spread of disinformation on social media. at 9 a.m., law enforcement education foundation president and ceo and former republican congressman bob barr discusses police and committal justice reform. -- and criminal justice reform. host: good morning. in a landmark decision, the supreme court ruled yesterday 6-3 that civil rights protections apply to lgbtq workers. john roberts and neil gorsuch joined the four liberal justices on the ruling. we will begin with your thoughts on that this morning on this tuesday, june 16th. if you live in the eastern central part of the country, (202) 748-8000. mountain pacific area, your line this morning, (202) 748-8001. text us with your first name, city and state, at (202)

748-8003. or you can join us on twitter, @cspanwj, or facebook.com/c-span. we will get your thoughts here in just a minute, but first joining us on the phone here is lawrence hurley, a supreme court correspondent. what was the question put to the courts and what did they decide? guest: thanks. the question is whether sex discrimination within the title vii, which is the federal law that bars employment discrimination, whether sex discrimination applied to sexual orientation and gender identity. the court in the ruling ,esterday said that it does which was surprising to some because you had chief justice roberts and justice and neil gorsuch joining the four liberals, as you mentioned, in that ruling. the court basically said that any kind of discrimination on the basis of sex is kind of a

broad concept and that can include elements of discrimination that concern sexual orientation or gender identity. it reads "prohibits employment through discrimination based on color, sex, andigion, national origin. i want to read -- origin." i want to read what justice gorsuch wrote in the majority opinion. "an employer who hires an individual for being trans vendor, host: what do you make of his thoughts here? guest: discrimination based on sexual orientation is itself kind of intrinsically connected

with sex discrimination. for example, if you discriminate against a woman in a relationship with another woman, part of that discrimination is the fact that you are saying she is not acting as you think a woman should act and that that itself is a form of sex discrimination. the minority opinion, written by alito and thomas, they wrote "there is only one word for what the court has done today, legislation, more brazen abuse of our authority to determine statutes is hard to recall -- host: what is their thought here? theory puthe same

forward by the trump administration and the lawyers of the case, when the civil rights act was passed in 1964 to bar sex discrimination, no one really thinks that anyone who voted on that thought that they were also banning discrimination based on gender identity or sexual orientation. so the justices there are saying , you know, that the court is basically rewriting the law, adding in elements that were not there when it was passed. that's a position that justice gorsuch in the majority opinion completely rejects, saying he doesn't really care what the congress thought when they passed of the law, what he cares about is what is written on the page in the text of the statute. as i mentioned earlier, his rationale for why gender identity and sexual orientation fits in the law is based on the text of the statute and not in the minds of the congress at the time.

mean fort does this other cases related to this? what could happen next? what are you watching for? in terms of the context of lgbtq rights, this could have implications that are broader because of signum -- similar language in other federal laws, cases saying that sex discrimination also includes gender identity and sexual education, in, say, health care and other things. those will be contested. it also may be that beyond that, this doesn't necessarily say much because justice gorsuch and the chief justice are not necessarily going to go the same way on. and there's a big case coming up in the fall about religious

defenses to these types of claims and the court could well go quite differently in that case. want to get viewer reaction to the supreme court decision. if you live in the eastern central part of the country, the , mountain02) 748-8000 pacific, (202) 748-8001. the court was also asked to examine qualified immunity for police officers. what happened? and what does it it's a legal defense that police officers can assert when they are accused of violating civil rights, allowing them to avoid a lawsuit in some situations where the court finds that there was a constitutional violation, they can get off the hook if the law isn't found to be clearly established as such at the time of the incident. this is something where it reuters we were working at a big

investigation on that showing that the appeals court is increasingly granting qualified immunity to police officers in excessive force cases over the last couple of years partly because of the supreme court intervention. there's a lot of pressure on the supreme court now to take up the issue even before the recent george floyd incident and other incidents. the court had actually had a bunch of cases piling up asking them to reform and abolish qualified immunity, which is a concept that the soup in court itself came up with and is not based on any law or anything. the court yesterday actually turned away all those cases and the only dissent from that was from justice clarence thomas, one of the conservatives who said that he thought the court should read qualified immunity, something he has said before. but other justices were silent, including sony and sotomayor. it's unclear right now if the court in a future case might

take up qualified immunity or if they are waiting now for congress to maybe do something because reforming or abolishing part ofd immunity is a the package proposals the democrats put forward in congress. so, this is a similar situation where a lot of gun-related cases had been piling up over the last few weeks, partly in response to the courts a few weeks ago, having ruled in a gun rights case from new york, but they eventually didn't really do a whole lot in that case. so people thought maybe they would take up another gun case and the court hasn't heard a major gunwhere case in about a e aside from this new york case because the court now has this new conservative majority, there was this sense that they might be interested in pushing gun rights a bit further.

so, there were a whole variety of different cases, including ones on assault weapon bands and also permitting regimes for aople who want to have handgun outside the home in the court turned those down as well. in this case, and with the qualified immunity cases, it might mean that the work is trying to move things along because they are behind schedule and had to cancel their oral arguments in march and april. it may just be a kind of clearing the decks just to keep their schedules open. but who knows. what other big decisions are we waiting for from them? guest: one of the big ones is the donald trump effort to rescind protections for the dreamer immigrants, people

brought to the u.s. as children illegally. which donald trump has been trying to rescind. it was put on hold by the supreme court, the court is going to decide whether he can and that ruling is due in the next couple of weeks. there's also an abortion case where a challenge to an abortion restriction in louisiana could give the signal as to whether the court is going to pay her back on abortion rights. and then there are two big cases on president trumps financial efforts to shield those records from scrutiny by congress. these big cases are coming up in the next few weeks. host: lawrence, thank you so much for the update on what the court decided yesterday and what is to come from the high court as well. appreciate your time. guest: no worries, thanks a lot. host: turning to all of you, we

are focusing this morning only on the supreme court 6-3 decision where they wrote that the 1960 four civil rights act, title vii, protects lgbtq workers from discrimination. your thoughts on that this morning? james is in seattle. james, good morning. what do you think? caller: thank you. i feel like the constitution is obsolete and was obsolete from the very drafting of it. it can be interpreted to mean anything. the bible and the constitution. we have had all kinds of decisions under the constitution . the dred scott decision, plessy versus for consent -- plessy versus ferguson. you can justify just about anything you want. the only thing that matters on the supreme court is the number of judges. , it can bet i mean

legal or not legal if they vote. which one is right, which one is wrong? neither one. same with slavery. it was legalized. you can legalize anything based on what i'm saying and you can criminalize anything. this is the reason why mitch mcconnell and the republicans fight so hard for the supreme court and the white democrats, they don't care, it helps all white people and helps maintain white supremacy. it's like we were seeing with police brutality and different types of stuff. host: heard your point, but for this case, this case yesterday, the 6-3 ruling the associated press said that the outcome is expected to have a big impact on the estimated 8.1 million lgbt workers across the country because most states don't protect them from workplace scrimmage nation and an

