large number of -- numbers of individuals, given that the resources would not permit their removal of everyone that fell within the respective category. and that certainly was the framework from which i viewed that. looking at it from that perspective, the department of homeland security's request and suggestion that they infect prioritize the removal of the most dangerous undocumented immigrant among us -- those who have criminal records, those who were involved in terrorism, those who were involved in gang to become a violent crimes -- along with , i believe, people who have recently entered and could pose a threat to our system seem to be a reasonable way to marshal limited resources to deal with the problem. host: the nominee for attorney general there yesterday. answering questions about the president decision, saying that she found it reasonable. that dominated many of the headlines this morning, so we are turning to all of you to get
your reactions. they too continues today. she will not be testifying today . she testified for nearly nine hours yesterday. instead, republicans have called their witnesses to talk about problems they see with the justice department. and democrats have called will it -- called witnesses to defend the nomination. we'll have that here on c-span. duane. an independent caller. caller: hello. i watched i think the whole thing. some of it towards the end, she started repeating herself. but i found her whole interview pretty compelling. and if the republicans don't vote for her, then eric holder will stay. i would rather have eric holder. hopefully they don't vote for her. host: johnny. you're next, johnny. good morning to you.
caller: good morning, greta. actually, it is donny. thank you. first of all, from everything i have read about her, she seems to be very qualified for the position. and i am an african young man, and i would like some of eric holder's policies to continue. but with regards to immigration i hear democrats and republicans both say that this is a nation of immigrants. but we seem to back away from that. i heard a caller earlier say that as long as they don't have the filing criminal history, we should let people come into this nation. i think it should be -- there should be an easier way for immigrants to come to this nation. host: well, eric holder's policies are certainly going to be discussed today, during day to -- day two.
are you going to be watching? caller: i will probably be watching. i will read the newspapers tomorrow, and of course i will be checking in with c-span and cnn. host: if you missed it, you can go to our website and watch it there. that witness table will be filled with people talking about the justice department, and the controversies there. you heard seung min kim talking about the witnesses. you will have democrat witnesses there testifying on behalf of loretta lynch, talking about her record. as they contemplate her nomination to be the next attorney general, we heard from the chairman earlier today -- a republican of iowa -- saying
that vote could take place in the next two weeks. then possibly coming to the senate floor in march. the chairman saying he has not yet decided on how he is going to vote for her. a couple of republicans have already said that the are a no vote. because of what she had to say on immigration yesterday calling the president decision reasonable. in detroit, missouri. what is your reaction? caller: things are taking my call. i think she should be confirmed. i think she is well call if i'd to do the job -- well-qualified to do the job. and i think the republicans are going to go against anybody that obama puts into any kind of position. host: you think this is more about the president then her record? caller: i think i do, i really think so. host: we go to a democratic caller. you're on the air.
caller: good morning, greta. host: morning. caller: [indiscernible] is the one who should be blamed because they were the ones behind the illegal aliens. they know - why he don't pass a farm bill that makes everybody -- every illegal immigrant receive subsidies. they didn't say anything about that. stop trying to put that responsibility on this lady when you all should put that responsibility on you all on passing a bill and doing something about immigration. then it will have to be reflective of our president. they want to play games. host: ok, herbert. you can see them preparing for today's confirmation hearing.
