western conservative summit in colorado. we are hammering the criminals and filing groups, especially ms 13, that vicious gang. it's one of the most violent and inhumane groups in the world. their motto, kill, rape, and control. this weekend on c-span, he spent at oregon the free radio at. c-span.org and the free radio app. >> academics discuss race relations and politics at a look at some of the legal challenges facing immigrants to the u.s. as the trumpet missed ration implemented zero-tolerance policy towards migrants of the southern border. hour, no in about an labels cofounder william ideas garyscusses

locke -- ideas and gridlock in congress. and matt lewis talks about supreme -- matt lewis talks about the supreme court. ♪ in the first hour of the program this morning, your thoughts on the resignation of scott witt. , played- scott pruitt investigations, you can comment on the man himself, the issues, or his impact on environmental policy in this first hour of the program this morning. ,emocrats, (202)-748-8000 republican that (202)-748-80001, and independents, (202)-748-

8002, if you want to make your thoughts known on our social media channel, it is http://twitter.com/cspanwj or post on facebook. the former oklahoma attorney the senator from oklahoma maintaining support, others happy he has stepped down." when it comes to the resignation, here is what president trump had to say "i have accepted the resignation of scott pruitt as the administrator of the environmental protection agency. scott has done an outstanding job and i will always be thankful to him for this. injure wheeler is confirmed and will on monday assume duties as the active administrator. i have no doubt and he will continue on with our great agenda. we have made this tremendous

progress and the future of the epa is very bright." pruitt'somes to scott resignation, he wrote "it is , iremely difficult for me first counted as a blessing to be serve you in any capacity but also because of the transformative work that is occurring, however the unrelenting accounts on me personally, my family are unprecedented and i have taken and on sizable toll on all of us." the washington post highlights the issues this morning that the administrator had it his time of service, going back to december, 2017, "it was his use of noncommercial flights that cost taxpayers." in february 2018, the post published the repeated use of first-class flights, and upscale hotels.

one flight cost more than $7,000 to italy. taxpayersately cost $120,000. another series of lights cost -- series of flights costs more than $8,000. it goes on from there. that is the washington post account. we will tell you more about the new administrator in a bit. if you want to comment on the resignation of scott pruitt, for 8000 forces, (202)-748- democrats, (202)-748-80001 for republicans, and (202)-748-8002 four independents. wendy, new york, go ahead. caller: good morning. confused over how long this man could stay where he was, abusing the system, abusing

his employees. it is just shameful. all across the board, this administration is absolutely deranged. they have no clue. they really don't have the american people, you know, we don't come first. become second. -- we, second. they are doing whatever they please. host: what is it about the administrator's practices you found problematic? caller: who asks their workers to use personal credit cards to buy things for them? it is not, it is just not ethical. that is my problem. before i leave, i want to say, trump did not win. he cheated in the election. host: we go on to john, florence, south carolina, republican line. caller: wow. wow.

an indictment of the trump administration, i don't really know where to begin. when it comes to scott pruitt, deep state, i wish we had the enthusiasm back in the obama administration of abuses, these outside groups, finding out all this information. host: are you saying there is nothing about the administrator's practices that concern you? wishingoh yes but i am there had been an investigational last eight years. yes, i totally agree. he made bad choices. is not the only one of the administration. host: as far as him leaving the administration, you are ok with the resignation in itself? caller: yes, but i feel he is been pushed out by the deep state because he was doing a good job at reforms, within the epa. host: when you say pushed out by

the deep state, what do you mean? caller: deep state has a habit of pushing back and also making sure that people find out every little information that is going on. maryland,s go to independent line. caller: my name is bernard. when i called, i heard about prewitt resigning yesterday, -- t, he had such a good job and i wanted to know why he would want to resign and why did he not give 60 days, to let the american people know he was resigning? you know, someone should get up there, the next day and say i

want to resign from the top job -- host: ok that is bernard in maryland. the washington post goes on to write this morning "it was in the early month of the trump administration when other members were struggling to recruit deputies and navigate departments, scott pruitt was already unraveling federal restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions and toxic waste discharge from coal-fired power plants. he declined to been a commonly used pesticide linked to potential neurological damage in fetuses, that the agency had previously proposed. he pushed the president to announce u.s. withdrawal from the paris climate accord. he questioned the science of climate change and also the overwhelming consensus that human activity is the primary contributor to global warming. he fundamentally altered key advisory boards, barring scientists who had received epa grants. "

democrats line, maryland. caller: i believe he should have resigned. he was a toxic appointment. by a toxic president who is not committed to environmental protections and the health of our country. host: when you say that -- expand. what leads you to that conclusion? history, ond on his the regulations he was supporting, you can see,'s objective was -- his objective was,'s objective was to denigrate the environment, not to support it. host: some phone calls this morning about the resignation of scott pruitt. you can continue on and add your thoughts as well, call on the phone lines, as we talk a bit with emily holden, with politico. , just the energy reporter

to start things off, the resignation, whose idea was it? the president or scott pruitt? guest: the reporting came from the white house and the white house called epa and requested a letter yesterday. host: what was the basis of the reasoning for the white house to do that? guest: this had been under consideration for months. these ethical controversies that he was embroiled in had piled up and he was under more than a dozen investigations into spending and management, everything from living in a condo that a lobbyist owned, a lobbyist who had been actively pursuing different things with epa, to getting aids to do to help find his wife find a job, getting a mattress from the trump hotel, or one of the stories that was

prominent was getting his security guards to find a particular type of lotion he liked to use. host: when it comes to his influence and tenure at the epa, papers highlighting the paris accord, what would you also listed as major accomplishments under the administration from scott pruitt directly? guest: essentially everything that industry had wanted to see rolled back from the obama administration, he has made attempts at. anything involving climate change, the obama administration's plan for power plants, that has been the process to repeal and replace. anything on methane emissions, air pollution standards, they are looking to fight california on rolling back fuel emissions standards for vehicles. essentially, the entire platform of what industry deemed to be too burdensome of regulationa. host: scope out andrew wheeler,

who will assume acting administrator on monday morning. where does he come from, what is his philosophy on the environment? guest: is a longtime washington, former coal lobbyists, we think he will pursue much of the same platform administrator scott pruitt did except he could be more effective. he is unlikely to have the thatals surrounding him would be distracting from epa agenda and most say he understands the way the law works and he would be looking to achieve rollbacks in a way that would make them much less vulnerable to court challenges, which we are absolutely going to see. that is the real question in terms of how things get changed at epa -- whether the rollbacks will stick. host: when it comes to his philosophy on climate change -- where does he fall? guest: along the same lines as

administrator scott pruitt. i don't think you will see any climate action coming out of epa anytime soon, but you will not scottis, -- administrator pruitt had pitched this and pursued it even when the white house said it was a bad idea -- a debate on climate change science. i don't think you will see that out of epa, but i don't think you will see a return to climate action. host: aside from scott pruitt leaving, will any other top you believe? -- top people leave? guest: a lot of the key aides have departed so you could see turnover. staffing,a is career people who have been working there for years throughout administrations. it is a much smaller group of political appointees that surround the administrator and work on major policy initiatives. host: even as you talk with us there is a story in one of the papers saying when it comes to all plants, the epa is set to

draft new roles to regulate coal plants. guest: this would be a replacement to the obama administration's clean power getting states to write their own plans to get away from coal power, to push for renewable power or natural gas, which has a lower emissions output. what epa is looking at is not something that would significantly change in missions at all. it is a replay -- greenhouse gas emissions at all. it could be a placeholder. epa willt be a rule, be sued if they do not issue something. we think this will be a narrow replacement. emily holden, because the administrator was under investigation, does his resignation stop that? guest: no. all investigations will continue.

what will be different is whether they can compel him to be interviewed or submit information. epa will still send over public records, aides will still get calls about what they experienced. we will continue to see information coming out through the freedom of information act, the environmental groups and the government watchdog groups that have been suing epa to force the release of calendars, staff females, all the things that tell us how epa is being managed , all the things that tell us how epa is being managed. all of that will still be coming out. holden, talking about the resignation of scott pruitt, thank you for your time. guest: thank you. host: more about andrew wheeler in the pages of the washington post. lobbyist, he commented on a 2010 national journal blog on the intergovernmental panel on climate change "a function as a

political body, the group should revisit the 2009 finding that carbon dioxide emissions posed a threat to public health." republicansested overturn the endangerment finding. 2007 the supreme court ruled that the clean air act require the epa to come up with a plan to curb in missions of greenhouse gases -- to curb emissions of greenhouse gases. adding that he also represented ae energy fuels resources, uranium mining firm that could benefit from the announcement in lf the size ofa bear's years national monument. that is some of the profile of andrew wheeler who will take

over on monday in the light of the resignation of scott pruitt. make your thoughts known at (202)-748-8000, for democrats, republicans,1 for independents chilly -- (202)-748-8002. democrats line, chicago, good morning. caller: good morning. host: you are on. caller: thank you for taking my call. reason hett, the only has resigned at this time is because of the upcoming november elections. -- of that is to stop people he wanted to stop the ads, the new trump had, that he knew was coming, that would display this man, scott pruitt, what he has done, the wrong he has done in his position. he has treated taxpayers money

as his own personal atm. if it had been under anyone else, he would have been forced to resign a long time ago. i don't understand -- host: why do you think his actions would have that much influence on november elections? caller: it would point out a flaw in donald trump. about are already mad what the administration is doing to our country in the first place. what i want to say to people and this is everybody, who can breathe this moment, what are you going to do if you have young children who have asthma or some other type of disease, whatever, that may affect their breathing or old people having trouble? the things these people are trying to do to the environment is going to affect us all. host: we will hear from josephine in livingston, new jersey, independent line. caller: good morning.

i can remember back -- back to eisenhower -- he had a cabinet member who accepted what they coat that was $250. he was immediately fired. we are talking about integrity. my goodness. where are we going? no integrity. why didn't trump fired sooner? maybe he looked in the mirror and saw himself? warrenenator elizabeth on twitter about the resignation, "climate change denier scott pruitt has become the poster boy for corruption in washington, using government offices to benefit himself. his family and his big oil buddies, he should have resigned 28 scandals ago." " his worsting,

transgression was that he worked on behalf of polluters to poison our air and water and make climate change worse." " about dam time" be kingl no longer cole's right-hand man." president, i appreciate all the efforts to roll back burdensome regulations but it has become clear that it was time for a change at epa. i have confidence in the deputy director and know the president will have good choices when it comes to a replacement." some legislators giving comment, (202)-748-8000, democrats, (202)-748-8001, republicans, (202)-748-8002, independents. larry is next, republican. caller: this president has done

a great job for the coal-fired plants. north of one and we have some of the best lakes, the fishing is great, hunting is great. that has created a lot of good jobs for people to raise their kids in this area. i think he did a great job. host: you are seeing a revival in those areas as well, more work? as a result of scott pruitt's influence? caller: some of the coal mines have hired, and in the west where they ship it in, we have lived a good life and the lakes around these lands are great for the community. host: as far as the resignation himself and the things attached to scott pruitt, what do you think of those in light of what he did as administrator? caller: his personal life was shady. he probably should have

resigned, i agree with his policies. host: that is larry in illinois. this is john in new york. hi, last night i watched that whole thing of trump giving that speech at that place. i don't know why he does what he does. sometimes i think he is a racist, or is acting a racist. host: that was last night's speech, scott pruitt's resignation, what did you think of that? that,: the simple fact is put it this way, if the democrats had the house, the house, and the white nine times out of 10, republicans would be asking for impeachment. they would be asking for the president, whoever, man or

it would matter nothing to republicans. host: that is john in new york. the wall street journal in the editorial this morning, taking a look at the resignation announcement, that editors highlighted as "the shame is that mr. trump is losing his bravest the regulator -- deregul ator. he attempted to reengineer the economy with little effect on climate change, he clamped down on the stew and settle racket that allows environmental groups to impose policy through consent degrees. mr. pruitt also sought to require more honest cost-benefit analysis and updated advisory signs boards that have been stacked with members who received epa grants. andrew wheeler will take over.