estimated 11.3 million lgbt people work in the united states according to the institute. listen to what president trump had to say when he was asked yesterday about the supreme court decision. [video clip] >> we are going to be talking about things we have been watching and seeing for the last month and we will have some solutions, some good solutions. some of it's about great people. we need great people in our police departments and we mostly have great people. many of them, law enforcement. better do better, even and we will try to do it fast. we will have an meeting tomorrow, a news conference tomorrow, a lot of law enforcement is coming in with others and they have seen what we are doing. i have sent it around and asked for suggestions from different groups, particularly the sheriff's. we will send it to the attorney

general. ofl, you have gone to some your people with it. i think it's pretty comprehensive. as you know, congress and the senate are working on something. you have two elements of the house, the republicans and the democrats each working on their own. but we can get it done and we will get it done and certainly we can add on to what we do by the work that is being done in the house and in the senate if we think it is appropriate. maybe they can get something passed, maybe they can't, but we will get it passed and it has to be passed by one person, that person is me. we will be signing it tomorrow. was: apologies, that president trump yesterday on the executive order that he's signing on police reform, also in the news, for you to know that he is going to be doing that today. it was reported yesterday that he will sign the executive order in the rose garden. now here is president trump on

the supreme court decision. to the supreme court decision earlier today about lgbt protections under the civil rights act? [video clip] >> i read the decision, people were surprised. but they rule and we live with the decision. supreme court, very powerful, very powerful decision, actually. they have ruled. president trump, yesterday, on the decision. joe, maryland, what do you say? with the agree dissenting judges. the court needs to be careful about legislating, they need to be cautious about that. i think probably the legislature will eventually broaden the , but of sex discrimination that needs to be left up to congress and not the courts.

will you think congress then take action to broaden the language to do what when it comes to sexual orientation, gender identity? caller: the civil rights legislation is important and it needs to be carefully decided in the legislature needs to look at that aspect of it and make the decision rather than courts expanding legislation. host: ok. this is what brett kavanaugh wrote, that seneca falls was not stonewall and that the women's rights movement was not and is not the gay rights movement, though many people obviously support or participate in both

host: that is what justice kavanaugh wrote. this piece, in "the atlantic," it goes to the history of what was happening in 1964 and congress, when they decided to law, a threethe letter word that triggered a revolution, that's the piece from the atlantic. he writes this --

host: a little history for you on this 1964 title vii proposal. michael, new york, good morning to you. what do you think of the ruling yesterday? good morning. i'm very in favor of the ruling. i think, as a person of color,

denying anyone civil liberties in the united states is reprehensible. host: ok. john, new york, good morning, your turn. caller: i agree with the supreme court decision yesterday. they are doing a great job. the only thing is, i have a law,ion, who is above the when donald trump's taxes are in the hands of the supreme court and no one is coming out with what's going on. the supreme court won't tell the people what's going on? i guess donald trump is above the law. i'm looking for an answer on that. well, yesterday chuck schumer called on republicans to see this decision as a moment to expandgislation to protections, not offered under current law.

here's what he had to say. [video clip] >> of course this has nothing to do with our attempts to pass the equality act. that would be the great leap forward on equality that we are all looking for. it passed the house over a year ago but has been gathering dust. leader mcconnell's legislative graveyard. senate republicans are still not in the 21st century. they must think it's ok to discriminate against people because of their orientation or identity. unbelievable. unbelievable. but maybe now the fact that even byew justices appointed republican presidents believe that it was against the law, heartshat will pick the of our republican colleagues and leader mcconnell and they will allow a vote on the equality act here on the floor.

share, what do you think of this? >> i'm in full favor of it. activist, thelgbt news yesterday was incredible. i noticed one of the previous callers mentioned that this is something that congress should bills but the truth is, to amend these civil rights act have been in congress since the mid-70's. the most recent was passed in the house in 2019 of last year and has lingered there ever since. it's been one of those cases where congress refused to act and we had to go to the judicial branch to do it. decision, a a great landmark decision. it's nice to know that we will no longer face discrimination in

our jobs for our sexual orientation or gender identity. it's a major decision and a major victory for lgbt americans. that activists like yourself had to take this through the judicial branch, but what about the state legislature, on that level? were you part of that fight ma'am.ach caller: yes, i've been very active in local lgbt causes here in the state of indiana. back when we were still arguing over marriage. i let the call to get ahold of our state legislatures and pass employment nondiscrimination. we still didn't have it in the state of indiana. some companies had it, but it was not mandated by the state. host: taking a look at the map that the "the wall street

journal" put together, the states and light blue, based on -- prohibit it based on sexual orientation and gender identity across the board. those in darker orange, which just looks like wisconsin, prohibit it based on sexual orientation only. the light green states prohibited public employees based on sexual orientation only . the orange is for public employees based on sexual orientation and gender identity. the states and gray are the states that don't prohibit employment discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. dan, stafford, virginia. good morning, go ahead. have two points, if i have time. the first one was more about parenting. i'm an advocate for leave after having a child, or if you adopt

a child. i'm going to say that maybe male male relationships at up to children, right? for whatever organization you are talking about, if it equals that for the mother, i don't necessarily agree with that. the woman's body goes through a lot of changes, physically, emotionally changed, and then there is all the chemistry going on. equalo people to adopt leave rights for the mom, who physically had a baby and his figuring her own body back out, i don't, i don't, i think they write leave, but i don't know that it should be the same amount. as far as equal access to jobs and such? as long as you are professional, no one cares about your orientation. if you don't carry yourself

in a proper way, have an unprofessional appearance, you can be, act however you want, but if it doesn't collate to a professional environment and your sexuality permeates through everything you do, maybe that's why you're not getting hired or get promoted. etiquette has a lot less to do with orientation as it does with your professionalism. i think those things get mistaken. those are my points. thank you. host: ok. rick, ohio, hello. caller: i watch all of this propaganda, the brainwashing, the dehumanizing that comes out of trim -- trumps behavior. msnbc, cnbc, fox news, time warner. you people, you people even used a virus to cover up the fact that the stock market and the

oil market just gained $40 trillion worth of value. yesterday the federal reserve bailed out the billionaires and millionaires in the oil companies once again and instead of you people reporting on the most incredible story in the history of mankind as far as bailing out billionaires and millionaires and using your , justto cover it all up like they have been covering it up since 1980. to dowhat does this have with the supreme court decision? the supreme court decision, the supreme court decision, allowing exxon to be a citizen. so, again, all you do -- your point, moving on. reaction from politicians in the

democratic circle went like this on twitter yesterday. former vice president joe biden, presidential candidate, writing that this decision is another step in the march towards equality for all, --

host: the conservative "national review," writing on their website about this case.