we'll have live coverage here on c-span. as the senators start to come in and get ready to pepper their witnesses with questions, we will bring you into the committee room so you can watch it live. we are going to keep getting your thoughts here for the next 40 minutes about what the nominee, loretta lynch, had to say yesterday. we will get to more of your phone calls here in just a minute, but first we want to share this headline with you from politico -- hillary clinton may delay her campaign. hillary clinton expecting no major challenges, strongly considering delaying the run for her presidential campaign until july, three months later than originally planned. "politico" with that story
this morning. also on the front page of "usa today," mitch mcconnell sat down with the newspaper for an interview and told them that he is unyielding on iran sanctions and affiant on the koch brothers being able to spend millions in the next campaign cycle. if you missed that, you can read that today. i capitol hill today, live coverage on c-span three. the senate banking committee will be marking up the eye ron sanctions legislation -- the iran sanctions legislation. several democrats, who had signed onto bipartisan legislation to put more sanctions on iran, have now backed off. some of the saying it is partly due to the speaker of the house inviting the israeli prime minister to speak before congress. that is expected to take lace on march 3, ahead of the march 24
-- take place on march 3, ahead of the march 24 the deadline. one of the democrats, he says he found the invitation offputting. that having an impact on democrats willing to support bipartisan legislation for more sanctions on iran. we'll go to lawrence in illinois. a republican caller. go ahead, lawrence. caller: yes, good morning. you know, before i even talk about loretta lynch, i do not have a problem with her being nominated. i kind of grief -- of a agree with one of the gentlemen, but for a different reason i think she would be better than eric holder. but obviously, she is still going to be going along with president obama's immigration policy trade determining --
immigration policy. concerning the immigration policy -- when people talk about all this rhetoric, it is all about one-liners about our country being a nation of immigrants and bloah blah, blah. when we were a nation of immigrants in the 1800s and the 1900s, our needs were different. at the early stages of growth come you need certain types of nutrients to feed the plants. the same thing with a country. we don't need the same type of immigrants we needed in the 1800s or after world war ii, when we were the only country producing things in this country. and all this rhetoric -- we deal with these problems in a vacuum. we have a lot of different problems. we have problems with jobs and education. i watch the hearings more when they had the immigration
hearings that were on for a couple of days. and people brought up the need that we have needs for all these different categories that we can't fill jobs. why don't we combined that problem with the problem that we have with education? where we get people low interest loans or no interest loans if they go to school and get a degree in positions that we need to fill. and that would help our citizens. i come from a unique position -- you had a gentleman call earlier and and understand why african-americans were forced to go along with the president. i will tell you why. my wife of 31 years is an immigrant, and she is also a woman of color. she is hispanic and african-american. she speaks -- if she speaks out against the president she gets vilified and attacked by her own family and friends. it is -- it defies logic.
we have problems in the education -- in our education system. who suffers the most? many african-americans hispanics, and whites of poor and low middle class suffer the most because of these policies. host: ok, lawrence, i will leave it there and show you and others what senator jeff sessions, from alabama, had to say. he made an argument against the president, and also said later in the day yesterday that he was a no vote for loretta lynch. take a look. [video clip] >> it seems to me that there -- that if there are two people applying for a job as a truck driver, one as a lawful citizen and the other is not, on the president's order the person unlawfully here is magically come at this moment, becomes eligible to compete against an unemployed american truck driver.
and i think that is bizarre. the idea that there are rights attached to somebody here unlawfully to take jobs from americans under difficult working conditions, as we are today, is out of common sense. so i think that we -- somebody needs to be asking themselves who is protecting the american worker? the people who obtain the salaries, the president, and all of us. as a matter of law, the people who elect us by the people we are most directly accountable for. and that is the citizens of the united states. so i worried about that. what kind of lawsuits, what kind of claims -- have you thought about this -- if somebody loses out to a person who claims that they are legal to work now because of the president's order, and they did
it become a truck driver. and the person that was legally -- recently legalized they get the job. host: senator jeff sessions yesterday in day one of the confirmation hearings for the red a lynch. laying out his argument. they nominee told the committee that she found it reasonable. we are getting a reaction to that, as day to -- day two of the confirmation hearings are about to kick off. loretta lynch will not be testifying today. she did so yesterday for nearly nine hours. today, instead, you will hear testimony from those who feel the justice department is broken, in the words of the chairman. and also democrats have called their own witnesses to testify on behalf of of loretta lynch. so we will have live coverage here on c-span. more reaction from those i capitol hill on twitter.
