we do appreciate the time. >> thank you very much for having me. >> jay clayton, chair of the u.s. securities and exchange commission, testifies before the house financial services committee on emergency lending during the covid-19 pandemic. watch live today at noon eastern on c-span3, online at c-span.org, or listen live on the free c-span radio app. >> first ladies, influence and image, on american history tv, examines the private lives and public roles of the nation's first ladies, through interviews with top historians. monday night, we look at edith roosevelt and helen taft. edith roosevelt, along with her husband, theodore, became the first president and first lady to travel abroad while in office, when they made a trip to panama. and helen taft was the first first lady to ride with the president in the inaugural parade. watch first ladies, influence and image, monday at 8:00 p.m.

eastern on american history tv, on c-span3.e member louisiana republican congressman mike johnson is the second of two judiciary hous committee members joining us this morning on a day the housem will take up a sweeping police reform bill proposed by - refo democrats.oppose congressman, you opposed sendinr this bill to the floor during last week's mark-up. you still oppose it? to be and if so, why? >> we have no choice, john. b great to be with you, by the au way. we have no choice but to opposee this because itit goes too far.e it throws the baby out with the bath water in so many areas.soln we do need really some practic' solutions and real reforms. t and we -- i'm cosponsoring and assisting the house version of the tim scott bill that was rejected yesterday in the senate. we believe that's the right approach. it wasvery dem full of everythi almost every democrat in the house said was important.t nanc but what it did not include, and

what the house version, nancy pelosi's bill does include, is m for example,mu the complete doi away with qualified immunity. you know, qualified immunity is an important thing for police and laww enforcement in this rr country. you can't just wipe it out meas complete. it needs some allows reform, b is the measure that allows let' officers to go out on the ember, streets and t do their job and o let's remember, the vast lic se majority of police officers in r this country are ut o serviceants to take their ownn lives at risk every day when they put on the badge to protec. and serve. they need the kinds of legal protections that are in the lawa we need to reform t but we can't throw it out entirely.y in our house judiciary committea mark-up of this bill, the democrats' bill, many of my colleagues acknowledged that that was a problem. maybe it did need further study, but we won't get a chance te because they'rere going to push untry this to the floor so quickly. pl it's going nowhere. it will be dead on arrival, ando it's a tragic outcome when the wlice need reform, we can't get the partisan politics aside. >> no-knock warrants, a policing

tool that have come under ck criticism, you have expressed concern last week at the mark-up about what a major change ending no-knock warrants would mean for policing. can you explain? >> sure, that's another major us problem we have with this bill, and again, democrat colleagues acknowledge privately to us that we make some valid points aboutn that. local sheriffs, my warra local police chiefs, law ed in enforcement officers onmo the streets every day. no-knock warrants are rarely used in most jurisdictions. it you have to go and get a judge n a agree it's warranted and circumstances, but in those rarv cases, they're very instrumental in protecting everyone involved. not just the law enforcement officers themselves, but also the suspects that they're going to serve these warrants on.thath you know, if a violent drug ve,o dealer with a knownr history of that has avowed he will not be taken alive, for example, and g they have to go and arrest this. individual, it makes a lot of e sense to go to that house at t 3:00 a.m. and break in when this person is asleep, when they wak

out of a slumber and don't have time to grab their automatic weaponsool fo and start firing e the police.that i you do away with that tool for d law enforcement, and you put more people in apjeopardy. that's just another example of things that need a thoughtful approach. we don't need to rush tother e i judgment on somes pe of this. there probably is some reform that is warranted there, but we need to do it in a deliberate fashion, and again, not throw the baby out with the bath water. >> the tim scott to gbill,et t o to get time for debate on the e senate floor. do you have any expectation thae the house version of that, that. you're working on, is going to get time on the house floor? >> i doubt it. it's a tragic outcome, because s it's a great piece of legislation, as senator scott said yesterday, he gave an epice speech on the senate floor, and i just shared it on social media. proce i hope every american will take time to watch it because he sai explained the process that wenta into it.opose. he literally went to chuck schumers and democrats in the en senate and saidts i'll take anya amendment you gepropose. he offered five amendments, then 20, then a manager's amendment