"the supreme court decides who is a woman." they write this --

host: back to all of you. st. louis, go ahead. wonderfulthink it's a move in the right direction. i think that this country has been wrestling with human rights ever since it was founded. this idea of, even the idea of dividing the role of men and asen in society is the same theidea of dividing

essential what we perceive as races in our society. -- the last argument you made about the man dressing as a woman and dressing in a woman's bathroom or locker room, it doesn't make any sense. the reason that is even an issue is because we perceive men as being hostile sexual creatures that cannot be left alone or integrated into women's areas where there might be -- it's bs be able to control themselves. the idea of unisex bathrooms even, this weird social designed to, what, protect women from men's sexual

purview? it makes too many excuses for bad behavior. people are people ultimately. it sounds really weird to some people who are very comfortable in their social standing or gender standing and who like the privileges that come with that, but to be perfectly honest if we are going to be adults, we should be adults in the united states and in the world and just barriers stop putting and limitations on each other with regards to what we can do. ok.: frank, jacksonville, florida. caller: i agree with the ruling but i'm concerned with some of the frivolous lawsuits that might evolve because of the ruling. say, for example, if someone gets barred for unprofessional

ihavior, they might say that was fired because i'm a homosexual or imelda q tv. that's the only concern i have with this. know that gay people have personality disorders also. that could be a crutch. host: why do you say that? you are saying that about all gay people? caller: i'm saying that about people in general. if they have an opportunity to to say that i was fired because i'm gay or dress as a woman, they might be fired because they have a personality disorder. they might be too flamboyant for the company. that could be a concern. ok.: reaction from conservatives, susan collins and maine, writing that all americans deserve a fair opportunity --

host: your reaction to the supreme court decision. victor, alabama, go ahead. victor, you've got to listen and talk through the phone. turned on the television. caller: yes, ma'am, it's down. host: ok, go ahead. caller: yes, ma'am. i would like to say that there was a caller, can you hear me? host: yes, we are listening. caller: a caller on earlier spoke the truth. he spoke about -- host: all right, you're getting confused because you are listening to the television.

a reminder to everybody that you have to listen and talk through your phone. kathleen, saint augustine, florida. i don't understand why anyone's personal life should be so public. i think that a way that a person decides to live their private life should be very private and should not be a public discussion. to findthat my right behavior other than what i consider ok to be offended is not protected. i just don't agree with people using their personal intimate lifestyle as a basis for claiming any kind of discrimination. i find that just offensive. i don't talk to people about the way i live my private life. and certainly in the workplace i

would not want anybody discussing it with me or with others in a workplace in which i was a part. host: ok. steve on twitter says -- host: kenneth, missouri, what do you think? you can have the same rights that i do, but the

transgendr lgbtq cannot have more rights than i do. that's what i think. host: ok. david, north carolina. decision believe this basically upholds what the country is founded on. when the signers of the declaration of independence, the document that they found said that this is a god-given right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. what the former caller just said, it doesn't give people more rights than anyone else. it reaffirms the basic rights. as long as my rights do not impose on your rights, somebody's business, everyone should have the same rights. right, that was david in newton, north carolina. "new york times," in their piece, 6-3, "the court rules that the civil rights act of

1964 protects gay and transgender workers in the court considers two cases around gay .ights where does the public stand? notes itork times should be illegal to discriminate, 80 3%. should be legal for employers to fire people based on orientation . 17% agree with that. that's all. and you can break it down by democrats, independents, republicans. republicans, 74% said that it should be illegal and 26% said that it should be legal to fire based on sexual orientation. that is one pool that "the new york times" put together. ken, hello. called togentleman

talk about exxon mobil. it's a lot of stuff going on in behind theng hidden racial divide that the media is pushing. lgbtq rights always tied to civil rights. they hijacked the civil rights movement. on gay andegislation trans in the workplace, if it's fitting thent, not company criteria and you choose to fire them or let them go, they shouldn't be able to sue. now isything going on illuminati and getting ready for the new war, the american people had better wake up. i'm serious. host: ok, ken. breitbart.com framed the decision yesterday in this way,

"donald trump accepts scotus ruling, we live with their decision." they say this about recent polls, "the public wants to preserve the rules of how men and women manage cooperation and competition within the society. laws have allowed single-sex exports, changing rooms, and showers, while protections for women like scholarships and subsidies for women business owners. popular culture urges men to exploit physical advantages and but theyerous jobs, want to eliminate the ."cognition of the differences they note a poll taken in 2019.

daily caller," another conservative website, "brazen abuse of authority." we are getting your thoughts on this this morning. it's a 6-3 decision yesterday by the court, by "the new york times," this morning, this piece, "undercutting dishes and's trampy end by trump -- decisions championed by trump." they write this --

host: your thoughts on this, if you live in the eastern central part of the country, (202) 748-8000. mountain pacific, (202) 748-8001 . we are getting your thoughts on it this morning. keep dialing in. in the meantime, if you missed it earlier this morning, president trump today is set to announce an executive order on police reform. before he does that, yesterday he talked a little bit about what he wants to do. [video clip] >> we are going to be talking about things we have been watching and seeing for the last month. we will have some solutions, some good solutions. we need great people in our police departments. we have mostly great people. i would say that with some certainty. i know so many law enforcement. but we will, we will do better,

even better. we will try to do it fast. we will have a meeting tomorrow, a news conference tomorrow with a lot of law enforcement coming in. others have seen what we are doing. i have sent it around and i have asked for suggestions from different groups, particularly the sheriff's. i have sent it to the attorney general. bill, i think you have gone to some of your people with it and shown it. i think it's pretty comprehensive. congress is working on something, the senate is working on something. two elements of the house are each working on their own. but we can get it done, we will get it done and can add it on to what we do, the work being done in the house and the senate. we think it's appropriate, maybe they can get something passed, maybe they can't, but it will have to be passed by one person and the person is me.

we will be signing it tomorrow. trump on the new police reform executive order that he will sign today. bill, what you make of this decision on lgbtq workers? i will just put it like this, jesus preached against solomon gomorrah. if you don't go by that, you're not living by the right standards. what doana, oklahoma, you think? caller: i think they turned into a bunch of rapists. host: why, diana? when two same gender are with each other, they are no more experimenting, they are raping each other. caller: why do you believe that? where does that come from?