a member of the judiciary committee saying on this ag nominee lynch, keeps saying something is lawful if there is a legal framework for it. and loretta lynch to the judiciary committee i will be myself. i will be loretta lynch. her independence and resolve are coming through loud and clear. and saying as a u.s. attorney, ag nominee loretta lynch oversaw many terrorism prosecutions. i expect that would continue at the justice department. also, another member saying i'm disappointed with loretta lynch is an ability to articulate any boundaries for the exercise of executive power. lindsey graham found it positive who said that her opening statement was excellent and powerful. from lindsey graham, the republican of south carolina. one more story for you.
that, a brief interview from ted cruz. he told the reporter that the fate is up to mitch mcconnell, and whether ormcconnell. it is a decision the majority leader will have to make. "i believe we should use any constitutional tool available to stop the president has unconstitutional actions." let's hear from claude riverview, florida. a democratic caller. you are up. caller: my comment is that mitch mcconnell, the leader of the senate at present, has stated especially when president obama was first elected, that his sole purpose was to defeat this president.
and no republican has voted on anything substantial that the president has put forward. if you think about it, mitt romney passed the same law in massachusetts, and every republican was for it. it was put out by the heritage foundation. if you look at the way in which this president has been treated, it boils down to one issue, and that is the issue of race. americans do not want to talk about it. the senate does not want to talk about it. no one wants to talk about it. i remind you that frederick douglass pronounced very clearly in his fourth of july speech " what to the american slave is your fourth of july?" here in america, we have an issue with established institutional racism.
it is prevalent. if you look at the employment figures of african-americans in this country, if you look at the shootings in this country americans, blacks -- if you look at stop-and-'s frisk in new york, millions stopped, very few arrested. it is an issue of race. host: did you watch yesterday? we were showing you and other viewers the hearing room over on the senate side and the senate office building. this is where the confirmation hearings are taking place, day two today. did you watch yesterday? there was not a lot of talk of civil rights and race issues specifically the cases of ferguson and new york. caller: i did watch. their opposition to loretta lynch is that she is supposedly putting forth president obama's views. no, she is not.
she is well qualified for this position. if you look at eric holder, he is well qualified for this position also. he served in the clinton administration. he has protected americans very well. he has disagreed with the president on many issues. he has disagreed with the congress and the senate on many issues as well. most of this boils down to race, and you cannot take it out of the equation. people do not want to talk about it, but it is a fact of life. host: let's hear from john and kate lindberg, tennessee, a republican. caller: good morning. i just -- i listen to this -- i listened to this hearing yesterday. once she made the statement that she believed that waterboarding was torture, that showed me that the ignorance on her education her qualifications to hold this
position. and along with the immigration side, she just -- anybody that -- these fast food workers who want more money, $15 per hour to work in a fast food joint, that will cause every burger in the place to go up $.50 per out of -- $.50 per item. those jobs were not created for that. it is for kids learning to get along in the workforce. then obama brings in 6 million illegals over the summer, mostly kids. to these people realize that that is the same that nafta was? nafta was one of the biggest job killers. i am 54 years old and i have 3
million miles over the road in all 48 states in the lower 48 in -- and in canada as a truck driver. nafta was one of the biggest job killers, with the unions, killing 10 million jobs. if america wants a 100% workforce in this country, get rid of the regulations, the union, open the coal mines back up drill anywhere we can find it. put america back to work in high paying jobs, and forget about confirmations on people who are anti-american. look at the meeting they had in d.c. with the muslim brotherhood. what business did they have in any d.c. building in this country? not a bit, but they are here trying to overthrow the league of egypt. host: let me show our viewers
the moment you are talking about in yesterday's hearing when nominee loretta lynch was asked about waterboarding. >> do you believe that waterboarding is torture and legal? >> waterboarding is torture senator, and illegal. host: also "the washington post" this morning. among her other answers were ones when she answered questions about drug policy, "among the points of contention has been the justice to hartman's policy regarding -- the justice department's policy regarding marijuana. the department announced it would not challenge state laws and that it would prioritize marijuana offenses such as distribution to minors.