wheeler may be there a while, senate democrats would love the dalai lama to run the epa if mr. trump nominated him. democrats line, you are on. caller: hello. host: you are on. caller: how are you? host: fine, thank you. caller: i think that scott pruitt was a corrupt, who enriched himself at the taxpayers expense, a typical trump administrator. i am glad he is gone. absolutely. host: independent line, greg from ohio. good morning. guy has serious psychological problems, because, there is a point of paranoia and grandiosity, running tactical a best bill had that was bulletproof, running

the lights to go to lunch. . i think this guy was nuts and he did a terrible job. there arethe epa, going to be problems down the road for our children with the environment. we have to preserve the environment. i am a hunter. i live in ohio. we have to preserve the environment. i think what he did, the rollbacks, they were just crazy. it is in other areas of the government as well. rollbacks and some of the things obama did, they are not well thought out. even with trump, appointing these judges and stuff, he did a quick. he has no methodology. if you look at him too, he is

nuts to a degree. mal in south carolina, republican line. caller: i am glad he is gone. i don't think he should have been hired in the first place. he publicly stated on social media that he did not like the epa. money,t a lot of personal favors, $50 a night room and there were a lot of things that were red flags. i don't know why he was in a position besides caring back with the previous president did. charged with some type of gross misconduct. that is all i have to say. host: another republican, william in jacksonville, florida. caller: one question. donate to the dnc? host: we're talking about the

resignation of scott pruitt, what do you think about that? caller: he should have been gone. but don't blame trump for it. host: why would you say that? caller: i have heard it everywhere. these idiots on your show blame trump for him being a crook. just to be fair, president trump did appointment to the position. caller: so what? he didn't know he was a crook when he hired him. are you going to fire every chief ceo because, people that work for him are crooks? host: that is william in jacksonville, florida. new york times editors, they devoted 2 these is to it. pieces tovoted two it. an environmental philosophy may be roughly summarized as industry over climate.

this greatest hits include playing a key role in getting mr. trump to withdraw the united ways from the paris climate agreement, pushing the repeal of numerous obama era regulations including cutting greenhouse gas and barring signed this to receive federal grants from serving on epa advisory committees while simultaneously supporting industry leaders on panels. law, read moren of that if you wish, new york times editorial page this morning. isaac on the independent line, baltimore, maryland. caller: i'm actually very ecstatic that scott pruitt resigned. he was long overdue. is hiringistration, the wrong people for every kind

of position they come across. instead of protecting our country they have been doing a lot of deregulation, education, security, homeland security, putting our country in a worse predicament than when we started. host: what specifically about his actions did you not like the most? caller: the deregulation of the water supply. how he supported the administration in allowing our lakes and rivers to be polluted by the corporations. host: minnesota, democrat line, ken, we talk about scott pruitt, go ahead. caller: good morning. pruitt finally resigned. i saw something on facebook last week about a schoolteacher who confronted him at a restaurant. maybe that is what made him do it. look at all these regulations

president obama put in place, that this administration has repealed. the regulations are making us sick. that is all i have to say, thank you. a looke have been taking at the resignation by the epa administrator, scott pruitt, getting your thoughts on the resignation itself, the various issues surrounding him, his impact on environmental policy, you can continue on in the second half hour, democrats, (202)-748-8000, republicans, independents,, (202)-748-8002. twitter, http://twitter.com/cspanwj, also post on facebook. we continue with your comments, and show you other news as well relating to the white house, particularly upcoming summit planned between the president and vladimir putin, it will take

place in finland. julie davis saying the president will speak one-on-one with president putin of russia when they meet in finland. injecting an element of mystery into an encounter that white house advisers describe as a chance to reset the relationship. the united states envoy to moscow says mr. trump would use the meeting to "continue to hold russia accountable, including election meddling, a military incursion into ukraine." they're expected to discuss arms control in syria. mr. trump is set to often not use the advice of his advisers. said to often not use the advice of his advisers. you can see that rally of yesterday on www.c-span.org, mr.

trump talked about the upcoming meeting, his personal thoughts about vladimir putin. here is some of that from yesterday. [video clip] >> i am meeting with president putin next week and getting along, let me tell you, getting along with russia and getting along with china and getting along with other countries is a good thing, it is not a bad thing. [applause] it is a good thing. [applause] say, for stupid people or for political people, as they are not stupid, they are good at of structuring, resisting. the whole thing is, resist. it every time it comes up, will say this, i will have to ask them this question, how bad has it been since trump has been in? take a look at what has happened. we just increased the military spending, $700 billion. [applause]

we have become a nation that is exporting energy for the first time. exporting energy. [applause] so many things. you look at all the money. they are probably saying in russia, you know, if we did like this guy we made a big mistake. we would rather have crooked hillary clinton. they would much rather have hillary. getting along with other countries, you're talking nuclear powers, in all fairness, getting along is really a nice thing, a smart thing. we're going to beat everybody. we have the greatest military. look we have now, hopefully we will never have to use it. the only way you'll never have to use it, if it is so powerful, so good, so strong, nobody wants to play games. that is what we are doing. the event ins from

montana yesterday, you can see all of that on www.c-span.org. more responses from the announcement of the epa administrator resigning. good." wheeler is andrew the new acting head. they have a full list of the activities of the incoming administrator. ethics matters, scott pruitt failed miserably on both counts. " laura ingraham just said "scott pruitt is this want." new jersey, tony, talking about the resignation of scott pruitt. go ahead. caller: good morning. good morning, c-span.

this is amazing. campaignback to the where he said he would hire the smartest people. he was supposed to be so smart and look at his cabinet. everybody got a lawyer and everyone is under investigation for one thing or another. these republicans are amazing. they really are. everything is going to change in november. if you look at all his rallies, just look at his rallies, let's just take that, and set scott pruitt aside. host: we are focusing on scott pruitt. what is it about his policies that you did not like? caller: the clean water. look at detroit, michigan. them people still don't have clean drinking water. they haven't done anything to correct the water, the air, he wants to bring back coal, they

are just reversing everything obama put in place to keep people healthy. it is a disgrace. this will all come out the washing november. host: linda in tennessee, independent. caller: i'm glad he got rid of scott pruitt. you. -- he didn't know what kind of corruption he was going to do. the administration had the most corrupt -- he was a dead be president. host: what about scott pruitt's actions specifically? i liked him going back to everything and i hope trump gets somebody in there to roll back everything obama did. host: even the best not the scandal part but as far as rolling back stuff, i did. host: ann from powder springs, georgia. caller: good morning, how are you? host: fine, thank you.

caller: scott pruitt. resignation, won't make a lot of difference, except that one man has been caught being a crook. he is out. it is the policies that are destroying our environment, they will continue. as long as we have these policies exist, we're going to continue to have more breathing problems, diseases we never heard of before. the children are coming down with diseases that we have no idea where they came from. they have infections. host: as far as the policies themselves -- which policy did you have the most problems with? caller: all of them. in the first place, he went in not even knowing what the duties

of the environmental protection agency were. he did not know they included any sort of nuclear waste. he didn't realize that. the thought it had nothing to do with that. he is just -- he was not prepared to do a good job. i do not like their policies about water, air, not focusing the oil.energy, i think they have made, whatever they are doing is trying to support the rich. make more money for people like him. like trump and others in the ministration. policies are good for the american people at all. host: rockford, illinois, independent. mike. hiser: hi, i'm glad hypocrisy resulted in his resignation.

character should be the top priority regardless of party labels. host: was at those actions that bothered you the most or the environmental policy? caller: i expect people to call me out for hypocrisy. onill call it out on waters, illinois senator richard durbin, in this case, mr. scott pruitt. host:, as far as hypocrisy what would you list chief among them? caller: in the position he held of the epa, you should strike a balance between the industries, coal, for individuals who want to save forests from being chopped down. host: are you saying he did not achieve that balance? why? let personalse he

greed get in the way of what he was supposed to do, of his job. ont: massachusetts, janet, democrat line. caller: hi. i got a request and a comment. the comment on scott pruitt. , thatk we can all thank woman with her baby on her hip , stood there and confronted him, you could see it in his face, he was resigning then. that is my comment. host: you think it is the public pressure that forced him to make the decision? caller: yes. he finally found his heart. she found it for him. anyway. she talked about how her baby will be affected by the pollution. that he is creating. my request, would you please

limit the time you put on the air, donald trump's diatribes. tvave to go running to the to shut it off or turn down the volume. i cannot stand it. he is such a braggart, who knows what. tweets,e president's they are considered news directly from his feed, his personal thoughts about issues, we will show them, other newscasts will show them. that is part of the information we present among others. republican line, florida, harold. your next. i think he made a few personal errors. so if a man is threatened

many times and everyone admits he is threatened, multiple times compared to anybody else, he has a right to have a security guard with him and a few other things. as far as his resigning, my gosh, we elected trump to get a hold on these radicals who are doing things without science. we think this is happening, let's pour money into it. none of it has been analyzed. we have to have a grip on what is really happening. our solutions are worse than the problems. host: i'm interested in your assessment of his personal errors? you call them, a few. many investigations are going on. how do you square that? isler: i think if a man working night and day to dismantle all the errors of the past and get us on the right going to makes errors because he is no time to concentrate on his own life.

he bought some really expensive pants, that somehow were good for security. well. i guess they were expensive but they were for security. he had a soundproof area in his office so he could talk. well, since we know that democrats labeled him from day one as a person they wanted to destroy, i guess he needed security. he had a security guard traveling with him. i guess that was expensive. again, he has had more threats than the rest of the cabinet combined. there was a scandal about his daughter getting into uva. turned out, it was completely upside down. there was no error. if you look at somebody through a microscope, you can find an error. everyone is human. it doesn't mean the man is dramatically wrong or right. he is human. host: that is harold from florida, thoughts on the administrator's resignation that

took place yesterday. we continue on for the next 20 minutes, (202)-748-8000 democrats, (202)-748-8001, for republicans, (202)-748-8002, independents. mike pompeo in north korea talking with leadership, coming up with a framework for denuclearization. the washington times writing about it "mr. pompeo told lawmakers after the summit he would like to see a complete disarmament of nuclear capabilities by the end of mr. trump's first term in office, 2.5 years. john bolton has a reputation as the most aggressive north korea couldaying the north completely denuclearize in one year if the political will is there from pyongyang. " tweeting that he was looking

forward to continuing the work for a "denuclearize north korea, as agreed to by the chairman." let's go to colorado, this is chuck, democrats. caller: good morning, thank you for c-span. i have got news for the fellow that was just on, about none of these things have been studied, industry over science. that is a bunch of bunk. it is kind of like sinclair said, impossible to convince men of the truth when the paycheck depends upon him not believing the truth. another thing for larry from illinois, don't eat the fish you catch from the pond provided by local coal-fired power plants. you will get mercury poisoning. when you describe that

policy, what do you base that on? what you depending on to make that assessment? caller: global warming is hard science, proven. scott pruitt does not believe in get credit for making oklahoma the earthquake capital of the united states of america. hello? host: vivian in alabama, independent line. caller: good morning. the comment i made, i am glad he is gone. he took advantage of our government money. that is called stealing. what i wanted to mention, with the epa, the united states is only 1.5% of the globe. we have hundreds and hundreds of ships crossing or waters. don't you think that is polluting or waters? -- our waters? the amount of planes flying in the air, don't you think that is polluting the air?