caller: it comes from people who behavior. bad that's how we have a -- [no audio] host: moving on. "conservative justice surprises thedisappoints," that's headline on the neil gorsuch decision. of histes "for observers writing, he was showcasing his fidelity to the rules of statutory plaintext in the law championed by the late justice antonin scalia of --

host: jeanette, los angeles, good morning to you. go ahead, share your opinion. i was trying to say that i'm really lost in this. when my son was adopted -- high, hello? host: yes, we are listening to you. caller: how are you doing? host: we heard when your son was adopted. caller: when my son -- [applause] -- [no audio] host: you're getting confused, you're trying to listen through your television and your phone. you've got to turn down the television. greg, union city. yes.r: lgbtqk it's a shame that

is trying to piggyback off all the hard-fought rights that my people have died for. they just spit on all the people .hat hung from trees that died, that were sacrificed for civil rights. we have just opened up a portal for hell and it's not going to stop here. soon they will add the p word to lgbt, pet or a sexual, they make it q. it's a shame. but when you add transgendr, you can serve -- confuse the narrative. you don't know whether to call someone or miss or i misses -- a miss or a misses. nationalnt page of the

newspapers this morning, "the timesal -- the washington ." host: ken, new york, good morning. caller: thanks are taking my comment, i will make it brief. i fully support what the supreme court did, i'm pleased to see the court right the ruling. thank you. host: why? caller: i believe that all people are equal. someone earlier commented on the

declaration of independence, that we all have the right to pursue happiness. i believe that that applies to everybody, regardless of what your gender or sexual identity might be. this was a great moment. host: ok. newark, ohio, rick, good morning. your opinion? i want to applaud the supreme court for rendering the decision they did. listening to these calls coming i don't understand what people are talking about, flamboyance. most workplaces have dress codes and such things that would cover anything like that. should not be discriminated against and again, i want to applaud the supreme court for rendering that decision.

rich, tennessee, what do you think? democrat --thing a demonstrates once again is that contrary to popular opinion, conservative justices are more willing to cross lines than the liberal justices. some research has shown that the liberal justices tend to stick together. i hate to even call them liberal or conservative, but that seems to be the way the media and the prevailing nation has said it. depending on which president appointed them and nominated them, that is how they are going to vote. research shows that the conservative justices actually don't toe the line as much as the liberals, who tend to vote in lockstep. and in this case i do think that

it does, you know, the slippery slope comes up once again. -- i agree with the national review as far as and comings deciding down on the side of gender thing.y is a a scientifically proven thing when it's not. polygamy coming next. you are do you, if doing what makes people happy, then pretty much you are going to have to open it up to anything between consenting adults eventually. otherwise it's just going to be total hypocrisy. one other thing, if i can get it in. i noticed that, and this might be a lesson for conservatives,

some of the -- i read some of the opinions, the op-ed's from yesterday. several from the post and "the new york times," jennifer rubin and others, they tend to take a mocking tone towards conservatives, saying that you see if you are voting for trump or republicans based on supreme court and so forth, you see what coming fromu liberals who are taunting and away saying, you know, you wasted your vote. if that is what you are basing it on, you will be disappointed. i actually have to say, maybe she has a point. anyway. i think that's about all i need to say. onto to the next caller. host: ok.

hi, chris. caller: the decision was fine, the problem is labor rights. if they want to discriminate, they don't have to give your reason. in most western civilizations, they can't fire anyone for no reason. it's good, but they can find other things to fire you for no reason whatsoever. this decision was probably easy, but when it comes to decisions ,n abortion, capital financing this is just a couple of conservative judges.

we shouldn't be surprised when they take decisions like this. other news this morning, this headline from politico, " amazon's bezos willing to testify on the amazon treatment of third-party vendors, he has now agreed to testify before the ."use judiciary committee there will be an investigation into the hanging deaths of two ."ack men in california also reporting this morning, "north korea blows up amazon -- blows up liaison discussion office used for talks. good morning, jessie, go ahead. caller: i think it's fine.

i have a comment first and foremost, everyone should include god in their conversation. he has the last say-so in everything. as far as being gay, i mean, you live your life the way you want to live it, you know? you are still a human being. no one has the right to tell someone how they should live their life or dress. if they are happy, i'm happy for them. joel, tacoma, washington, hello. caller: i wanted to agree with the first lady. it's about time that the courts made a decision on this. slope, but slippery where do you draw the line? maybe b's theology, drawing the line there, that might be one step too far, maybe, i guess, or

polygamy or whatnot. but it all sounds great. i'm really glad that they are just stepping up and the supreme court is doing something. host: i will leave it there, running short on time, we will take a short break and when we come back we will focus attention on the impact of the coronavirus pandemic on the economy and markets. we will talk with the host of npr's "once." later on, richard blumenthal on the spread of disinformation about the coronavirus on social media. announcer: the presidents, available now in paperback and e-book. biographies of every president organized by their ranking by noted historians from best to worst. into theperspectives

lives of our nations executives. visit c-span.org/the presidents to learn more about each president and historian featured and order your copy today wherever books and e-books are sold. announcer: binge watch "book tv" this summer every saturday evening at 8:00 p.m. eastern watch several hours of your favorite authors. marinus, author of "once in a great city." and his most recent "a good american family." watch 227 as we feature author and historian david mccullough. binge watch "book tv" all summer on c-span2. >> what do you think we can do about that?

announcer: with police reform, protests and coronavirus continuing to affect the country, whichever live coverage of the government's response with briefings from the white house, governors and mayors from across the country, and from the campaign 2020 trail. join the conversation every day on "washington journal." if you miss any live coverage, watch anytime on demand on on the freer listen c-span radio app. announcer: "washington journal" continues. oft: roben farzad, host "full disclosure." we are talking about the economy and the impact of covid-19 on it. the federal reserve chair will be in the hot seat today on capitol hill testifying, what are you watching for? guest: they are throwing

everything and the kitchen sink at this crisis. it seems like day after day, something that might have been taboo a few gaze ago is shattered. -- a few days a go is shattered. they announced they would buy individual corporate bonds. that would have been unthinkable as recently as february when we were appreciating unemployment at a 50 year low. we have the economy in freefall, people unable to get back to work. just like with the great recession, the fed is making a lot of it up as it goes along. powell will be testifying at 10:00 a.m., so keep your channel here. we will have live coverage here , as well, c-span radio as our website c-span.org. chair expect that the fed will be asked about what is

next? what else can they do, do they have anything left? guest: you can take rates down to zero. that is the blunt just instrument the fed chair has. with the lessons of 2008-2011, you could buy bonds on the open market, mortgage bonds, treasuries, it can do so many things to conjure up money to keep rates low. -- rates willph remain at zero for the foreseeable future. the main new tools, street lending program that lawmakers will ask about. the fed is backstopping banks that wants to make loans to medium-sized and small businesses. on the wrist,king the fed is backstopping them.