that would go in andth retool t bill, basically, and fix it all. at the end of the day, they gave him the stiff arm, as we say, is using a football analogy, ycle. because it's about politics. they want to preserve this issue for the election cycle. and that is tragic. and senator scott said it as well asas anyone could yesterda on the senate floor. explaining that the process is broken, partisan politics are e prevailing over the needs of tha people. andd it's a tragedy. >> the house set to gavel in atf 9:00 a.m. eastern this morning. until then, we have congressman republican of n, louisiana, member of the house b judiciary committee, taking you) phone calls on phone lines split up by party. republicans, 202-748-8001. democrats, 202-748-8000. independents, 202-748-8002. coming off the judiciary committee hearing yesterday about the justiceor department andeneral oversight there, what's your expectation for attorney generat william barr's expected

appearance before your committee at the end of next month?l >> be awell, we're glad to have. i'm glad that he'll be able to be there to answer the questions that some of the democrat rtment him.notues have for they have taunted the departmen. of justice and claimed that he would not come and appear before us, and of course, he's going to show them up on that.b. look, i'm a supporter of attorney general barr. i think he's doing a great job. this is not his first rodeo.tha. he is trying to pursue the truth wherever that leads. and we support him in that.prevo there's a lot of messes to cleaw up. example,e, in igh for the previous administration, there were high ranking fbi officials who were involved in n all sorts of corruption and bias, and they were abusing their power in the fbi.eneral we have to reform those things, and we need an taerg that wouat that would do that. i'm glad he's coming, that he'si going to sit there and take those questions.. >> plenty ofofsu callers for yo. before we get to them, i wanted to ask you about the supreme court case having to do with

that abortion law in your home t state ofhe louisiana. your expectations. that's one of the high-profile cases we're waiting for the thi decision to be handed down on in these final days of this term of the supreme court. >> we it iare. a lot of people are watching that case. the june medical services case. it's about the admitting privileges, the legislature in louisiana voted several years ago on a democrat bill, by the way, bipartisan landslide isiana majority in both houses, that pl said an egabortion provider in louisiana need today have admitting privileges to a hospital within 30 miles to a clinic in event of emergencies. that's to protect women's health.hat it's not whether you're pro life or for abortion, it's about osi protecting the women who go in e for procedures. tragically, the abortion industry choosing profits over people, they challenged that. i was ironically one of the lawyers who defended the law ins the federal district court five years ago when that case started before i got elected to public i office. nows week it's. come full circls

in the supreme court. we expect the decision any day, and it will be a landmark opinion. it's the first abortion-related decision since president trump's appointees to the supreme court have been tkthere. the composition of the court is really important, and we hope they will make the right decision to uphold women's health. the second component of that to case, of course, is about standing. that's a big question. does the abortion industry have the ongoing right to challenge legitimate health and safety a regulations passed by state legislatures. the court could address that as well and that would be a sea read fromthis wholetming to be law. >> any teaea leaveshow toth be from how this court has decided some high-profile cases alreadyh this term?ments fr >> well, you know, there's been some disappointments from a conservative standpoint. i think they're going to get this one right. i'm really counting on that. i was at the oral arguments in . the case, where sat right behind our attorney general and solicitor general in louisiana. they put on a great case.at wer and i think based upon what the questions that were being askedl by the panell there, by the

supreme court justices, i have some confidence that we'll win this one.wo i certainly hope we do because, again, this is about protectingg all women and allowing the states the right they have to regulate public health and safety and protect that in their jurisdictions. stacked upaid,ng. calls for you. ed up first out of desert hot springs, california. democrat. good morning. >> caller: good morning. i'm ed. i would like to talk to the representative about the somebo qualified immunity. i would think that if somebody's doing the right thing and wanting to do the right thing, that the last thing they're i thinking about is being sued ine qualified immunity. i really don't think it's ing th necessary for somebody that'se really doing the right thing. if something is doing the wrong thing, then they don't need qualified immunity. i just think if somebody is gus

doing the right thing, they're not tooo worried about being sued.hat simp thanks. >> yeah, ed. i i hear you.king t i wish it were that simple. you know, i have spent a lot of time talking to police officers in my district. and around the country. and they're deeply concerned about this. law enforcement is under assauly right now in every way, from every side.pon it's a dangerous job.pr they're being spat upon in some of these jurisdictions by thesey protesters who turn into violens mobs. you know, they're facing a lot u of public scrutiny.you get what the police chiefs and the police recruiters tell us is i that if you get rid of qualified immunity, you make it very difficult to recruit new law enforcement officers. it's not the highest own paying, as you know. you take your life into your own hands every time you clock in n for work. who will do this critical public service to maintain law and order and maintain public safety and all of our areas around the country if you take away the ifl ability for them do their job?