we never go after that. we find out that cargo ships, polluting, do you think they will cut back on that? do think they will cut back on the amount of planes polluting the air, all over the globe? yet people are worried about a coal mine? it doesn't seem to make any sense. we don't go after the big stuff causing global warming. we are losing our coral reefs -- why is that? the waters are warming. ships are constantly crossing over. the natural things we cannot do anything about, volcanoes, things like that. that also pollutes the air. host: that is vivian in alabama. coal, i showed you earlier. more of the story, this is lisa friedman, brad plummer, new york times, epa drafting numerals to regulate coal plants "the

administration is drafted proposals to regulate coal-fired power plants, far less stringent than the climate plan finalized in 2015 by the former administration. writing the new rule, the trump administration is excepting for now, the federal government is legally obligated to take action to address greenhouse gases that cause global warming, even as the president has dismissed climate science. the new proposal is likely to spur small tweaks to the energy system. the proposal according to attorneys familiar, would recommend regulating emissions from individual plants calling for modest upgrades, including substituting fuel, contrasting with the more ambitious goals of the clean power plan, which encourages utilities to make systemic changes, such as switching to natural gas or renewable power, adding that it was last october when mr. pruitt

announced he would repeal the clean power plan. industry leaders applauded. but they also urged him to put forward a replacement, preferably weaker plan than the original." washington, d.c., independent line, your next, caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. i'm not a fan of scott pruitt. or the president. some things they do, they do work out for us, but most things has actually rob the people in the taxpayers. -- and the taxpayers. his resignation really leaves nothing.- really means they figured out how he can keep on working through a puppet.

saying he resigned, that really doesn't matter. trump, he will still be running the epa, quietly. just like they got rid of the supreme court justice, quietly helped him decide to retire, the same it is with getting scott down, to retire, or step and run the department quietly. host: monday evening announcement planned by president trump to announce his new nominee to go to the supreme court to replace the outgoing retiring justice anthony kennedy. morning,sta, this , "hington post saying according to advisors, the

president's final decision remains fluid as he travels thursday to a political rally montana before heading to a golf course in new jersey for the weekend, with the president president while the has placed kavanaugh near the top of the list, he has asked several friends about whether his past work would be an issue for core supporters." a second person close to the president has said on thursday that "kavanaugh is on the short list. vice president mike pence met with kavanaugh on wednesday at his residence, saying that the session went well and underscoring the strong prospect." republican line, victor, florida. good morning, you are next.

pruitt deserved to go, not just because of the corruption. the biggest problem i see with scott pruitt -- he was doing away with regulations that protected the food supply. he allowed aith, type of insecticide to cause brain tumors, on our vegetables. salmonella outbreaks. we cannot eat some let us now. supply. is in jeopardy i wish congress. would have oversight on these regulations. regulations protect the people from being poisoned or having their food supply destroyed. they can't come in and pay off somebody and do away with

regulations regulations. responsibility, if they deserve to be done away with, fine. if you're going to have kids with brain tumors because of an insecticide, you have a real problem in this country. the development of the brain is affected by an insecticide and a lot of it is a problem of the politicians for taking large contributions. host: that is victor from florida. john steinbeck on twitter saying "scott pruitt was doing great. he was the first pro-american epa chief and he will be missed." http://twitter.com/cspanwj on twitter and make your thoughts on on facebook. virginia, independent line. you are next. caller: i am glad he is gone. there was too much controversy surrounding him with all the investigations and everything.

he needed to go. he was the story, not his policies. times, weve a lot of are overregulated into oblivion. that is what a lot of the , theyment, the left wants want to regulate everything. while i do not agree with all the changes he has made, i do agree with some of them. the population in general. you know? host: which policies are you finding yourself in agreement with? caller: well, i knew you were going to ask that. i was kind of trying to figure out which ones i did. i think we need to be more middle-of-the-road and everything. the right is too far right and the left is too far left. i think we need to compromise.

do we need to regulate coal plants? yes. we need to put them out of business? no. they generate too much electricity. there are improvements that could be made. but you don't want to regulate them to where, they are there to make money, we all make money. you would not do your job if you did not make money. i'm retired now so i don't have a job but people complain about businesses making too much money. that is why they are there. if we would all just take a step back and be a little more -- listen to what the other side says and come to an agreement and the middle-of-the-road, i think we would all be better off. that seems to be the problem with washington now. no one wants to talk. in virginia giving his thoughts on environmental policy. economic policy, the washington

post and other papers highlighting the relationship between china and the united states these days, particularly over tariffs. david lynch and others writing that "u.s. customs officials were set to begin imposing duties on $34 billion in goods as of 12:01 a.m. today. officials have said they will respond with equivalent action on u.s. goods including soybeans and corn. president trump valuing to hit additional goods if beijing did so." there were follow-up stories after that timeline takes effect. that is the washington post writeup. tammy in nebraska, democrat, hi. caller: hi. my problem with scott pruitt was, first of all, his moral ethics where the disgusting part. if we are going to be so

far behind the rest of the world, can you nearly? -- can you hear me? host: go ahead. caller: if we keep going where we are at we will be so far behind the world and epa regulations are put in place for a reason. to protect us from the rich, the company's, that do not follow guidelines because they want to cut corners, and not protect the coal, people, like food, null and void sunday and we will be using wind for energy like the rest of the world. host: our last caller said there needs to be a balance when it comes to regulation. overregulation does not help. what do you think about that? caller: say that again. host: the last caller talked about overregulation being a harm. what do you think?

do you think there needs to be a balance when it comes to regulation? caller: i think we are being progressive and moving forward. when the administration says there is no such thing as global warming, i think, they are naive and not educated. last let's go to freddie, call on the topic, maryland, republican. pruitt, he did some bad choice. doesn't make him a bad guy. on a bigger point. host: why do you think he will be missed? caller: he will be missed because he was having common sense regulation and kicking the bad regulation away. look at global warming. everyone is talking about global warming. we don't even use this word anymore. it is changing. it is now called climate change. these people who talk about global warming, did not even

know if it was global warming or global cooling. now they have to change it, without letting anybody know. to me, i believe global warming is just a money machine. scott pruitt will be really messed. -- really missed. so-called scientists come up with everything, just a way to make money. was not a you say he bad guy, expand on that in light of what has been reported in the investigations on him? why do you say he is not a bad guy? start: of course when you taking rooms from lobbyists, bad stuff, but anybody, just like your caller say, if you look at anyone in the united states, you will find some problem. everybody wants to find a way to blame trump or somebody in the administration. that is freddie,

republican line and maryland, last call on the topic for the first hour. we go onto a guest joining us, first up will be no labels co-founder, william galston, he will discuss speakers project and other proposed rules that could end partisan gridlock in congress. discusses later on, the second supreme court nomination of president trump and how that could impact the court. those discussions coming up on washington journal. ♪ afterwards,ght on the book the fox on, a refugees

memoir of coming to america. detailing how the author escaped, after connecting jews and christians globally through social media. allou constantly point out of these strangers who have helped you in small and large ways. there are names you mention, who you have met one time in bosnia years ago. and you may have never spoken to them again, you are aware of the roles that strangest play in each other's lives. to you have advice for us on being good strangers to the people around us? i founde up on time and a hundred emails from people who i had never heard about, i was losing hope because during the book, it was a very hard situation. i know that people have faith in me, and they are trying to help

out. in the book, i was waiting for fishing boats and because i have faith in these people, strangers to him help me in lots of different ways and i wanted to find a safe way to do that. without them, and without having faith in humanity, there is no hope. i asked one of the people why did you help me yet go -- iago ?- help me go -- help me >> you can watch on c-span twos booktv. >> not in this week you are watching c-span programming in primetime on 8 p.m. eastern, tonight kirk cameron, attorney

general jeff sessions, and republican senator cory gardner speaking at this year's western conservative summit in colorado. >> we are hammering the criminals -- especially ms 13, that vicious gang, it's one of the most violent and inhumane groups in the world. their motto, kill, rape, and control. this week in primetime on c-span, and c-span.org. >> washington journal continues. host: it was this past april where the house speaker, paul ryan, took to the podium and announced his resignation. here is part of that announcement. whenu realize something you take this job, the it is big ith a lot riding on you -- is big with a lot riding on you. but you realize it will not have last forever.

this is a small part of our history, so you better make the most of it. and that inspired me to do big things. on that score, i think we have achieved a heck of a lot. host: with that announcement, our next guest comes in, this is bill with the group no labels. tell us about the opportunity you see? >> there is going to be a vacancy in the speakership, and there is going to be a midterm election in november which will, in all probability, leave the two parties in the house of representatives pretty evenly balanced. if the democrats have a risk -- a majority it will not be big. if republicans maintain their majority it won't be by much. in these circumstances a

relatively small band of determined reformers can help get congress back on track. right now the congress is the dysfunctional branch of our constitutional system. it is broken. it is not doing its job, it cannot do its job. the reasons for that go beyond the polarization and discord between the political parties. it has to do with antique, obsolete rules for conducting business. and make it almost impossible to get the people's work done. and we a no labels are out to change that. host: with a project known as the speaker project, a little bit that folks have found online, talk to us about what you have just said. guest: it is a way of turning the speakership, the only constitutional house office, the only house off as mentioned in the constitution. at into an office that serves

the entire house of representatives. so the speaker of the house is this bigger of the entire house and not just the majority leader . it is also a way of empowering minorities in the house of representatives to make their voices heard. the cannot overpower the majority but they would have a chance to have their voices heard. it is also interestingly a way of empower zynga -- of empowering the speaker to act to put together bipartisan majorities. these are some of the objectives. we have lots of other proposals as well, including punishing members of the house and senate who do not get the bonnet -- the budget done on time, including requiring members of the house and senate to work five day work weeks when they are in session. these are commonsense proposals that we think would make the congress better. host: let's see there is a new

congress, a party is in power and a new speaker is elected, what is the one thing that could change right off the bat that would promote bipartisanship. guest: stick with me for a little bit, because this is complicated. is that the house of representatives reinvents itself every two years, unlike the senator does not have rules to go on every year to the next. every two years the house gets together and organizes itself by electing a speaker and passing a package of rules that will govern its behavior. what you need to know about the election of the speaker as things now stand is that you need the majority, 118 out of 340 five. what happens if a handful of reformers say we are not going to vote for our party's nominee

for speaker unless we also pass a package of rules, reforms. no reforms, no votes. no votes, no speaker. and we cannot get off the starting line. but sounds like a fantasy, it has happened before. almost a century ago in 1925, 1922 losticans in most of there has majority and still had a narrow majority. and a small group of reform republicans said to be leaders of their own party, they are not going to vote for our party's nominee for speaker unless you agree to these rules changing. and without nine votes they had no majority and finally the leadership caved and agree to reforms. we have a bipartisan caucus in the house of representatives,

it's an independent bipartisan caucus with 24 democrats and 24 republicans. whoever has narrow majority after the election, our people are determined to withhold their votes until there are serious reforms. host: is the new rules have to be passed, what is chief among those rules that would promote -- if the new rules have to be passed what is chief among those rules that would promote bipartisanship? the first would be a change in the way the speaker is elected. rather than a simple majority, our proposal is that in order to become speaker you need a vote total equal to the number of votes the majority has plus five. that means the next speaker will have to reach out to at least some members of the minority party. that will make the speaker -- the will make -- bring peach -- speaker closer to bring

speaker of the house rather than the majority leader. this is important because the speaker is the third in line to be president. we need someone who enjoys broad-based support. that is the beginning. but we have a lot of other proposals. here's the next one, once we have a strong bipartisan speaker in place, that speaker should not have a damocles hanging over his head. there is such a sword, called the motion to vacate that any member of the house can propose and i bore down vote. it takes precedence over just about -- an up or down vote. it takes precedent over just about anything else. john boehner was chased out of office because one person

enacted this. you cannot have a speaker who is trying to do people's business across party lines with that , so of sword over his head that a minority of his own party can depose him. we want to make it easier for majorities across party lines to be able to express themselves. right now there is a mechanism called the discharge petition, if you get 218 votes you can bring a bill to the floor, if the speaker does not like it. the problem is you have to do it in daylight. pause for a moment, i want to get viewers in on the conversation. if you want to ask our guests about the idea of ending gridlock in con -- in congress, please dial in. ,or democrats (202) 748-8000

for republicans (202) 748-8001, and for independents (202) 748-8002. go ahead. instancesa number of in recent years, there has been majorities in favor of bipartisan legislation to address some of the country's most urgent problems. have taken thes position that they want to pass legislation with the votes in the majority only. so they have refused to bring to broadoor bills that enjoy bipartisan support. we don't think the american people really want the house of representatives to work that way. we think if there is a popular majority across party lines, then the house of representatives ought to allow that majority's proposal to

come to the floor for a vote. it is very simple. what we want to do is make it easier for bipartisan majorities. host: you talked about this realem solvers, is the house power held on factions such as the freedom caucus, and the tuesday group? doesn't that affect the ability for people to come to some agreement on things so the bipartisanship can be done? host: it certainly does, and we don't think the majority -- guest: it certainly does and we don't think the minority of the majority should be able to run the house of representatives. the founders were worried about this, but they did not know how bad it could get. they could not imagine the tyranny of the majority of the majority. they certainly cannot imagine the tyranny of the minority of the majority. that's crazy, it means the american peoples business is not getting done.