thatat the bank of japan, economy has been mired for almost 30 years. japan, in tokyo has been buying equities. policyows that monetary has truly come a long way in 100 years since the founding of the modern federal reserve. new innovativend tools. we do not know if they are going to work. we have to do it and revisit them every now and then. host: you mentioned the fed deciding yesterday it would buy you corporate bonds, could explain for those who don't follow this kind of policy what does that mean? corporations -- just like you take out a loan, you want to hook house, you are on the

to pay interest payments to the bank. corporations are on the hook to pay interest to creditors. ahead ofwell shareholders and the like. you are solvent as long as you are current on those interest payments. when the economy tanks and revenue takes a freefall, whether you are a restaurant change -- chained, you are in a crisis. you need to husband that cash and make payroll to keep the lights on. it is crisis management and triage. corporate prioritize bond payments as much if you are a company. the federal reserve is going out there and buying corporate bonds in order to keep interest rates down and let companies make their not. .- make their nut that telegraph to the investor universe that we are backing you, everything short of buying

stock outright. we are given thing -- we are giving them cash. the federal reserve, i believe, has $7.2 trillion of assets it has brought on. that is double what was there a year ago. actionell fed in both and what is telegraphed and his comments to the public is saying we are out there, we are spending. policy, thatiscal is up to the president and capitol hill. he can also recommend that. host: has he? guest: he has. am doinging listen, i as i can. we haven't exhausted all the plans. a $1hearing rumors of trillion infrastructure project.

degree ofeen some unanimity between democrats and republicans for the need of emergency spending, unemployment plus bonus that may or may not expire. this is an election year and it benefits no one to see the a column -- to see the economy fall into a full depression. already you are seeing pictures of soup lines, it could be far worse. the federal reserve is monitoring 9% or 10% unemployment. farzad here to talk about fiscal and monetary policies. he will take your questions and comments. east and central parts of the country, (202) 748-8000. mounted and pacific, (202) 748-8001. what is the federal reserve individual for the citizen, if anything? onst: i would keep my eyes

main street lending programs -- put that aside for a minute. the fed is keeping rates low. and refinanceout a mortgage, you can do that. feel -- asset feel purchases or keeping a fat thumb on the scale. that keeps the system flowing and keeps the banks out there, both individuals and corporations able to make bond payments, loan payments and make payroll. there is payroll protection. out key pico eye on main street lending. -- i would keep an eye on main street lending. market,ook at the stock which was down up or it of 30% into late march, it took just a

munch to fall that much, it has since rallied close to 40% largely on the backs of what the federal reserve been doing. we use to this idea called the greenspan put, where alan greenspan can bail you out. now it is the powell put. come hell or high water, they are going to conjure up some extraordinary bonus program and help individual letter -- individual lenders. in a transitive way, shareholders are feeling -- can't be far off if the fed has back corporate bonds. there is enthusiasm on wall street as opposed to main street. host: gabriel in greensboro, maryland. caller: thanks for taking my call. to ask the professional hear what he thinks about -- if he has any thoughts about

cryptocurrency like bitcoin and the whole cryptocurrency and where that fits into today's market and society. great question. being -- i wish i could understand it. it's one of those things that if you can pitch it to someone in an elevator ride -- in theory, block chain, all of these things that are verifiable person-to-person, it is not fiat. a lot of create -- a lot of criticism of central banks is that they keep conjuring up money. what is $1 trillion between friends? i took about the fed book of acts set -- book of assets, critics are saying you are debasing u.s. currency. it is being artificially distorted. they say you would be vindicated

by holding cryptocurrencies. backers of gold would say the same thing. these are very volatile things that don't neatly track the opposite of what the federal -- the federal reserve is doing. there are people swearing by it. there are people who would've told you years ago this would be the moment of vindication for crypto. in this case, we are plummeting 80 year highs. i think the verdict is still out. host: don in new jersey. caller: hi. i like speaking to this man because he seems to be intelligent about economic matters. explain -- is there anything that is going to stop the fed from being able to fund

anything the government wishes to do in the future? to buyfed becomes able corporate bonds, what's to stop it from stopping there? why can't it buy stocks? is the entire economy just a sickly a function of the government making money and a time it needs? it is a -- question. it keeps everyone up at night. if you look back at the feds theding 10 years ago during savings-and-loan crisis, or what it was during the spike of inflation in the early 1980's, it is very different. i think in large part this -- the sizes of various crises we have seen, to have an employment go from a 50 year low

to the midteens in a matter of weeks because of a shock, this virus hits and we have to shut down the economy overnight, it is not a tapering recession. you're not a given that much warning. not given that much warning. the federal reserve is tasked with keeping the economy at full employment and keeping inflation low. otherlity, there are many things peopley expect from it. watch the testimony today and what senators ask about income inequality and the like. that brings us back to something we were talking about 10 years ago, too big to fail. the bank said the economy over

the barrel. this brings back all sorts of too big to fail questions. economyan't have an that can endure some orderly degree of bankruptcy, that sets up the fed for a bigger codependency the next time around. when we get out of the fog of crisis, you going to see critics be more vocal about it. host: you will be able to watch the federal reserve chair's testimony on c-span starting at 10:00 a.m. eastern. people sit down in front of the banking committee. website,atch it on our c-span.org, or download our free radio app. tony in rosedale, maryland. caller: how are you doing? thatt to advance the idea -- with unemployment being the way it is -- i was wondering if

the government would ever consider an idea where they anld swap out -- you have inordinate number of people working that would serve better to take a vacation. i was wondering if the government would consider switching out. you have a vast number of people that can work and a vast number of people that probably need time off. for aould be the prospect switch out the people that can jobs, and them the the people that need time off, let them take the time off so that the people that need to work can assume those jobs. i'm talking about the window of a year. situation --ent people are -- a lot of money that they never use.

perhaps they could use this money with time off and people could come in and assume those jobs, and they could accumulate unemployment. like a switch out. host: ok. guest: i have not heard that one. a lot of this is embedded in expectations. there are people who are furloughed or have had to take pay cuts, even though technically a paycheck is coming in, they are not as sure about spending it. reconsider the people they want to hire or the car they wanted to update come over the additions to their home. a lot of that anticipation is built-in. at is there is- a concern among conservatives that there are people out there, service workers, that are more content to stay out and stay unemployed and collect

july, orent plus into as long as it lasts. this has been a problem for certain restaurants. certain restaurants want to come back hesitatingly. you have half the dining room capacity -- but they don't need as much help so they are content to drip hours and staff back into a new normal. what happens after unemployment insurance is pulled away in july and suddenly everybody wants hours again? these are problems. it only becomes more intense as we approach the election. we have had these hot balkanized approach to opening. certain states have been let's do it, others have been much more cautious. they have had to backtrack after

they opened up initially and they saw infection rates go up. there are so many imports of uncertainty going into the rest of this summer. push to ae how you one-size-fits-all policy. host: cnn reporting idaho will pay people $1500 to go back to lure them offto unemployment benefits. you can find that on cnn.com. sergio from pump on a beach, florida. today? how are we all host: fine. caller: yes, i have a question. how are you? guest: how are you? caller: i am fine. my question is this, i live in florida. covid-19, how will it grow

especially -- -- because they would like to know after covid-19 how will it grow work?ople that want to guest: i was raised in south florida. this is a question for everybody. how do you come out of this? .et's step back for a minute maybe it is illustrative to look at starbucks, a major employer, pillar ofar of -- a main street life. it has been walloped. it has had to reinvent itself rapidly to be more drive-through and pickup oriented.