asked about her own views, loretta lynch says she does not support legalization. mike, oklahoma, an independent caller. caller: good morning, greta. good morning, mr. grassley. i just want to comment and i will ask you a quick question. host: chairman grassley is not with us anymore. caller: mr. grassley is not? ok. it seems like loretta lynch, how she answered that immigration policy -- the way it has been with the immigration is they have been drawn in like a magnet . the senate passed a bill, and the republicans could nullify that bill if they would pass their own immigration reform law, and they are not trying to do that. i do not understand why there is so much controversy.
it just seemed like what loretta would be commenting on in the past -- in the past, reagan did almost exactly the same thing with immigration policy, and it was constitutional then. i do not understand why it is not now. i guess i cannot get a question in two grassley, so i will let you go. host: "the financial times" calls it a policy cliff that u.s. faces as a deadline. "republicans have decided to use their control over funding the department which oversees immigration to try to block barack obama's move to shield up to 5 million unauthorized immigrants from deportation. but there are significant divisions within the party over how hard to fight on this
issue." dorothy, in georgia, a democratic caller. day two for loretta lynch confirmations almost underway. caller: good morning. one of my comments -- reagan and bush senior both offered amnesty to family members who were not covered by the last major overhaul of immigration. that was in 1986. and i think that was about -- that covered about 3 million people, since the day the law was introduced. so my problem is that all of this about immigration and what loretta lynch would do if she would carry out president obama
's -- it is just ridiculous. people need to look back and research the issue. this is not the first time something was done like this. it was an immigration before -- it was an immigration problem before president obama came on board. host: joe from cleveland, ohio a republican. good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to take a different perspective about the law. i think we are in over law -- i think we are an overlawed nation. the word "legal" makes us think it is all right. every time you pass a new law you create a criminal if you think about it. it is overlawed.
it has worked against the black community and immigration. the attorneys are in the business of suing and creating legislation that has put a stranglehold on this country and we have to wake up to the reality that law is not necessarily moral. i think a lot of us have to wake up. thank you so much. host: bob in new mexico, an independent caller. caller: good morning, greta. i wanted to rebut one of the guests earlier. everybody keeps interjecting race early -- everybody keeps interjecting race into the country. i think we have gotten over that. what happens is that they keep interjecting their own little amendments that fan the pork in these bills, so they never took
to an agreement on it. that being said, loretta lynch is walking a fine line. be real careful on both sides how she answers these questions. in regards to her questions about illegal aliens, i think she was interjecting her personal views and not what the law was. that being said as well, she needs to really be careful on that issue. host: the senate judiciary committee is controlled by republicans. chairman chuck grassley from iowa was early -- was on the show early this morning. other members, including republican orrin hatch from utah, lindsey graham, senator cornyn from texas, senator mike lee from utah, senator ted cruz from texas and the two newest
republicans are senator david perdue, who won his first term in georgia, and senator thom tillis, republican from north carolina, the former speaker of the house of north carolina who beat kay hagan in the last election. the ranking democrat is patrick leahy. dianne feinstein stitt ♪ sits on the committee along with senator al franken from minnesota and senator kunz from delaware. and senator blumenthal democrat of connecticut. those are the democrats on that committee. some faces and the voices you will here today on day two of the combination -- of the confirmation hearings of loretta lynch for attorney general. live coverage will get underway on c-span in 15 minutes. wilma, mount vernon, new york, a democratic caller. caller: thank you for taking my call. i call because i agree with ms.