host: as far as the project itself, you can find it at no /rules if you want to see more there. have you had a chance to talk with problem solvers? how much is this getting in interest yucca interest yucca inch -- interest? host: -- guest: we know the leadership in both political parties are paying attention to this, and often have mixed views on the subject because this would change the rules of the game. the leadership of the political parties have been playing to the old rules very -- for a very long time and they are worried about changes. if this happens it would be from below, and not the top down. that is the way our government is supposed to work. powerrepublicans hold

currently, how willingly do you think democrats would be if they took the house to come to this conclusion? to follow the rules as you set them out? i go back almost a hundred years to 1923, the republicans had the majority of the election, and obviously the leadership and a lot of other republicans preferred to do things the old way. , wethe reformers said no have to change the rules of the game. and they prevailed. to be someing resistance, because all change evoke's resistance. -- evokes resistance. but does anyone think that the way that congress is now functioning is the best we can do? does anyone think it is a healthy situation where only the 17 percent of the american people approve of the way congress does business? this is a public outcry for change and we are trying to

respond. host: we will take calls for bill of no labels. let's start in wyoming on the republican line, this is gordon. caller: good morning. , on booktvuestions there was a book called how to turn republicans and democrats into americans. i don't know how to -- i don't know much about it, and pedro you are talking a year to go about incomes raising or lowering and you happen to ask me what my income was and i'm curious as to what yours is? let's go to steve in ohio. on the independent line. caller: thanks for taking my call, no matter what rules you come up with, they are no better than the people behind them. why not take the money out from the standpoint that these people , when they leave congress whether they are senate or

house, have to take the money that is in their reelection campaigns, which is usually millions of dollars and rather than going in their pocket have to turn it over to the parties that they run with. therefore there would not be this great incentive with regard to these people leaving, just when they should stay there like rats leaving a ship. you actually said something very interesting that i don't think james madison would agree with. and that is that the government is no better than the people in it. in fact the whole point of our constitution is to take people as we find them. frequently what we find is not all that great. and use the incentives of the rules and institutions in order to get them to act more consistently with the public interest. what we are proposing very simply is giving people stronger

incentives to do the right thing. easier if the people who were elected to congress were all angels? absolutely. but as james madison famously said of all men were angels government would be unnecessary. if, it would be wonderful people were purely motivated by public good and not by private gain. and i am personally in favor of lots of measures that would try to reduce the incentives for private gain in our political system. but there are a lot of obstacles to doing that and no labels is choosing a different reforma avenue. there are lots of people working on money in politics, we are working on changing the rules of the game. labelsalk to us about no for those not familiar to it. guest: no labels is a genuinely

nonpartisan, or should we say tri-partisan group at the grassroots level and congressional level. our members include democrats, republicans, and independence. we are not a third party in the making, we are a classic american reform group that is trying to take the problems as we find them and organize citizens and elected officials across party lines to help our government function better so it can do the people's business. it is as simple as that. we have been in existence for 10 years. we have scored some successes. with of the speaker project we are swinging for the fences. host: on our independent line, from florida. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. i want to commend you for the

work that you do, especially on .-span and you too i love when c-span has on your show, you are the people who think proactively, pragmatically, and strategically like your guest is proposing. my first question is, what do you think about legislation and government that governs by consensus and referendum? my second question is, what about the constitutional clause where it says trying to make a more perfect union. that is the premise behind everything you are doing, and thank you again and happy

fourth of july. guest: thank you. with you for being grateful for c-span. it's one-of-a-kind. i have been on many times and i have gotten some tough questions. it is the ultimate fair news organization. , ih regard to your questions have my doubts about government by referendum. i think there is good reason why the founders did not write such a provision into the constitutional bill is you know. -- as you know. many states do have referendum. a referendum for the proposition on the table, you cannot amend it and the public cannot amend it. you either have to say yes or no. very frequently the referenda are phrased ambiguously or

imperfectly. and there is no opportunity to make them better. of ordinaryr legislation through the normal process. one of the problems right now is that the house of representatives is more like government by referendum, where most amendments are not the majority both and minority are confronted with take it or leave it propositions. we have the worst of both worlds. we have a legislator that functions like a referendum and we had no labels are in favor of turning legislators back into the legislative body were people who have ideas can put them forward in the forms of amendments and have them considered fairly. you cannot open the door to complete chaos, but you could certainly have a much more open process than we have now. host: in fact part of the

planions include three fair notice bills and opening on the rules committee. turned into ac political divisive tool? if a bill comes forward -- couldn't that be turned into a political divisive tool? there are no perfect rules. but right now we have a ,adically unbalanced system where most bills of any consequence come to the floor in the house of representatives with what is known as a closed rule, so you cannot offer any amendments. it is there is a take it or leave it proposition. in itself.roblem when you add to the fact that a lot of the committees that used to be where the legislation was drafted have now had their power drained away into the leadership

, so bills are actually written in the leader's chambers and then committees are just rubberstamps. there is a double deprivation of opportunity to make ideas better through the amendment process. first in the committees and then on the house floor. let me put it this way. if you are satisfied with the results of the rules as they are now operating, then no labels has nothing to offer you. if you happen to think that a body with 17% public support that has a very hard time and has not done a budget on time for years, let alone more ambitious legislation, you have to think that's a problem, and we have a solution. to your point of we talked about the budget, with the appropriations committee as far as you see currently, how could those rules be changed currently -- you talked about the

budget, we have the appropriations committee with rules, how could those be changed? at the end you have of the fiscal year, or usually well into the next fiscal year, you have what is called an omnibus bill. those of us who are gray-haired in memories remember what ronald reagan came to the well for the state of the union address with an omnibus appropriations bill and he said i am never going to sign another one of these again. presidents after president after president has been forced to pastthose bills over the 30 odd years of since ronald reagan said that because the house of representatives and the congress as a whole have defaulted on their most basic responsibilities to do a budget for the next fiscal year on time so that the government can function according to that budget.

hear from the republican mind, jim in montana. good morning. label: i get tired of the , dysfunctional congress. performingess as exactly as the founders designed it. we have a small group of people wanting to fundamentally change america. and congress has locked down that change. i see a performing exactly as it should and i don't see it as dysfunction when we are not to what the guest is referring to as forward. thank you. i guess he represent a 17% of the american people who are satisfied with the way the house of representatives is

functioning. i can certainly see from your standpoint one of the most essential functions of congress is to prevent bad things from happening. there is a lot to what you're saying. but i think you would probably agree that it is not good government if the government does not have a budget to function by. since then years government of the united states has begun its fiscal year with an approved budget for the entire government. standpoint of what the founders created, the congress of the united states to do, its most essential power is the power of the purse. the is the way that congress of the united states does its constitutional bit to steer the activities of the government. if it is not even doing that,

then i think we have a problem. host: from florida, alvin on the independent line. caller: good morning. i think you're doing what needs to be done for change. , i'misturbed by congress what president has done what congress has done? i believe teachers deserve more than what congress makes. we talked about the founders amount was a great stepping stone, but the constitution needs to be changed. we should work on this also because the constitution was written back then. at times have changed and we do not live like we have lived back when it was made.

it needs changing and you are doing a good job, i just want to say thank you. guest: thank you for this comments. it is true that the constitution was written a long time ago. it is also true that it has been amended more than two dozen times since it was adopted. there are mechanisms for change but do not involve ripping up the document and starting all over again. and you may bell -- may well be right, that it is time to consider well judged constitutional amendment to address the structural projects we have discovered. the problem of course is to come up with the proposals that get the support of people in three quarters of the state. it is not easy but it is possible. i know some friends of mine are

thinking hard about some basic constitutional amendments. think they will stir up conversations even if they do not get their way. had the vice on we chair of the caucus on capitol hill. he talked about the influence that him and others like him get on capitol hill, at least the perspective he had on it. i want to listen to what he had to think it your perspective. >> the problem is that small groups of people are controlling the base. the republicans are moving further to the right to please their base, and democrats move further to the left, and no one doing anything in the middle. we will not solve the problems in this country unless people stop screaming at each other and work together to find common sense solutions in the middle. that is not happening because gerrymandering is going people away from each other. these idease said

of pulling to the extremes, how do you change that fundamentally? guest: you change that fundamentally by creating a situation in which bipartisan arerities, which do exist, allowed to have a voice in the legislative process. i know for a fact that in one of the most disputed issues, immigration reform, for at least a decade there has been a bipartisan majority in both the house and the senate in favor of change that i think, based on survey research would enjoy public support. the walls of the game have prevented that legislative -- legislation from being enacted. i could go through a number of other areas that have the exact same problem. your guest was a man of common sense and i think he said what many americans believe. --t: on the emigration side

immigration side we saw the threat of the discharge petition , what do you think that says about the power of the discharge petition that you spoke about, especially how it was applied? guest: it's a good example of what is wrong in the current system. the discharge petition would on a widented votes range of immigration proposals, including genuinely bipartisan proposals. instead of the speaker of the house, to prevent those bipartisan proposals from coming to the floor, exerted a lot of pressure to prevent 216 members who had signed that discharge petition from getting the number they are -- they required which was 218. what he did was permit two bills to come to the floor, both of them were republican only bills. never negotiated across party months.

and the republican party, it turns out, does not have a majority in favor of that approach to immigration but it tries to do its job -- the job by itself. it was a total disaster. if the discharge petition had been done the way we are proposing, namely anonymously so the representatives do not have to risk their political careers, we would have had a wider range of bills to consider. and one of them would have gone the majority. ist: the discharge petition one of those ideas in this bigger project that is available on the no labels website. forces behind the them. you can find his thoughts online and more about the speaker project. on the republican line, from tennessee, this is alex. caller: i have been watching you for about 30 years on c-span. as you havegreat

gotten older, and some of your views have changed. i have certainly aged, i can tell. he's always been a bit of a liberal, and i like the way you think. my two cents is a republican is that i like the slow process but the constitution established. i don't want our legislators to be able to make a lot of decisions quickly, i want them to go nice and slow. as far as some of the recent decisions over, you just mentioned the immigration issue, i don't think there ever has been a time when the democrats were in charge that they had their way and they blocked everything that republicans wanted. now the republicans are in charge and they will block everything democrats want. that's just the way the ball bounces. what do you say about that? how do you feel about it? is a: what you just said

very fair description of the past 20 years. but i suspect, listening to your voice that you and i are both of an age, especially if you have been watching me for 30 years, and we can both remember a time when it wasn't like this. when despite party differences that the two parties were able to get together on important legislation. i will give you an example from a republican administration, ronald reagan's presidency when democrats and republicans got together on genuine tax reform. that was a bipartisan effort from start to finish. it was not easy, if the failed your definition of good legislative process, it was slowing took a long time. but it produced a result that was good for the country. i would submit that we would be better off if we could find our

more than 20 time years ago, 40 years ago when political parties play hardball with each other but at the end of the day they were able to agree on something that promoted the public interest. talk about a modern-day story, the next -- host: to talk about the modern-day story, the neck nominate -- the next supreme court nomination. guest: history says all sorts of president isurrent a very fortunate man as he is getting his second nomination to the supreme court in as many years as office. -- in office. i very much hope that he will come up with the nominee who does not provoke a terrible

fight in the congress and the country. i am a realist. i know that he is going to select someone who practices conservative jurisprudence as conservatism and jurisprudence is now defined. if it were democratic president, a different set of standards would be used. there is a difference between honest and honorable conservative jurisprudence on the one hand and outright provocation on the other. i hope the president chooses someone that even democrats would begrudgingly admit is a sound, solid, and sensible choice. host: do you expect that sense of bipartisanship in the process from the senators? guest: i do not. the people affect the tone of .he deliberations

at the end of the day, very few voting forill end up the president's nominee, whoever that is in part as payback for senate majority leader mitch mcconnell's refusal to allow the nomination of merrick garland to come to the floor to the senate for an up or down vote in 2016. democrats are still smarting from that, and i don't think they're going to let this nominee slide through easily. host: this is a lane, from washington state on the democrats line. caller: you said you knew for a fact, so i would like to bring up some facts about this incompetent congress that we have. on january 17, 2017 they have bills, --housand 49