at announced this week that its new normal is going to entail not is the sara lee being that -- not necessarily being that place you can depend on battery as a people to look at us pickup and go. brands -- so many brands street, theain restaurants that go through a ande of shrinking bankruptcy, how labor-intensive are they going to be in the future? what you thought you needed as recently as january has been vastly reconsidered. we are leaning on zoom for meetings. these are questions that mall operators have. overbuilttent are we

and how is that going to affect -- affect for labor the demand for labor? there are not that many answers. we are waiting for some sort of collapse in coronavirus infections, or a vaccine. absent that, we do not know what our normal is. to los angeles, michael is watching. good morning. is regardingmment the covid economy and the people who american are going to suffer mortgage losses as a result. are nottheir rents going to be able to subsidize mortgages and banks are going to own properties.

financial crises, people went out went rifles. the dollar where the farmers bought their -- the farmers bought their farms back for a dollar, but the immigration policy, there are individuals that have high incomes. you're going to see more foreign ,nvestments, personal property american property foreign-owned as a result. this economy failure and how it is going to affect the american people and their personal property and businesses, i think you're going to find more foreign investment. just like the stock market dropped and you had foreign companies purchase stock prices at a low price and now they are

benefiting because they are outsourcing our jobs. now is going to service economy and we are losing the backbone of what the american economy was in the past century. gloomy for the common american. the government is not helping because it identifies corporations as individuals. that is alarming. go ahead. guest: that is a tough one. there are protests in the streets right now. discontent as of we come out of this, unemployment benefits lapse, as some benefits -- the sugar high wears off, you will have this

grinding come along recovery. chairman powell said that himself and his comments a few days ago. there, throwing everything and then some at the problem. it seems like pennsylvania avenue and capitol hill are trying to get behind fiscal stimulus again. there is only so much you can stimulate. you have concerns about inflation, afterwards you can backstop borrowing is much as you want. if companies don't say an --quate return on investment but this is just putting off a very unpleasant reckoning. host: james. mechanicsburg comeuppance of any. mechanicsburg, pennsylvania. is this compensation

taxable? pennsylvania, normal unemployment, station is taxable. -- unemployment compensation is taxable. guest: the big question is will there be political will to extend it past july. if my boss does not want to bring me back, i am ok with that because i can cobble together be --oyment plus many plus maybe gigging that doesn't put me over a certain level. once echoes away, you have a rush back into people re-seeking their old jobs and unemployed -- and employers can't compensate,

you will have a crunch. i will have to double check on that. i do believe it is taxable. top: the president's advisor larry kudlow predicts a v shaped recovery. what is that and what do others say about that? guest: this is one of those 24 hour stomach bugs. it is wretched, but you come out of it euphoric and you have a huge breakfast winded done. -- huge breakfast when it is done. what happened is an aberration. we went from a multi-decade low unemployment, almost overnight to an 80 year high. the idea that this was all a nightmare and we plumb to the bottom, the worst is behind us, people are going to see that

money is cheap, stocks have already rallied, labor is plentiful, you can buy that property you have been waiting to buy, you can get a mortgage at a cheaper rate than a few months ago, and that will beget this v shape. bounce off the bottom instead of trough and climb out after a couple of years. there is tremendous disagreement over that. we would need a lot of things to happen. imagine if they suddenly discovered they have a vaccine and it has been tested. in no precedent have you been able to rollout a vaccine this quickly. people are saying it could take a year plus. that kind of event could help market. the fed is doing everything they can. wait for news today from the white house on infrastructure spending. that is something that looks a

bit like a new deal, spending on roads and railroads and airports and artificially creating a lot of jobs and disposable income. the verdict is out. , house springs, missouri. caller: good morning, america. i've got a question. so greatics have been under donald trump and the republican party, and unemployment is at an all-time paidhow come we have not one nickel down on the national the biggesth is single security threat to this country? if you can't pay it down during the times, when can you? i will take your answer offline. guest: thank you. there are people -- and they have been -- unfortunately, people say they are old-timers

telling us to pay down the debt could truth be told, it is not a popular thing for the president and say theardigan debt is important. we rang up this huge debt and were profligate. punishvestors did not us. if anything, lending rates have collapse. that is why you are seeing president trump float the idea of a massive infrastructure plan. unlike other countries, every time we take our eye off the fiscal discipline ball, you get punished in interest rates, bond investors demanding you loan the money. besthasn't happened this that has not happened in this case and has sort of taken the fear of got away from the debt management community.

i am not so optimistic. at an economic crises and theoretically you are supposed to plunge yourself into more debt to dig yourself out like this. you're supposed to worry less about debt, but you are right. we were a buoyant economy at the start of the year and nobody was talking about even beginning to chisel down that massive debt. host: we will see if senators on the banking committee asked the same questions our viewers have been asking when the federal reserve chair jerome powell sits in the witness chair. you can watch our website c-span.org, and listen with our free radio app. roben farzad is the host of a podcast dealing with the culture of business in the business of culture. disclosure" airs on npr.

thank you for your time. guest: i appreciate it. host: when we come back, senater richard blumenthal joins us over his concerns on the spread of misinformation on the internet about coronavirus. barr on police reform efforts by the white house and congress. ♪ >> this november, we are going to take back the house, hold the senate, and keep the white house. [applause] announcer: president trump returns to the campaign trail saturday in tulsa. watch our live coverage beginning at 8:00 p.m. eastern, on demand at c-span.org, or listen on the go with the free c-span radio app.

announcer: with the federal government at work in d.c., use the congressional directory for contact information about members of congress and federal agencies. order your copy online today at c-spanstore.org. announcer: binge watch "book tv" this summer. every sunday, watch hours of your favorite authors. saturday, we are featuring david bookss, author of a dozen including "once in a great city: a detroit story." his most recent, "a good american family." june 27 as we host david mccullough. tv" all summerok on c-span2.

announcer: the president. available now in paperback and e-book. presidents of every organized by their ranking by noted historians from best to worst. and features perspectives into the lives of our nations chief executives. , c-span.org/ofte thepresident spirit -- order your copy today wherever books and e-books are sold. >> what do you think we can do about that? reform,r: with police protests and coronavirus continuing to affect the country of a our live coverage of the government's response with briefings from the white house my congress, governors and mayors from across the country updating the situation, and from the campaign 2020 trail.