lynch in reference to immigration. i am an immigrant myself. i believe that if people work and pay the taxes and they are good abiding citizens, they should get a chance. the only thing i did not like about ms. lynch is when she said she agreed with the -- oh, man -- the death penalty. i did not like that, but -- because with the racism in america, it is almost only black people getting killed in america with the death penalty, whether they are guilty or not. host: debbie, a republican caller, you are on the air. caller: i watched the confirmation yesterday and all
my long because you reran it all night long. host: could not sleep? caller: i thought she talked really well. when the country voted 50 some percent against the president's things he did with immigration that he thought was legal in the country. the republicans are shooting themselves in the foot by nominating her. she should never have had to answer that question. i know she had to, but i just knew when she said that, my mouth fell open. i thought, how can a republican vote -- they voted all republican when the country said he is doing it illegally. 60% of the country. the other 40% think it is ok and he should not have done it. you cannot just go in and risk -- and expect -- i look at the president as mixed. he is black and he is white.
he is not an african-american like i was raised around. host: you are saying how can a republican now vote for her confirmation? what does this all mean for 2016? beyond the vote for the next attorney general -- just the immigration issue -- what does it mean for 2016, the republicans' chances for getting it. caller: i have really backed off on that. this is my thought. they are handing out in democrat states the licenses to immigrants. there are blacks who are mad about it, and all the whites, that he has brought enough immigrants in to make up those votes. that is why i think he was doing all this. that is why you do not see hillary out there and other people. i think that he fixed the stage. that is my belief. maybe he did not, but i do think
that a republican -- i do not think they are going to throw a bunch of people out. i think they could fix it because our country is really a mess overseas badly. you do not know every morning when you turn on the news if we have been hit yet. but you know the feeling that you get. but she was -- i guess you could say she is very honest. when she said that, you have to think, are you wanting to be the attorney general? when she talked to ted cruz, she talked to him like she was talking to somebody, his reputation that somebody said ted cruz, don't worry about it. she did not try really hard. you have people who like him and some who do like him. when i see him, i think about the dr. seuss books. you have to give him respect that he is a senator. host: on 2016, here is a story
in "politico." the koch donors have given marco rubio and early nod. their conservative network is still debating whether it will spend any of its massive 899 million dollars budget in the presidential primary, but the process of -- the prospect of choosing a gop nominee -- in an informal straw poll, marco rubio came out ahead of four other would be candidates who had been invited, according to an attendee familiar with the results. the poll was conducted by frank luntz during a breakout session of congress that wrapped up tuesday after a long weekend of presentations and discussions in california. rand paul, who received the least enthusiastic response from donors that also featured rubio and textures -- and texas
senator ted cruz, finish last in the poll." kevin, a democratic caller. good morning. caller: i agree with ms. lynch and her comments, leaving not in total but in part. and the reason -- maybe not in total but in part. the reason is this. the immigration system is broken . for a long time, we have done nothing. when we do something, it is illegal. we get upset. i am not an expert on executive order regarding immigration laws. but it is broke, and it should be. there is no way we can deport everybody at the same time. so how do we go about systematically fixing our system? there is also some misplaced rage against mexicans. i have listened to past shows and people make comments about mexicans taking our jobs, the
americans are doing this and that. but what is -- and the mexicans are doing this and that. who are hiring these illegal immigrants? who is hiring them? are a mexicans hiring illegal mexicans? even walmart got caught up in immigration violations. host: we are waiting for senators to arrive in the hart senate building. date two of the confirmation hearings for loretta lynch. republicans have talked about their own issues, hot button issues taken place under the leadership of eric holder, the outgoing attorney general of the justice department.