1049 bills, that's congress. but the senate is sitting on 340 bills. if anybody is not effective, it would seem to me that that would be the senate, and not the congress. to put the blame on the congress is ludicrous to me. but that is my thought about it. aret: i'm sure your numbers correct, but this is where we have to get behind the numbers. i would bet that almost all of been passedhave with republican support and no democratic support. i would bet that most of those bills are bills were the minority party has had almost no opportunity to offer amendments. when bills like i get to the senate, which requires more bipartisanship in order to do most legislation, they are not going to go anywhere.

the speaker of the house can say we are productive because we are cranking out legislation like sausages, and so you are. you are cranking out bills like sausages, they will be dead on arrival in the senate. there is a reason why the senate isn't moving on the houses bills , the senate cannot move on the houses bills as long as the house passes bills with the support of the majority only, which is why it is so important to create a new dynamic in the house of representatives. such that when the house actually passes a bill and sends it to the senate, the senate has something to work with. host: from north carolina, timothy on the independent line. caller: i have a suggestion and a quick question, please do not cut me off.

i like the foundation you have as far as labels, i think c-span , i have a suggestion for c-span. instead of having the democrat republican and independent, why don't you just have people colin -- call in. with those labels, people get mad, angry, and complain all the time. you could just have people colin. -- call in. please direct your comment or question to our guest please. ok.er: until we are willing to change the constitution, nothing will get done. an example is electoral college. the two last presidents that we have lost by -- thes of votes in the

majority of the people did not vote for them, rather. alone in are not wondering whether the electoral college has outlived its useful purpose, whatever that might have been. i think it is going to take a very long time for the people who are in favor of changing or abolishing it to get their way. there are some interim proposals that i think would make a difference for those who want to move things in that direction, there is a national movement to get a majority of states to commit to one another to cast their electoral votes in line with the popular vote. if that were ever to achieve aitical mass, that could make big difference without a constitutional amendment. abolishing the electoral college would be a constitutional

earthquake, those have happened, but usually in the wake of wars. suggestions you make is a five-day work week, has the congress ever seen a five-day workweek? when: back in the old days there were no jet airplanes, yes. the other terrible invention, namely air conditioning drove congress out of washington for most of the summer. now is a congress that staggers along 12 months out of the year, but the work week is very short. the house and the senate do not coordinate their schedules. so a lot of business is not getting done because it is inefficient. we have a simple proposal, three weeks on, one week off. we understand senators and

members of congress have to do a lot of work back home and hold a halls with their folks. week's,ut 35-day work five-day work week, then you have a week to do whatever you want to do. wouldn't that be more sensible? what we doing now is crazy. host: one more call on the republican line from california. jerome. i was a candidate for the district one in california, and my premise has been to treat the current congressional people as employees. anyone on the potential employee list, the ballot, would be treated like that, as an employee. they would have to come to the people to ensure that they are interviewing for a job, and not for long-term position.

i'm against term limits and i think people have the ability to have term limits they just have to get off their butts to enforce term limits. that is what i'm about. i'm about having a different perception about how we look at the government, not how they look at us. host: caller, thank you very much. guest: there's a lot of common sense to the idea that running for office is a job interview. i agree with you. different people have different views of the best qualifications for the office. that is democracy. perspective basic is very sensible, and i'm sure most people would agree with it once you have a chance to explain it to them. host: the group has no labels, the project is the speaker project. thank you for your time. guest: it's a pleasure as always. host: coming up where going to talk about supreme court , tonations with matt lewis

talk about what he sees as the fight ahead in the confirmation of the next supreme court justice. that conversation coming up on washington journal. ♪ >> the c-span buses traveling across the country on our 50 capitals tour. the bus stopped in fairbanks, alaska, asking folks what is the most important issue in alaska? >> the issue is most important to me is the environment. imagine, with environmental changes in my the industry has a potential to be wiped out. >> i was born and raised in the

for lookingska, issues that take care of abortion, the budget, and giving money back to the people. i think it is the right of the people to have the ability to keep their resources out of the control of the state. lately ison my mind the way the children are suffering threat the united states. i'm upset that the attorney generals have not taken mr. trump -- and others, mr. trump, child abuse seriously.

i would like to see the slam some oferal these legislators for allowing this to happen. that is one issue, but most of all i want to welcome people who want to visit alaska. we have beautiful scenery, lots of kids are having fun. i am santa claus wishing you a very merry christmas. >> the big issue for me is the future of alaska. i'm concerned about it, and at the same time i'm optimistic. i'm concerned because we have some of the highest cost in the country, the highest energy and unemployment in the country, and the lowest educational attainment and a rapidly degrading environment. i'm optimistic despite all of stronglyuse our people

support higher education, we lead the world in arctic research and our university has a plan. we are committed to that plan and investing in it, to build our people and strengthen our futures to be more competitive nationally and internationally as we look to the next century. be sure to join us july 21 and 22nd when we will feature our visit to alaska. watch alaska weekend on c-span, c-span.org, or listen on the radio app. >> washington journal continues. us now is matt lewis with the daily beast. he is their senior columnist to talk about the supreme court nomination and the process. good morning. guest: good morning. host: i'll show you the

headline, trump will get his supreme court picks, and democrats will get their revenge. why are you so certain? guest: obviously republicans control the senate and the presidency, it's hard to stop a president from getting his pick. i also think the underrated aspect is that there are some democrats running for reelection in the u.s. senate in places like north dakota, missouri, montana, and places were donald trump is very popular. they are going to be hesitant i think, to oppose a donald trump nominee who is going to be highly qualified. there are five to seven names that president trump has talked about, i guess the federal society is put that was together. this is the one area where donald trump is in very good if you're a mainstream reagan conservative. i think that the odds are pretty good that president trump will get his nominee.

and if he does not there will be a price to pay, ultimately trump will get the nominee. but i mentioned in that title, revenge is coming. host: what about that? are at a steroid our winning is losing and losing his winning and every action has an equal and opposite reaction. actioninning, and every has an equal and opposite reaction. from the standpoint of republicans you have had this long history of democrats obamang norms. senator tried to filibuster samuel alito , you had the barking of robert bork, the clarence thomas hearing, the judgment of miguel estrada blocked by a lower coin to portman if your republican use a democrat started this -- by a lower court of treatment.

if you're a plug-in use a democrat started this. but if you're democrat you go back to mitch mcconnell by not allowing merits garlic -- merrick garland to get a shot. garland isrick certainly a qualified and pretty moderate judge by most accounts. it's not like he was some radical. republicans stopped him from getting confirmed and did not even give him the opportunity to prove himself. a situation where democrats feel that they won the popular vote this time, but lost the electoral college. now donald trump is about to it if amyyear-old, coney barrett were picked, would be on the supreme court for decades. you can understand why democrats feel like look, you have to fight this. ust: matt lewis will be with

, if you want to asking questions about this process of choosing the next supreme court justice. for democrats (202) 748-8000, for republicans (202) 748-8001, and for independents (202) 748-8002. host: you mention justice barrett, talk about the other two, robert cavanaugh and mr. tch?au lait --kefli question, is the huge i would think anyone who thinks that they can get inside donald trumphad an think of -- 's head and think about what he is going to do is probably a fool. guessf us do not try to or second-guess what the president is going to do.

if i were betting i think i would have to bet on amy coney barrett, partly because she is 46, slightly younger than the other two on the short list. a couple of interesting things, everyone on the shortlist has clerked for a supreme court justice. she clerked for justice scalia. the other clerked for justice kennedy. you could argue that that is in their benefit because he is the one retiring. maybe one of his former clerks could be a successor. obviously amy coney barrett is the only female on the list. i think a lot of conservatives sort of think it might be nice for a republican president to now pick a female justice. sandra day o'connor was the first woman on the supreme court nominated by ronald reagan, since then there has only ever been one other nominated woman, andiet miers who blew up --

that obviously blew up. if roe v. wade is overturned, it would be nice to have a female justice be on the side of overturning it. other two are more qualified in the sense of they have had longer time on the bench. be a judge or to a lawyer to be support -- appointed to the supreme court. but judge barrett has only been .n for seven or eight months she was a law professor before that. your of these other two, you mentioned brett kavanaugh, highly qualified. i think a lot of it comes down to how do you feel about them? gut instincts. i think brett kavanaugh is the only non-catholic on the list. evangelicalthe only if he were to be confirmed to the supreme court.

i think everyone of these potential nominees are something you could be happy with. host: one of the criticisms of kene kavanagh comes from cuccinelli, the former attorney general. looks, walks, and quacks like john t roberts jr.. peoplewas reminding about his decision when it comes to obamacare, adding the bush lives loudly in cavanaugh --kavanah. host: i think it -- guest: i think if you're conservative you could be happy with all of these, but brett kavanaugh is clearly the establishment favorite. if you are an establishment republican, he might be more your guy. this is how it is breaking down.

barrett is theey outsidernservative candidate. the movement conservative candidate. -- the judge is the establishment republican. and ken cuccinelli being a grassroots conservative is not fond of him. host: let's take some calls, this is michael on the democrats line. caller: i love your show. i just wanted to say, if donald trump had any kind of angling of bringing this country together he would bring merrick garland onto an opportunity to be the next the bream justice. he would bring the democrats together, it would unify the country that i, at 63 years old, have never seen the divisions like this, even in 1968 when i was catching permits but -- bar mitzvahed.

like president trump to think about unifying the country instead of dividing. guest: i actually agree with the sentiment about bringing people together, and i do think donald trump could have done something like a cabinet position might have been able to bring in some prominent democrats and build bridges. i think with the supreme court it's different. this is a lifetime appointment. donald trump is trying to find a doesn't only have to worry about bringing in democrats, he doesn't worry about bringing in democrats at all. in addition to being concerned about uniting americans he does have to keep what i would call mainstream reagan conservatives happy. we have recently seen a spat of prominent intellectuals who has said that they actually want democrats to win in november. one of the few areas were donald trump has delivered and cap to

mainstream reagan -- and kept mainstream reagan conservatives on board as with the supreme court pick. one of the reasons that a lot of them held at their nose and supported donald trump in 2016 was that he put out this list, this promise to conservatives that he would appoint judges to the supreme court from this list . you have to realize this is a conservativeare a this is a long list of the trails over the years that conservatives feel like they have suffered -- of the trails -- of the trails cash -- the -- conservatives feel like they have suffered.