the issue for qualified immunity is this. if a law enforcement officer(÷ in good faith and the vast owedt majority of them are, they want to serve and do the right thing, and they follow their training and go out on the street and they grab someone or they arresd someone, and they use force, if you get rid of qualified immunity, it allows every single person who is arrested. every single person who is confronted by a law enforcement officer potentially to have a lawsuit against that officer. what the ultimate outcome would be, not only would you have a t difficult time recruiting new ea police officers, the ones onnt e job will just stay in their cars.ould be they'll be reluctant to go out . to do the job they have because they're afraid they'll be personallyly liable for doin it. youth can't have that. it make s no sense. that's why we oppose the to do complete doing awayth with qualified immunity.nd that' does it need some reform? perhaps, but we need to do that in a thoughtful way. that's not what the democrats' : bill offers. >> buffalo, new york. shaun, republican. good morning. >> caller: good morning, john. good morning, congressman, how o are you both doing this a mornie

>> doing great. >> caller: great. yeah, i do agree with a lot of americans that there needs to be reforms, but as for defunding the police, if anything, for better training, you need more money. defunding the police is totally ridiculous. i just would like to tell the keep congressman just keepst standin tall. stand united as a party, and th just keep standing up to these narcissists in congress that want to change our nation for the worst. and i hope you can stay united.. thank you, congressman. >> thank you.taken. i appreciate that. i think the comments are well i taken. what we'rem the trying to advat right now, i i'm as th republic. i'm the chair of the republican study committee, there largest caucus of conservatives in congress. we have 148 members in the house. but i like to say all the time, what we're trying to advance, although there arere republican principles associated with our platform, at their basis, at their foundation, they're quintessential americanli principles. we believe in these ideals of individual liberty and limited government and the rule of law and peace through strength, and

fiscal responsibility, free markets, human dignity, the th sanctity of every human life.th these are not just republican ideals although they're associated with our party today, those are the ideals that make e america the exceptional nation it defuis.ndin, thos we lose them at our peril. the rise we see of socialism ant anarchy and defunding the policn and all this, those are anathema to the founding principles of this nation.be to say that erville and help people to understand that y think the better off we're going to be. >> massachusetts, mike, independent. you're on with mike johnson. >> caller: hi.ph good morning. i had to check what we were talking about as i got on the phone and i started hearing about abortion. i don't think the congressperson is aware that this isn't about abortion. and i'm growing really tired of the gop acting so disingenuously

when we talk about almost anything. i justrtion. cannot believe, tat about abortionhe -- >> mike, there's a big case coming down from the supreme court, perhaps even within the s next couple m days here on that issue. that's why we were talking about it this morning. >> caller: yeah. and it's why they're talking about it inn the judiciary committee. you know, when they should be talking about police reform. con they deflect and talk about abortion. it's really confusing to me.lkig it's really disrespectful to me. you have a congressperson up hereis talking about peace throh strength. is this 1984? by orwell, what's going on? and then you have a caller calling in talking about marxist and socialists because people n want choke holds banned or police reform. or and i agree that defunding the

police or abolishing the polic'' isn't realistic, but i think it's disingenuous to ignore the fact that most people are t talking not about abolishing the police or resources or totally defunding them, but really reallocating responsibility of resources so that police don't come in and murder someone who's mentally ill, whereas someone who is more equipped and trained to respond to that situation is sent in instead. >> mike, we take that point. let the congressman respond. >> yeah. mike gave me a lot to work with. addressing that issue about mental health. we all agree is an important component to policing and those who lead law enforcement in this country are the first to acknowledge it. we could use more resources in that area. to be able to deal with not only the mental health aspects of assailants and suspects and the people that law enforcement deals with but the officers

themselves. a lot of police departments around the country we have veterans serving overseas, tours of duty overseas in recent conflicts, and some come back with ptsd issues and other things. issues of their own. we need to address that. have the mechanisms in place to identify officers who are in those high-risk categories to get them the help they need so they can do their job well. also to deal with all of those aspects. of course, it would be ideal to have a social worker in every squad car that's patrolling the streets. right? that's not feasible from a funding standpoint and i think everybody recognizes that. again, we just need thoughtful dialogue and practical solutions and that's something sha should be bipartisan on capitol hill. the tim scott bill addressed so much of this. it's a shame it has been killed by democrats in the senate. >> about ten minutes or so before the house comes in. of course, we'll take you there for a live gavel-to-gavel coverage when they do. until then, more phone calls.