day the conversation every on "washington journal." atch anytime on demand c-span.org, or listen with the free c-span radio app. announcer: "washington journal" continues. senatorining us is richard blumenthal, member of the judiciary committee. i want to begin with the supreme court's 6-3 decision. neil gorsuch siding with liberal justices saying federal protections apply to lgbtq workers. guest: it is an extraordinary advance, a welcome landmark decision. somewhat surprising because two conservative justices joined the so-called liberals. quicklytestament to how rights havely lgbtq

no advanced in our society -- have now advanced in our society. it is based on a 1964 law that may be at the time may not be explicitly considered sex and particularly the kind of onision the court made sexual orientation and gender identity. a remarkableit is historic feet. -- feat. host: that is the argument the justices in the minority made. alito and thomas writing their only use one word for what the court has done, legislation. a brazen of our authority to interpret statutes. the court tries to convince readers it is enforcing the terms of the statute, but that

is preposterous. as understood today the concept of discrimination based on sex is different from discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. that the wordt is sex means sexual orientation and gender identity. certainly in today's language, and probably in the minds of the writers of that law, if they had thought about what it would mean in the future. textual is it is a interpretation, strictly textual. on defenders often rely textualism to never grow rights. narrow rights. here it is broadening them. that lies being interpreted

according to the language of the law. intent ora reading of divine aspiration. proper -- is host: how do you respond to justice kavanaugh wrote his own opinion, writing "seneca falls was not stonewall. the women's right movement was not the gay-rights movement, although many people participate in both. sexual orientation discrimination is another form of sex discrimination is a mistake of history." guest: let's cut through the verbiage. we know what rights mean. to discriminate based on gender identity is abhorrent. law, you cane 1964 talk about different movements, different political leanings, but the fact of the matter is

the law says no discrimination based on sex. credit, isto its ignoring the noise and looking for the law. ast: you served five terms the connecticut attorney general, served as u.s. attorney for connecticut, administrative assistant to a senator, and law clerk to harry blackmun. legally, what you think are the ramifications? i think it is a majority of states where there are no laws prohibiting this discrimination, it will tell employers what they already know. it violates basic values, common sense, their own self interest to discriminate against a good employee simply because of this ,ind of illegal distinction

based in no way on performance or value. have the kindwill of ramifications that marriage equality has had. everybody thought the world would be shaken to its core, yet,opponents said so, and heaven has not fallen. people now mary the person they love. the degree of acceptance is broad and deep. the same is true of this decision. sweeping in its practical ramifications for individuals -- [indiscernible] host: i want to get your thoughts on another action, they declined to hear cases seeking re-examination of the doctrine of qualified immunity. first of all, what is that? guest: the doctrine of qualified

immunity is a judge-made doctrine, contrary to what defenders in the lgbtq discrimination case said. the court often does legislate. courts write law by interpreting them. in this case, what the court said is that police officers are the most prominent of public employees who may be subject to lawsuit, can't be sued unless the claim is they violated a clearly established -- keyword -- clearly established statutory or constitutional right that a reasonable person could have known. impact of this has been to insulate cops against -- lawsuits from the victims of brutality. the court said it was not going to reconsider that doctrine. a supremelaw clerk to

court justice, one who has argued four cases in the supreme court while attorney general and followed its decision, the reason was simply, we are considering in congress changes to the qualified immunity doctrine. thisourt chose, in instance, not to legislate further when the real legislators were considering major reform in the doctrine of qualified immunity. host: what will those changes be ? guest: i think they should be change -- i think there should be changes that greatly narrow qualified immunity so as to give victims of brutality a day in court, a chance to take action against the police officers who have violated their constitutional rights. the -- the reimbursement

for the police officers is the reformikely this kind of will operate as a deterrent to police misconduct. it will force cities to adopt better training, recruitment, and screening so as to avoid this kind of liability that will be increased by reform in the doctrine of qualified immunity. dependsit will happen on my republican colleagues. i believe the house of representatives will pass the bill which includes these reforms. i support them strongly. a former law enforcement ,areer person, u.s. attorney federal prosecutor, he served for 20 years as attorney general , i think a lot of law enforcement are disgusted and ashamed of what they have seen

in these recent instances of killings and brutality. they feel there ought to be more accountability. that is the key, accountability. my senate republican colleagues have to adopt that view and so far they have been unwilling to do so. the president has said he is opposed to reforms in the doctrine. your viewers, here is opportunity to talk to senater richard blumenthal, democrat of connecticut republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independence bank -- independents, (202) 748-8002. the george george washington -- is a forum on covid-19 social media discrimination -- disinformation. what forms of disinformation have you seen? thanks for touching on

this subject which is vitally patients and consumers. we are talking about how misleading and deceptive practices spurred by this millionsare leading to -- tens of millions, maybe hundreds, and many billions of dollars in losses on the part of consumers. about isre talking price gouging. the n95 masks, the increases in prices without justification. the deceptive sales we have seen on google and facebook for these n95 masks. when inding as masks, fact they fail to fulfill the requirements of n95 masks. deceptiveing,

pitches. another example that is mike peeveso to speak -- pet -- involves the false pitches for chemicals and diet supplements that actually may do more harm than good. we did a letter to the ftc complaining about these false cures. based onook action present law against false and misleading claims, but we need from theessive action federal trade commission against these kinds of disinformation and misleading and deceptive pitches. host:host: for viewers who are concerned, c-span is covering this. you can watch it on our website,

c-span.org at around 10:40 a.m. eastern. tony in fort lauderdale, florida. go ahead. caller: good morning. i have a couple of questions, the first being on qualified immunity. why would any police officer a of where he could be sued his home and his family destroyed for a lawful action? if they break the law, send them to jail. it is funny that senators have immunity. i can't sue you if you defame me on the floor of the senate, but a cop cannot get immunity? the comment is, i find it ironic to have somebody talking about misinformation when about your service in vietnam.

have the nerveu to show your face in public after stealing honor from people who died for this country. guest: thanks. laste first deal with your point. i said it was a mistake, and i i servedd for it, that in vietnam instead of during the vietnam issue. countless times when i talked .bout it, it was a slip the fact it was inadvertent doesn't make it right, it was a believe merits an apology and i gave an apology. if you are a veteran, i apologize to you. immunity, we need to face the , it is is not just words

not just defamation, it is actually killing people. we need to change the standards to give people a day in court. you are right to refer to the standards that can be used in a criminal action against police, we want to make it easier to bring such actions by the department of justice -- [indiscernible] changing the standard of intent so that criminal authorities can actually bring action more readily against police officers. it is not just a victim heavy day in court, but also criminal actions against individuals if they violate criminal law and

are wearing a badge. thatieve strongly disinformation on the part of some of these private entrepreneurs watch to be policed more effectively on facebook,s by google, amazon, because they have a duty to protect against deceptive and misleading practices. host: senater richard blumenthal. member of the judiciary committee. let's hear from paul in portland, maine. caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: a lot of people have been making comments about how we need at her training for the police -- better training for the police. there is a recent phenomenon