this is part of why the list exists, i think if donald trump were to betray that promise that he made to conservatives and nominate even someone who he thinks is qualified like merrick garland, it would be a huge betrayal and i would not advise him. there are certainly other, better ways to build bridges. this, iviewer says would be surprised if the president nominates a woman and follow its -- and runs the risk of her not following through on roe v. wade. guest: you actually never know how someone is going to roll once they get on the bench. rarely does anyone become more conservative on the bench. but we have had a lot of experience where republicans nominate someone and they become much more liberal overtime. never know, i would say with amy coney barrett, to understand her i think it's important to understand her devout catholic faith.

i think it's unlikely that she issue.volve on the life i think it is possible that she factorule as abetter opinion 't into it, that she would make a decision there would either overturn roe based solely on her interpretation of the constitutionality of the law. president has reason to uphold it or she may say that the law was a conceived to overturn it. i think at some point, our personalities and values and worldviews do enter into something, even if it's subconscious. a column of the daily beast, everyone is talking about roe, but what about other issues? oudge merrick has adopted tw haitian children and she has one special needs child makes me wonder about how she might come

down another issues, including family separation, should that make it to the high court in the unlikely event that it does, however personal worldview factor into decision on that. -- this isce robert robert from brooklyn. caller: i consider what happened in the case of gorsuch and garland to be a form of court packing. from andikelihood that the republicans are going to put somebody on the high court who is utterly unacceptable to the democrats, what do you think of the idea that if in 2020, they get a democratic president and a democratic senate that president should make an attempt to pack the court? caller: pedro mentioned earlier -- guest: pedro mentioned earlier the donald trump will get his pick and democrats will get revenge. as is within the realm of possibility.

what we have had for a long time now is a game of one-upsmanship where each side tests the bounds of the breaking of norms. i think when barack obama participated in a filibuster to try to stop samuel alito, that was the breaking of the norm, it used to be that you would vote for a qualified nominee from the other side of the aisle and i think when mitch mcconnell refused to have hearings for mayor garland, that was the breaking of the norm, and you can mind, there is nothing written in stone or even in the constitution is that is that you have to have hearings or that -- it says that a president will make a nomination and the senate can either confirm or reject it. these aren't breaking the law, but they are breaking norms. and i think it's within the dems of possibility that

to try that again. this respect roosevelt in the 1937 court packing scheme of ended up ailing because of the backlash. would the public, assuming democrats have the presidency and how the senate, what with the public do? there's nothing written in stone that says there has to be nine justices. there could be any number. what we are talking about is not the breaking of law, but the breaking of norms. i think unfortunately, we have had a lot of norms being broken in recent years. the unfortunate thing would be if we get to a point where nobody respects any sort of tradition but whoever has power doesn't exercise forbearance, just tries to run up the score. from ohio, democrat line, gail. caller: good morning. how are you? host: fine, thanks. go ahead. caller: i have a question.

who would allow a sitting president under criminal investigation to make a lifetime appointments to the supreme court? our corrupt house and senate. it's a disgrace. where's the outrage? where's the outrage from the dems? i hear crickets from them. trump and his supporters, stop attending your racism is patriotism. host: thank you. mr. lewis. guest: i think democrats are in a really tough spot because i think that the house leadership, nancy pelosi and senate leadership, chuck schumer, they want to have an election where they feel the wind is at their back. they believe that the midterms are automatically skewing in their direction, partly because

their base is energized. and the only thing that could mess that up as if the republican base was also energized. how can the republican base become energized? when we would be if you want to try to deny the president's supreme court pick, that would spark a fight that might energize both sides and could prevent democrats from taking the house. islso think impeachment talk actually damaging to democrats hopes for the same reason. the problem of course is that the democratic base are agenda and they want to have these fights and they want to try to impeach the president and so this is going to be the tension that democrats are going to have to deal with is how you keep your base energized and not disappoint them without actually having them energize the republican base. that's going to be the game from now until november. host: from new jersey, this is

pat. caller: the justices seemed to be getting a point to the supreme court at a younger and younger age. why can't we have some kind of compact between the executive and congress that maybe the supreme court should be limited to appointees who have reached the age of 60 with a lifetime of experience for us to judge. thanks. guest: that's an argument. i think maybe the better have someould be to sort of term limits where judges can only serve for maybe 20 anrs or instead of having age you have to be 60 before you can be appointed to go the other direction and say if you reach 90, maybe you should retire. either way, i think we should be open-minded about possible reforms to the court. that, it would have

to be limited in a way that is done fairly, where you grandfather people in and where are you essentially have the reform taken without giving the benefit to one side of the other. right now, republicans feel like they could be on the verge of dominating the courts for generations. and they're not going to be excited about suddenly relinquishing that because i would say it is funny that all of a sudden i'm hearing from liberals more and more about the need to do something about this. they weren't so concerned about it 10 or 15 or 20 years ago. i think we probably should do something, you just have to find a way to do it that both sides can agree to. host: you talked about democrat senators from states where the president won. , senatort the senators collins remain in senator murkowski from alaska, what is

their role going to be all of this? guest: i think both of them would oppose a nominee became out that a nominee ever said that they were -- that roe v. wade is going to be overturned, i can't wait to overturn it, if someone implicitly or overly said that, i think it would probably be a dealbreaker for those two senators. thatde of that, i think they would probably vote for republican nominee, everybody on this list as far as i can tell has been vetted, is qualified part of come over the viewers out there is important to understand that in the wake of what happened with zsa zsa or, the one area conservatives will deliver structures in the courts in the federalist society primarily help to do that. and propel young conservative

and legalal intellectuals and i wonder if the conservative movement has this parallel organization in other areas. one of their was a federalist society for health care policy wonks who are center-right. effort --ffort the might the effort to reform health care might have gone smoother? he hasn't wavered and hasn't waffled hasn't gone back and forth on this. so far, knock on wood, things have gone well from a conservative perspective because of those institutions. one of the things i think conservatives learn is not to be out there speculating on how they may or may not judge someday. i think it would be unlikely to find anyone on that list who has really go out of their way to say i'm going to rule this way. without that, i think all the republican senators are probably

inclined to vote for a drop nominee. -- a trump nominee. host: in the case of roe, does anything suggest for many of these three how they might vote aside from religious belief that your legal backbone or opinions? guest: i think in the case of amy coney barrett, she's only been on the bench for eight or nine months. at notre law professor dame and she has written some things, people tried to go in and decipher what she may mean now she actually was questioned back in november during her confirmation to the circuit court about this by senator judge merricksaid essentially said my personal view, my faith, will not factor in just how i judge. a look at the law and interpret that. i don't think you are going to find any smoking gun on any of

these and that goes back to the history of this. i think conservatives have been beingned by the idea of borked. they are loath to be too transparent in terms of how they may role. more likely what they do is talk about their judicial philosophy and most of them are originalists or textual lists. that is something that is broader and i would say harder for someone to criticize then speculating on how you might vote on a certain case that might come before you. host: this is matt smith this is what's wrong with robert bork's nomination failure. their behavior seems routine and procedural, the republican's decision to steal a scotus seat is wrong.

he had been confirmed unanimously by the senate for a lower court appointment and then they really went after him, you can fact check me on that. i could be wrong, it's happened before. i think most conservatives would argue that judge bork, who was a reagan appointee, was highly qualified and that had been the standard. republicans, orrin hatch, for example, supported the ruth bader ginsburg, he actually was helpful with president clinton and the ruth bader ginsburg appointment. was i don't agree with her, but she is highly qualified, she's a good finger, she's a good judge. that had been the standard i think there's a sense among conservatives at what happened to justice bork had nothing to do with whether or not he was qualified or how the right temperament already huge scandal that might make him drivable or

something. it was about his philosophy and that's the difference. host: matt lewis with the daily beast. how often do you publish and what are you writing on? guest: 203 times a week at the daily beast. -- two or three times a week at the daily beast. life's moving very fast right now i try to bring some historical context and some additional wisdom to really whatever is happening at the moment. my last two pieces have been about the supreme court. carolyn from washington, d.c., democrats line. a little know this is water into the bridge, but could you explain a little more about judge kennedy's son and relationship to president trump and some of that murkiness there? guest: this is interesting. i have heard that there is some business relationship or business dealings, and not to up on that. i think people tried to question

why is justice kennedy stepping down now? there may be is a conspiracy theory were some insinuation that he is somehow being pressured or bride and then there is any evidence that suggests that. he has been on the court for a no, 30 some years and you certainly at an age well past the retirement age, so i guess there is some sort of business relationship with his son and the trumps. but it was were to see something much more concrete than anything i have seen, i would say that this is just a case of a guy who is, remember, justice kennedy was appointed by a republican, he probably wants to retire and be replaced by a republican president and maybe that's an argument for brett kavanaugh or ayman catlett, who were kennedy clerks. i also think justice neil

gorsuch clerked for justice kennedy. surprisehink it's a that there may be some enticements. maybe even subtle, to get them to retire. but democrats, there were liberals who were encouraging justice ginsburg to step down when president obama was president and i think if you are liberal, you probably think she should have. this is business insider, the headline, trumps business career is more corrected disconnected to the supreme court justice kennedy than we ever knew. deutsche bank loan president trump over $1 billion for his practice, while led a realnedy's son estate division. that was the new york times. guest: that will fuel some speculation. host: barbara. caller: my question is this.

i heard bush say that we had too much money and so security and that we need to take it out and spend it. and i'd like to know what he , when weon and why paid into social security that they consider it a a social thing like welfare? guest: i think that -- is barbara there? did she say who said? host: george bush. not too sure. george w. bush did try to do so security reform and look, i think that we probably do need to do some sort of such security reform including raising the retirement age. , would say it's the opposite social security is probably going to go bankrupt if we don't do something. the amount of money that we pay

for it does not compensate the amount of money we pay out of that primarily because life expectancy has risen so much sense of security was first enacted. areald say this is an where i'm critical of president trump, a lot of conservatives have wanted to do entitlement reforms including speaker paul ryan, the civic action item in order to preserve these systems. love them to go bankrupt and donald trump doesn't want to do that i think for political reasons. and sooner or later, we are to have to address this issue or we are not going to have it as a safety net. host: on the republican line from pensacola, florida, richard is next. caller: good morning. i would like to make a couple quick points and the one question. the other democrat callers speak

about trump emails or criminal investigation why is he allowed to make an appointment. first of all, the office of special counsel that said repeatedly he is not under criminal investigation and it wouldn't matter even if he was. there's no prohibition against him nominating a supreme court justice. second point is, why doesn't , youe talk about sotomayor talk about packing the court, these were doctrinaire liberals that were allowed to get on the court and they didn't even recuse themselves when they had the hearing over gay marriage. both of them participated in gay weddings. her animus was clear and they never should have participated in that case. in the third thing is why doesn't anyone, including your guest, talk about the prohibition against the religious test, feinstein did that in her confirmation to the senate second court of appeal.

article six clause three prohibits the religious test amazon understand why no one is even talking about that when feinstein clearly violated that. host: ok. guest: one, i think democrats are clearly going to try to come up with some arguments for why this pic is a legitimate. one of the are you as i've heard bandied about is that if you nine pick merrick garland months before election or 10 months before election, how can you pick -- how can donald trump pick a supreme court pick just a few months before an election. and of course the difference there is we are talking about midterm and out of residential election, but that's what everyone talking point the democrats bring up and another is the thing about how should a investigationinal

be allowed to make a pick. i'm not saying the democratic leadership are going to say this but you are going to hear this for the next year or so probably from some liberals and they are going to say that i don't think it's going to work. i don't think it's going to have much -- i don't it's wonderfully that well. it's going to be an argument they are going to make. in terms of the religious test, feinsteinat senator did in my opinion cross the line there with when she was during that hearing what she was questioning judge merrick and talking about her dogma but i think the judge merrick responded pretty well by saying she is going to be guided by as a judge, by interpreting the law , not by her personal views. and in fact i think there was some pushback against senator

feinstein, some people saw it as anti-catholic bigotry. and it may well be that that experience helps judge merrick this time around if she is nominated. we could be that the democrats are little bit chastened about taking on her catholic faith this time around because of the backlash that happened last time. additionally, i think it's good for judge merrick that she is on when itrd stating that comes to row, is not a personal opinion that matters, it's whether or not it's a good law. you could argue that that experience, though i'm sure quite unpleasant for judge merrick might end up helping her. robert in greenville, texas on the independent line. you are next. caller: a kind of got a view on this that just seems to kind of not me.