jarring, republican, milfred, connecticut, good morning. >> caller: good morning. >> hi, george. >> caller: i wanted to comment on the congress debating or trying to get to debate police reform. and i think if they're looking at the television reporting they should see by the nose on their face that they're looking at the wrong group of people to reform. they need to reform the general public. at least the groups that are doing this demonstrations and violence that it boggles my mind that after george floyd was murdered, and, yes, murdered, there are police that make mistakes, but they have been vilified and are under a lot of stress but it doesn't excuse that in any event.

the demonstrate egg came out to the streets calling for justice when anybody who saw the videos would have seen there was no way that these police officers were not going to be called to justice. and then when they started their marchthey filled the streets, denying other people their justice to use the streets. and they walked along like a bunch of sheep allowing these criminals to be with them and hiding themselves in the crowd, shooting police officers. creating arson to businesses in the area, businesses who employ people from the neighborhood, and also looting and it just doesn't make any sense that they just walked along and allowed this neighborhood, "their" neighborhood, to be destroyed.

it. and it just -- it escalated totally out of control with these nut cases that want to have these autonomous locations which they have absolutely no control over the people within them with all the shootings and killings and rapes that you hear about and the extortions. so they should look at reforming laws for the citizens, maybe they should make stronger penalties? another thing is when they finally get to their senses, it's time to go home, when they get home, if they're still living at home, the parents should tell them. i'm sorry. you're not welcome. you have to earn your way back into this house. >> congressman? >> well, that was an overdose of common sense there. i agree with everything george said. he's exactly right. we have to recognize as does law enforcement as does the president of the united states and in most of the members of congress who still apply common

sense, there's a big difference between a peaceful first amendment protest, which we all support, and a violent lawless mob, which we've seen around the country. we cannot allow the latter. we have to support the former. you know? that's the problem that after the murder of george floyd as was said, you did have some peaceful protests, some legitimate calms for change and reform and all of that and it was heard, and it's being acted upon. but those morphed into these crazy, you know, anarchists trying to take over the streets. what george said is echoed by millions and millions of americans across this country. i heard it over and over over the weekend when i was back in my district in louisiana. people are just really alarmed about this. how could this happen? how could it be allowed? we have to have law enforcement dot their jobs. if it's federal property and a national park, for example, or a federal statute or something, that the president and the federal government has

jurisdiction. others, it's down to the states and mayors who have to take charge of that, cannot allow it in the streets and if they do it's dereliction of duty. the president suggested in the last 48 hours or so there ought to be a ten-year prison sentence for persons who vandalize public monuments and destroy public property and all the rest. i think these are legitimate ideas and need enforced. enhancing penalties i agree 100% with what xwloorg sageorge said. the president's statute, protecting statues on public lands. are there statues you think should come down? >> process is key. made on a local level. most things people are complaining about are at municipal level or state legislatures and that kind of are thing. that should be a decision made collectively by the people through a deliberative process. if there's a statue to someone

who was a hatemongerer, notorious slave owner or something, if the people want to make a decision to remove that, and move it to an appropriate location in a museum, that's fine. what we're opposing is the lawless vandalism, the mobs that are completely out of control who just decide unilaterally to go rip things down. it's based so many times on ignorance. you know tonight we're expecting a lawless mob in d.c., vowed to take down the lincoln emancipation statue. goodness stakes. it was dedicated by frederick douglass and paid for in large part by funds raised by former slaves who were freed by lincoln. it's a statue that recognizes the opposite of racism, and yet these ignorant young people who want to tear it down think it's a racist symbol. it's crazy. we have to slow this down. we have to apply law and order and do things in a deliberative way and using that process is key. >> time for a couple more calls before the house comes in.