fred in flint, michigan, an independent. hi, fred. caller: i would like to say that if she can separate herself from eric holder and do her job, she would be great. but the problem over there is her and her connection with obama, and with that there is no political pressure on her to go his way to interfere in her job as an attorney general to uphold the law instead of executive overreach like obama has been doing. then she will probably be a good state attorney. but on immigration and what the topic was is that we were
running into a problem. it is not only a congress issue. it is also a factory issue with employees, that sometimes factories will also bring in a legal document and workers that help the labor force because they do not have enough to fill that job, and they will also supply them with housing. i used to work at a factory that sold tyson food. that was fine for that at one time. they have done that and then they got caught and they got fined for that a while back. years ago. host: charles, from shreveport, louisiana. go ahead with your thought. caller: i listened to senator sessions' comments. his example was that one truck
driver was a citizen. the deal is, with the trucking industry, you can read the papers, look at the trucks, ask anyone, and there is a shortage of truck drivers. the reason is, that is a hard job. these people who would qualify -- which they cannot now because they are not citizens -- but if they were able to do that, i think it would solve that problem. the trucking industry is a great industry for the united states and for the economy. there are new drip -- they need drivers all over the country. that is an example he put out. host: shreveport, louisiana democratic caller. let's move on to jim in las vegas, a democratic caller. caller: i just wanted to say that i do not think it is just race.
they tried to impeach clinton. host: we are listening, jim. caller: i'm sorry. they cannot stand that he is like the smartest guy in the room. they keep saying he does not know the constitution. he graduated from harvard as a constitutional lawyer. host: joan from rockford illinois, an independent caller. caller: i am just calling because i come from a family of in-laws that were immigrants from germany and italy. all of them had to go through a process. they had to wait many years, 12 or 13 years. they had to learn our laws. in their own country they are shaken down.
here they are protected from that. this should be a process for them so that they respect our laws. and they teach their children our laws. i do not believe in the amnesty take on immigration because of that fact. i am not against immigration but i think there should be a pathway, and they should have to pay their dues. host: all right, we have a few minutes left here for taking your calls as you take a look at the hearing room. there is the chairman of the senate judiciary committee chuck grassley, republican from iowa shaking hands with witnesses who will be talking today about the justice department, loretta lynch's record, and the committee will be hearing from them as they are about to kick off day two of confirmation hearings for the next attorney general. and the vote for her could be
taking place in the senate judiciary committee over the next two weeks. the chairman of the committee telling us earlier today that he has not made up his mind, that he wants more answers from her. he will get them in written testimony, and if need be, call her back to capitol hill and talk with her behind closed doors, either him or a group of senators. he will see how today's testimony goes as well. he is about to shake the hand of former cbs reporter sheryl ekman , talking about fast and furious, the program that took place under the leadership of eric holder. you will hear testimony about that today as well. dave in oakland, new jersey, an independent. caller: good morning. i have a curiosity about what is going on down there bank in that potemkin village. everyone is on the same train ok? what it is is, let them all
in the country, let them all get on social services, drive it in the hole, let them all go to work and take everybody's job who has been here for four generations, and that is what it is. we ought to make them all go in the service and make them go over there and fight those guys who are chopping people's heads off over there. they can earn their place in america like my grandparents did, like their parents before them. thank you, c-span. host: stan from texas democratic caller. caller: i am support of this lady. she really seems like she is smart and she is going to get the job done. i am really surprised of these people who seem to only hear what they want to hear. one question to her yesterday was, do the illegals have a right to work here, and she said no.
then she explained it. they keep putting that forward and forward. it is just politics. that is really bad for this country because you have a really good person up there who can do the job. host: did you watch a lot of the testimony yesterday? it went over eight hours. caller: no, i caught the last part of it. but i knew this battle was coming up. they have nothing to do with her. it is just politics 101. these people who call in saying remarks about her that she is answering the wrong question -- they are not looking at what their party is doing then. host: mickey in illinois, high, mickey. caller: i agree with mr.
sessions yesterday. everybody coming over here to be a part of the united states, they should also go through like everybody has before as an immigrant. they have to go through classes to learn english and the other things that go along with that. it is really unfair for anybody else who has to stand in line to get to this point. they will have somebody magically who gets the job that everybody else was supposed to get. housing, assistance, whatever. hopefully it would not be the case, that family members need to be there to start off. >>i thought that she was reading off a newspaper or something that she was stiff and unlocked. hopefully this will be something good for our country. host: i will leave it there