there's been so much politicking involved in this third branch of government that is supposed to be the check and balance system. and like everything else in washington, everything is so politically divided. and it seems to me that we've got no point in this country in this country where the only reasonable way to try to level out this whole thing and get people back to just doing what they are hired to do is a third-party system this country that equally rewards all three parties in the electoral process and it could even be four or five parties, more of a divided out segment where rational decisions are built by consensus and not just simply divided issues,an and democrat but more consensus. what's good for america?

this whole thing about the supreme court, it seems like all we're hearing even from the guest speaker today is will the democrats go for this, what do republicans want to do on this? and armts should not he of the political parties. host: thank you. guest: you had bill golson and talking about reforms are congress and i do think we are to moment now where people are more open to some reforms and so for example, was all right with voting in maine recently and in idea but think probably would not have been as receptive to in the past. i dig it is something you may eventually see a big push for in congress. and maybe even in nominating -- how you nominated president instead of having primaries where is the first path to the example, if we

had ranked choice voting and the republican primary, you might have gotten marco rubio or scott walker who had a much more broad consensus emerge as the nominee and so donald trump, who had about 30% of the primary vote but they were very intensely for him. think american democracy, we obviously have to go by the tend to moveand we slowly. and that's probably a feature, not a bug. but if there are some ideas being bandied about the reforms that could be positive and actually might help address the concerns that we are having in recent years. a column in the "washington post," democrats can't block trump and he highlights some of these things causing the first mistake was the launch on president starting with the 2001 nomination of miguel

estrada on court of appeals in the second big mistake was using the nuclear option to back the federal circuit courts with liberal judges. guest: i think he makes a valid point. i forgot to get fair to blame democrats, because i think this has been both sides, but we have had decades now of both sides breaking norms and ultimately getting us to where we are today. and one thing that mark brought up that i didn't bring up earlier was harry reid deciding to go nuclear. when harry reid did that, it actually did not apply to the supreme court but it was for most residential and judicial appointments. and mitch mcconnell, then the senate minority leader warned him you're going to regret this and maybe sooner than later. and i think that harry reid deserves a lot of blame for breaking norms that have been around for a long time and ultimately getting us to where we are today.

host: from pennsylvania, democrats line. bill, good morning. thanks for taking my call. what it wanted to ask your guest is this. i'm 70 years old and i have been in the democratic party all my life and i wake up one morning i realized holy cow, republicans have got the white house, the senate, and the house, and 33 out of 50 governorships and across america, they took back over the last eight years i guess, 10 years, 1200 positions in state governments and now i'm ifed with the reality that this clown donald trump sticks around for another seven years leaves,ears, when he the supreme court could be a and i'm thinking what do people in washington think happened over the last 10 years of this all can become

reality, because we keep hearing that nancy pelosi and schumer have got the reins and they are going to straighten all this out, and i'm just thinking wait a minute, i just heard about a 28-year-old lady that won in new york and pushed that guy out, he was here that for 10 terms. this party needs some new blood ballotling to cast my for the young people in this party, because the people who have been running this party for the last 30 years, this is where we've come. when trump leaves office in six years, that court is going to be 7-2 and there's not a damn thing i can do about it. guest: one thing i would say is that sometimes parties win and that's not necessarily evidence of a failure, of the system. democrats controlled congress for like 40 years after fdr at

least the house, and that just happens sometimes. that doesn't mean that anything is a legitimate. in the case of republicans ultimately, you end up getting newt gingrich and the revolution and things changed. both sides oft the political aisle right now are very restless and very anti-establishment and republicans went through this for many years during the obama administration until donald trump got elected and i think democrats are now going through their time in the wilderness, where they don't trust their leadership, they don't trust the court" establishment, they feel like they're being stabbed in the back in the system is rigged. basically what republicans went through for a long time. the last thing i would say to this point is that i think it's an interesting time because we haven't had dastardly what happens is there is one party that becomes dominant and when they become dominant, the other

side becomes more submissive and just accept their role as the quote unquote moon to the sun party. that hasn't happened for the last 20 some years. thinkides simultaneously they are about to win and about to lose forever. it's really weird. of republicans, they feel on one hand they feel very happy and very positive and they control everything, then the other hand they say demographics are changing, not in our favor. the liberals control academia, the culture, entertainment, it's only a matter of time. we have to run up the score wally can because pretty soon, we're not revealed elected dogcatcher with the changing electorate. democrats likewise i think are torn, on one hand they feel like let's just keep biding her time and waiting for the demographics to change. waiting for people to come to their senses. on the other hand, you have people like the caller who feel like what just happened.

we don't control anything and we need to radically shake things up. one more call, jean from st. pete's florida. caller: thank you for taking my call. hello. host: go ahead. woman or ading a man's religion against him getting a job just doesn't make sense. not in this day and age. we already had a catholic president where i heard norman vincent pale say if we elected that kennedy, the vatican would be running the u.s., he was so wrong. he was so wrong. the supreme court, their decision in my mind is that that. that's it. it, justrned it's not re andother bunch in thei they overturn the decision.

they are not the great supreme court that we felt we had. on one hand, conservatives do feel very defensive about this. you would argue that wouldn't see the u.s. senator questioning somebody and asking about your muslim faith or about your hindu beliefs and that would be considered politically incorrect and beyond the pale. i think in the case of a christian somehow it's ok. they see that is a double standard. on the other hand, i think you can say look, i think people everything about you could impact your world view and how you might end up making rulings. isn't that fair game? i think it's pretty interesting question. host: matt lewis, senior columnist for the daily beast. we thank you for joining us.

10:00, democrats, call (202) 748-8000, republicans, call (202) 748-8001, independents, call (202) 748-8002. we'll be right back. ♪ >> this weekend, c-span cities tour takes you to love it, texas with the help of our son like cable partners as we explore limits literary scene in history. saturday and noon eastern on book tv, author sean cunningham with his book american politics in the postwar sunbelt, conservative growth in a battleground region. ofbillions and billions dollars of federal resources are being poured into the south and newsouthwest to create this developments defense oriented

society that is both fighting communism abroad and pursuing free market dreams at home. and it creates this kind of mail you in the american southwest that reinforces a lot of these ideas of american ingenuity and hard work and a commitment to fighting. >> sunday 2:00 p.m. eastern on america's history tv, we visit the buddy holly center to hear about the love it made him of his musical legacy. of thecity is very proud fax number one the buddy was born and raised here and that the center is here to keep his story alive, to keep his music alive. vietnam visit to the center in archive located at texas tech university, the center is home to the largest collection of vietnam related material outside of the national archives.

>> we have a lot of the different types of equipment that veterans would carry. the things they carried, if you will. the first aid kits, c rations, the radios, the helmet the veterans were aware, that soldiers aware, the steel pot that would protect them from shrapnel. tour of-span cities living taxes, saturday noon eastern on c-span2 book tv and sunday at 2:00 p.m. on american history tv on c-span3. working with our cable affiliates as we explore america.

>> brought to you by your cable and satellite provider. announcer: "washington journal," continues. host: we start with betty in virginia beach, virginia, go ahead. caller: good morning. i wanted to get in right when that other guest matt lewis was on and i wish that they would make a rule that there would be a definite rule, no matter who's in charge, where the cut off date should be about appointing a judge or having a hearing for supreme court nominee. be ank that it should decided saying and it don't matter who's in charge, that's the way it is. another thing i think that it's mostly benign in my lifetime, not going to be 75 in december, there was usually nine.

and it is going to be nine, they should make that a rule to. in one of the real quick thing, i think my opinion, with these kids being separated from their parents at the border, to me, that is high crimes. that should be impeachable. host: was going taylor in fairfax, california. independent line. caller: i just missed your whole supreme court segment and i'm sorry about that, but i mean comment which is something very they mind is that i hope supreme court judge has a way to make abortion harder to get, i have personal experience with it and i feel like it's a very negative thing for women, that their mental health is affected ad so when they say it's woman's choice, yeah, but you are choosing something that might be very detrimental and

all these young people taking the morning after fell, it's the same kind of thing to me. i just feel strongly about it. host: taylor in fairfax, california. economic numbers out for the federal government for june, in employment rate rising a bit, fromto four point -- 4% june. 213,000 jobs added in that month as well, from the bureau of labor statistics. other numbers courtesy from the wall street journal's morning of the participation rate government or rate is 62.9% in june, that rate is up from 2015, ifw of 62.3% in stabilized over the last couple of years and an aging population could keep the labor force participation from rising much more. and then with a site is the broad unemployment rate of 7.8%, the runners measure of unemployment including those too discouraged to look for work and

american stuck in part-time jobs who want to work full-time rose to seven point percent from 7.6% the prior month. that read remains somewhat elevated compared to the last time unemployment was similarly low. journal,"ll street they also say the number of people who are uninformed -- unemployment benefits for longer than a week's new the lowest levels since the early 1970's, and continuing jobless claims grew just 1.4 7 million in the beginning june 23, the labor government said on thursday, but the four-week moving average of this manazir -- of this measure was 1.2 7 million, the lowest levels of second 73 when the u.s. liberal market was smaller. david in new york is next on this open phones. republican line. caller: hi, how are you? host: i'm fine, thanks. caller: i have a lot of interest in what's going on out there in the politics world, a lot of

politicians on both sides, but mostly the democrats are trying to rally up people to vote for them was going on the border is a part of that. a lot of different organizations that are rallying people and activating and getting paid to activate, that's all fine and good, but china is now starting yo target blue states and bu products from blue states. that theeally a lie democrats to want to talk about a lot of this stuff, they don't even bring it up, they brought up the russian collusion where there is no charges brought on the president for some alleged collusion that nobody after a year and a half of investigating brought any charges to this president. and there are a lot of people that did break the law they got caught breaking the law who was

when i hide in the back room and have testimonies in the back room like little wimpy people things thatlion say nobody hears. host: go to temple, texas independent line, and we hear from victor. caller: yes. there are so many things that go in on in the country the right pickit's very hard to just therengle issue because are so many issues that's going on. courtsically, the supreme is the biggest issue right now. president with a crime family in charge of a country can go out and start putting people on the supreme court, that go back and reverse were for years,

that's a real injustice for our country, the supreme court shouldn't be an activist court, it should be a court that says there and interprets whether the law is constitutional or not. that's their only business. no other things that's going wrong with our country is this blatant racism that's just seems to be emerging in the country. that's a disgrace to us. we, as americans, are better than that. to know our history so we stop repeating things that were done in the past and get past this business of hating each other so that we stay divided so that the rich can just keep laughing. we hear from tom and mason, ohio, republican line. caller: good morning, c-span. it is very important that we

remember two things. and the most important thing of all is that 60 million people have been murdered because of abortion. at least 60. and what is the constitution say, it says life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. strength tothe accept the things i cannot change and the courage to change the things that i can. and the wisdom to know the difference. because, help us all love beats all. host: let's go to delhi in georgia, independent line. in georgia, independent line. caller: on republican line. i believe the roe v. wade needs to be outlawed, i think it's legalized murder. you have to do is look at the modern ultrasound technology and the development of the child to know that.

and even the law contradicts itself, because if you kill a pregnant woman, you are charged with murder, so how can it be murder if you want it but it's not if you don't want it. host: one of the things the president spoke about at a rally in montana, which if you go to c-span.org you can see this rally for yourself, he talked about many things, including the senator from massachusetts elizabeth warren, and we are writing about in "washington times," saying president trump joked on thursday night that are senator elizabeth warren becomes the democratic nominee for president in 2020, he will offer $1 million for the ticket dna test to determine whether or not she actually has american indian interesting -- interest -- ancestry. when it comes to senator warren, here is present from from last night. president trump: when i announce , they're going to endorse me, because surely lose, were vital run, they are out of business, they're going to cover bernie?