brooklyn, new york. mike, democrat, good morning. >> caller: good morning. >> hi, mike. >> caller: how ya doing? gshlg gshlg >> good. doing well. >> caller: i'm from qhódñbrookl and what de blasio, moving them 600 plain clothed officers to other details, people are afraid to leave their home. senior citizens are stuck, they were stuck in their home with the kung fu virus and now stuck with the protests. something's got to be done about it. for one thing, de blasio needs to get the hell out of office, and cuomo with his bill needs to get the hell out of office. >> mike, out of curiosity. calling on our line for democrats. do you usually vote democrat? >> caller: yes.

i haven't voted in -- i can't go along with the democrats anymore. i haven't voted in several years, but something's got to be done with this -- we need to, we immediate the police for protection. who's going to protect us if there isn't any police? >> mike in new york. try to get in john from cleveland, ohio, as well before the house comes in. independent. john, go ahead? >> caller: yes. congressman, you should do your homework. this is not the first rodeo. i'm 84 years old, since 1980 watched c-span. caspar weinberger, the same attorney general, not that title, a shame for this office. and anybody else in the country, nobody -- i'm 84, an american citizen, citizenship -- shame on him. i watched yesterday hearing as usual. 7:00 in the morning, i watch c-span every day.

the horse kicking at the rodeo. the horse should kick. bye-bye. >> congressman, last minute or two here. >> a lot of passion there. respect that view and, mike from -- from new york, what made a compelling case. look, we need to apply common sense. we're in a moment in america that gives us an opportunity to make meaningful reform, build bridges of understanding, relationships across the aisle between sociodemographic differences in the country but have to do it with calm, reasonable voices able to listen to one another hear the concerns and try to address those of us in congress in a way that really makes the changes that the country needs. we're a great country. we're the greatest in the histories of the world. exceptional for a reason. we've faced unprecedented challenges before and we'll face this, we'll get through it but we have to do it together. when we have these bitter partisan squabbles and all this in washington it does not help in that regard. so appreciate the passion. i just would encourage everybody

to, this comes down to a community level. we make all the laws in the world in washington, but end of the day, this is less of a policy issue than it is a heart issue. we have to learn to listen to one another, value one another as neighbors and understand that every single person has dignity and value because as the declaration of independence says we're all made by god and given the same rights, made in his image and got to remember that. appreciate all the passion on both sides, and glad to be with you this morning. >> in the time left, waiting for the house, you mentioned the challenges we're facing together. a spike in coronavirus cases around the country. tell us a little bit where you are in louisiana, and proposals and calls for renewed lockdowns and going back into more stricter quarantining in this country. is that something you might support? >> well in louisiana we're stuck in phase two of the reopening. the governor, our governor, extended that a few days ago for another 28 days, because we've

had a minor spike. i think one of the important things to monitor is hospitalizations. the fatality rate has gone down. i was told just yesterday, i think it was 15,000 beds available in louisiana. a little over 500 are filled currently. so we have a lot of capacity left. we've got to find that ball. you cannot completely shut down the economy, because that has long-term health effects, negative health effects on people as well. mental health. their stability. their preventative health and all the rest. it's a balancing acted, there's no perfect answer, we've seen. we have to be thoughtful and deliberate making 'b;pdecision. it affects real lives. >> in that aspect, does there need to be another round of stimulus? another coronavirus response bill? what are we going to see from congress in the coming weeks and months? >> an appetite to do it here. there's bipartisan agreement something more needs to be done. the question is, what? a lot of us are deeply concerned about the growing federalo deb.

grown exponentially now. $26 trillion and counting. we're going to run more than $1 trillion deficits in perpetuity now and all spending is alarming, destabilizing the jeopardizes the safety net programs in the country. that said, if we can make targeted very efficient affective investments to keep businesses afloat and keep families afloat, that's something i think would be an appetite for, but it can't be caught up in the partisan squabbles and we can't, for example, extend unemployment benefits into middle next year and things the democrats proposed. we've got to be targeted. not a shotgun approach. a rifle approach to this stuff. if we're able to do that you could get a lot of votes i think on both sides of the aisle. >> republican of louisiana, mike johnson. appreciate your time this morning.