they are going to cover her sleepy jill biden or pocahontas? think of her. think of it. she of the great tribal heritage. what tribe is it? let me think about that one. meantime, she based her life on being a minority. pocahontas, there was want me to apologize for saying it. and i want to apologize. pocahontas, i apologize to you. to you, i apologize. to the fake pocahontas, i won't apologize. problems,ng her because now even the liberal are saying take a test. you, because il like not to give away secrets, but let's say debating pocahontas, right?

i promise you i will do this. some kids say -- this gets they sell on television for two dollars, learn your heritage, the guys as i was born in scotland, turns out he was born in puerto rico, and that's ok. germany, was born in he was born someplace else. going to get one of those all caps in the middle of the debate when she proclaims that she is of indian heritage, because her mother said she has high -- that's her only evidence, that her mother said she had high cheekbones, we will take that little kit but we have to do it gently, because we are in the me too generation, so we have to be very gentle. and we will very gently take that kit and we will slowly toss that hoping it doesn't hit her and injure her arm. host: c-span.org is where you can see that rally as well as

things that we have taken in, hearings, this program, other things all available at c-span.org. what comes of to the twitter ,eed from the state department by meeting between the secretary of state in mike pompeo and north korean counterparts, talk about the nuclear program of north korea we will sell you some of the -- show you some of the photos that are available. this is on the twitter feed the state department as you look at those we go to doyle in chattanooga, tennessee, democrats line. caller: military veteran, navy did not north korea have any power against us, period. a nuclear submarine that was sitting out there and destroy just that one submarine can destroy russia or north korea by itself. period. north korea don't even play in the same category as the united states. we are a strong nation, not one

man, but the country is strong. we are powerful. we go to carolyn west virginia, independent line. i don't depend on one presidents, over the years, i understand the president runs the country, but as a country in whole, we can't depend on one person to make or break us. we have to unite, the country has been becoming divided for years. that's the reason why i went independent. parties, there is corruption and i call it stupidity in both parties. "new york times," reporting federal immigration

agents have rated 42,500 people at the southwestern border in june, according to data released on thursday by the part of homeland security. showing a drop in the number of migrants trying to enter the united states after a spike of the previous three months, border patrol agent patrol agents arrested 34,114 people trying to enter the country while customs officers at ports of entry denied entry to 8451 people including families and children who showed up at the border alone according to the numbers. about 5562 unaccompanied children showed up at the border in june while 12,192 people travel in family groups were denied entry according to data released by the department of homeland security. home springs, democrats line. caller: good morning, and thank you for c-span. there wee blip on tv saw trump and his supporters, i just don't know whether to be more embarrassed or more

alarmed. about two weeks ago, there was a young gentleman from west virginia on the was an economist on her program and the young fellow got through and he was asking about when the jobs were coming back for the coal industry and it was a gentleman speaking on public radio yesterday or the day before about buying a coal digging machine because he anticipated jobs coming back in the coal industry. down there and west virginia. i spent over 30 years in the steel industry working with coal, coal is dirty, from the bottom to the top, people don't die of air cancer. , there'sind my house about 1000 windmills make electricity. you drive down the deadly new turnpike even through west virginia there and there are windmills all over the place. coal built this country, but coal is history. host: bogota go to lisa in las vegas, nevada.

morning.ood i was wondering where the financial news was a year ago in not disclosing what we just found out about justice kennedy's son working for deutsche bank or the crime family that we have in the white house gets their money. fromheir profiteering their time in our office. alabamaristine independent line. caller: i would like to know what happened to our true republican party and their beliefs and our christian values, where we have the one we have been the offices lining his pockets and telling lies in making fun of john mccain at a rally he goes to, which i thought he was there to support candidates, but it's a rally every day for him. he's torn down every ally we've had, if we go to war, i don't know who's going to be there to support us.

-- host: that's christie in alabama. the wilfried journal talking about the summer between president trump and vladimir push, and he is going to for excavations as well as his activity in the balkans and the u.k., which earlier this year accused mr. putin ordering in a recent attack against a russian former double agent in britain. the european union leaders support of u.k. in its accusation in the u.s.-to sanctions on russia in part over its alleged role in the poisonings. from dell toner, florida, democrats line, we hear next for linda. go ahead. caller: and wondering why we are starting a discussion about or endingerm limits lifetime appointments for supreme court and federal judges.

lifetime appointments just nullified democracy. but we need to overturn his citizens united, not roe v. wade. host: why do you think lifetime appointments nullified democracy? they theirsay -- politicians. they are clearly politicians, if they weren't, we wouldn't call them conservative or liberal. their political views are influencing the decisions they make, the decisions they make prevents us from passing laws like citizens united, protecting democracy. from corruption and bribery and andy and special interests they should be held accountable by the voters. host: let's go to virginia, democrats line. john is next. caller: thank you for taking my

call. i just want to say that i do agree with the florida collar, i think you asked the question, they are judicial activists. they don't do the right thing, they do with the republicans want and the democrats will do what the democrats want. judge, whoever you put in that position, he will agree with you whether you like it or not. i truly believe that we need to ite term limits because comes down to write now that congress can't do their job. we everything we disagree, have to go to this judge and most likely, they will vote their own party and that is not judgments, that means they are really judicial activists and something needs to be done. host: what decision would you look at recently that you proves that. but there's definitely a connection between politics and

what happens on the supreme court? caller: i will tell you, obamacare. it's one thing, people need to understand that obamacare, without kennedy -- without robertson will fail. the reality is the way things are going right now, i just can't figure out why do we even have a congress can't make laws? judges they don't make laws. host: let's go to jonesboro, georgia, public in line. john is next. good morning. your previous guest, matt lewis, was wrong, when he was talking about the harry reid nuclear also, it's happened four times before where a supreme court justice was appointed during a midterm election as far as politics being involved with our supreme court, look at justice

sotomayor. she was a federal judge in chicago and she was the one that permanently sealed obama's records and she was promptly appointed to the supreme court. another thing i would like to bring up is why doesn't c-span focus more on the fbi investigation with peter rock, lisa page and put it out there for the public to see? i'm tired of peter strauch hiding behind closed doors. it to have the open door hearings to find out just what went on with the barman of justice and the fbi. host: we don't control the hearings whatsoever. as far as who fears and when they appear, will rebroadcast them when we have the opportunity to and then peter strock is set to appear next week in open court i believe in front of the house judiciary committee and another committee tuesday or wednesday next,

according to reports. just answer questions there. michael in new york, independent line. caller: hello. this is michael. couple observations. the left is going crazy because trump might get who he wants in. mr. obama, when he got elected, he said elections have consequences. guess what, the people voted him in, he has a right to put whomever he wants in there. whener observation is clinton put his people in and mr. obama put his people in, you didn't see the right going crazy and making all these riotous events almost i would say, they have to accept it. this is our government. he got voted in, he has a right to put whom he wants in. yes, the senate should definitely do their job, vet him, but not as a did clarence

thomas, not as they did work -- bork. host: liana from hearst, texas. democrat line. caller: i have a couple of comments. first and foremost, you have a lot of people calling in about abortion and stuff like that. my situation is this. now ist of living right way too high for people to even bring it, as with the birth rate has declined in the last few years. and on my second version, when you guys talk more about the poor people's march and what is going on with the other folks in this country other than people calling in and talking about supreme court justices? to me, i think the supreme court justice should do what the constitution says. vandamme and the washington post takes a look at folks 85 years old and older who are working at what they do.

, 455,000erall americans 85 years old and older were looking over the past 12 months, that's 4.4% of americans 2006age up from 2.6% in before the recession, it's a high summer on record and they are doing all sorts of jobs, farmers and ranchers, even truckers as the co-author highlights in a front-page article recently, also saying that indeed there are about 1000 3000 u.s. truckers age 85 years old or older based on the 2016 census bureau figures. their ranks have roughly doubled since the great recession. from polaski, virginia, this is joel, republican line. good morning. i think your earlier segments about the gridlock in washington is actually the reason why we have these bring court battles about how justice sotomayor was

able to evolve as a justice, i think we should be grateful that supreme court justice reserves the right to evolve and doesn't tie in to parts or liens and otherwise why we even need a supreme court if they are going to be bound by party platforms? we need congressional term limits. ushink that may actually get away from the partisanship that seems to be trying to invade every aspect of how things work in washington. is on the democrats line and washington, d.c., joe, go ahead. just calling it as an american. thanking god that we have a great country, but we all have opinions and i hear some of the people calling in and they are still so in donated was

president obama's presidency at every time there is something negative, they try to compare it to obama. trump is who years, he's doing it. why did i have to go and compare it with obama? it's sad that we have that type of sentiment. these are older people who seem like they have been seasoned and been in america for a long time. it was good for them when things were always in the favor of the majority. and now there's beginning to be a balance of people beginning to come together. i think a lot of them will take it to their grave. take itth that how we there and that's the and of this program. another edition comes your way at 7:00 tomorrow. we'll see them. ♪

>> this week, you are watching c-span programs in prime time. at 8:00 p.m. eastern tonight, actor and activist kirk cameron, attorney general jeff sessions, and republican senator cory gardner speaking at this year's western conservative summit in colorado. aree in the department hammering the criminals and violent groups, especially ms 13, that vicious gang. of the most violent and inhumane groups in the world. their motto -- get this -- kill, rape, and control. this week in primetime on c-span, c-span.org, and on the free c-span radio app.

justice anthony kennedy's retirement brings a significant change to the supreme court. follow the story on c-span, from president trump nominating a replacement, the senate confirmation hearings, to the swearing-in, all on c-span, c-span.org, or listen on the free c-span radio app. president trump will announce his choice for the supreme court monday night at 9:00 p.m. eastern. we will have live coverage of the president's remarks and afterwards, we will get viewer reaction as take a look at the nominee. on tuesday, the fbi's peter struck, a former senior official in the counterintelligence fbision, testifies about and doj actions surrounding the clinton email investigation and the 2016 election. live coverage begins at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. also on c-span.org and the free

c-span radio app. tv recently visited capitol hill to ask members of congress what they are reading this summer. >> i have quite a stack of books here. the first one is the meditations of marcus earliest -- marcus elius./a's -- aur it is helping me understand jim mattis a little bit better. i have a book you're on the rise of theodore roosevelt, which i have had for a long time but never got to read it, so i'm looking forward to that. this is the 50th anniversary of the tragic death of senator robert kennedy. chris matthews has a new book out about senator kennedy. he has gotten to know senator kennedy's grandson, who is a member of the house here. this is really something i am looking forward to. i have another book here, 1587: a year of significance.

it was a book recommended again by secretary mattis. it is about the ming dynasty in china and it says if you want to understand china, modern-day china, you need to understand the ming dynasty. this book is on the 10 tatian's of power. this is another way to look into the mindset of what happened in the contemporary middle east and what is happening in islam worldwide. this is different from the type of reading i knew really -- normally do. it is called emergent -- emerson, and it is about the science and mystery of freshwater mussels. we have the largest amount of freshwater mussels in the world in my district. this thing you could probably throw like a rock and hurt somebody with is supposed to be the definitive book about cuba. it is just called cuba, and the author is you thomas. visit -- hugh thomas. this edition has just been

updated. and this is a book i have been meaning to read by walter isaac, called the innovators. it is about these people who have come up with all of the great ideas we have seen in the tech world. i do not read fiction, i read nonfiction. , butof it is a collective normally it is related to the work i am doing here in congress, and i'm very grateful from thehe help library of congress and the folks over there to recommend books to me, and i can take them to read them and return and ask for other resources if i find anything interesting in the book that interests us. >> send us your summer reading list via twitter at book tv or , or posted to our facebook page. book tv on c-span 2 -- television for serious readers. now, a discussion on race and politics.