that has not been discussed much. in recent years, police ,epartments across america whether it is large urban areas, or small rural areas, and that is applicants to become police officers has dropped significantly. this is one example. in california, there were police departments that on any given year will get thousands of applications for people who want to become police officers. a department that in the past would get 3000 applications literally getting hundreds of applications. people want to become

police officers. , a lot of these departments have lowered their standards in order to recruit more police officers. abouteople keep talking defunding the police and how we intod funnel more money mental health care, it seems to -- firstching the news and foremost, a lot of people that need mental health car are the police themselves. comment, i have been a political junkie my whole life. i am 61 years old. watched the have senate, i have always said that senator blumenthal and sheldon

whitehouse would make an incredible team as president and vice president. i think you are both incredible men with think we need your quality to run for the highest office. instead of people we have been getting lately. host: i will leave it there. senator? guest: i think that is a compliment. i am assuming senator whitehouse from rhode island would be the presidential candidate and i would be his running mate. i am honored by your praise, and i thank you. let me deal first with your point about the need to recruit the very best. -- as public servants. ist we know in connecticut

that more than pay, it is givent that police are and have earned -- our police have earned through better training. and better practices. 13 events andor observed not only the incredible passion and energy of the demonstrators, but also the police restraint and respect for the demonstrators. recruiting, if think as you observed, there has been insufficient attention paid to the need to screen these officers before they wear the badge. the ones who potentially would disgrace their profession are kept out. that is as important, may be so

than training. training as about if it were one-size-fits-all. the training has been improved in connecticut. the peacekeeper role of police, diffusing tension is particularly pertinent in domestic violence, but also crowd control. less so, the warrior mentality. unfortunately what we have seen in these most recent instances is the overreaction, lack of training, but also lack of screening as to the quality of people who join the police force. right, sometimes police officers need health care -- mental health care.

they are in extraordinarily stressful and demanding situations. stress isatic commonly seen on the battlefield. police are on a different battlefield, but often under the same kind of stresses and anxieties. the pain and grief they see, the really areey witness sources of tremendous stress for them. pete in washington, pennsylvania. you are on the air. caller: good morning, senator. i am 78 years old. i have been through the civil rights movement. i remember seeing a lot of these things. i have seen a lot of things happen. forms.e takes many i am against violence of all

the police violence we are focused on is the only one because it gets a lot of attention. it is reported immediately. others, not much at all. i want to make a comment, and vengeance are twins. their appetite is never satisfied. violent gangs that kill young people sitting at their dinner accidentally shot through the building, all kinds of violence. that we areed

having violence in this country just for violence's sake. your reference to the civil rights movement is timely. it was effective in part because it emphasized nonviolence. martin luther king made it a basic tenant of his movement that it would be nonviolent. a morallished credibility based on nonviolence. so have these demonstrations. they have been so powerful and peoplebecause of young leading in a nonviolent way to express themselves with passion and energy. end to systemic racism and asking us to look at racism in society in a very

clear eyed way. that we need to broaden the lens to include not just law enforcement, where there may be still racism, but to education. the quality of the school may depend on a person's zip code. decrepithat may be based on racism. disparities in health care, the reason for the disproportion of persons born in two communities of color in this pandemic vastly disproportionate to their .umbers black and brown communities have suffered from the influenza, and of course the economic effect. 41% of all black and brown owned businesses have gone under. businessesof those

owned by people of color have closed their doors. absolutely deeply troubling statistic. when we look at racism, we need to be nonviolent in the tactics and the means to an end that is languaget, but use the of passion and energy and urgency to demand change. , i will say change this about law enforcement. a ban ono go beyond chokehold sand no knock warrants to independent civilian review boards. have important to independent review boards when there is unwarranted violence by police.

training, recruiting and screening all our -- are all important -- a comprehensive view of what changes should be. comprehensive, to hold accountable any wrongdoers. with aere is mark stone tweet to us. he is asking this -- it would ending qualified immunity only apply to police officers or other city employees? what about the mayor or police chief? guest: it could apply to them as well. the reform proposals under consideration are narrower than theuding every member of local or state public service, but obviously it could be extended broadly. woodstock, connecticut, independent. caller: good morning.

thank you for taking my call. as far as this social media whoding what is falsehoods, is going to set the standards for what is taken down, seeing television on public you see falsehoods being represented. host: ok. senator? you from at to hear woodstock, connecticut, one of the most beautiful parts of the world. i am sorry we are not going to have a woodstock fair this year. it is one of my favorite events in connecticut. that question is really very pertinent. in fact, there is a legal standard for what is misleading or deceptive. it applies to all kinds of consumer products. when i was attorney general of the state, i used our state

consumer protection laws, which similarly prohibit deceptive and misleading pitches. they apply to commercial pitches for products when they are advertised and now on the internet attempting to be sold. they do not apply to first amendment to political speech. political ads, i think that was your reference. many years through the consumer protection laws and at both the federal at the state level, and essentially, it is that the -- the standard is that untruthful and to distort the fact of a particular kind. for example, that they for --

fail to fulfill the promises of that product or that they are dangerous in a way where there was no warning. i think many of these drugs that are falsely advertised to cure covid-19, the dietary supplements, the chemicals that are promised to be miracle cures can be not only useless, but also potentially very dangerous. ppe,ise, price gouging for medical gowns, medical supplies like ventilators, price gouging is extremely dangerous. resources to provide ppe like masks for nurses into thereby detracts from public health generally and of course other kinds of practices that we will be discussing later today at the having forum that we are

i think similarly have broad effects not only on the individual consumer who is harmed, but on the general public. host: senator, thank you for your time. we appreciate it. we hope you come back again and talk to our viewers. we will take a break. when we come back, we will turn our attention to campaign 2020. what is your top issue in november? (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independence, (202) 748-8002. >> this november we are going to take back the house. you're going to hold the senate -- we are going to hold the senate and we are going to keep the white house. topresident trump returns

the campaign trail on saturday for a rally in tulsa. watch our coverage on c-span, on demand on c-span.org, or listen on the go with the free c-span radio app. >> with the federal government at work in d.c. and throughout the country, use the congressional directory for members of congress, and federal agencies. order your copy online today at c-span store.org. binge watch book tv this summer. every saturday evening at 8:00 p.m. eastern, settle in and watch it several hours of your favorite authors. saturday we feature david marina's author of several books including barack obama: the story and his most recent, a good american family. watch saturday, june 27 as we

feature david mccullough. binge watch book tv all summer on c-span two. ♪ >> the presidents from public inairs, available now paperback and e-book presents biographies of every president by ranking it from best to worst and features perspectives into the lives of our nation's chief executives and leadership styles. visit our website c-span.org/thepresidents to learn more and order your copy today wherever books and e-books are sold. >> washington journal continues. host: campaign 2020 is just around the corner. your top issue, what will get you out to vote, that is our

question this morning. you., good morning to betty, are you there? betty in atlanta? we are listening. your top issue for campaign 2020. caller: campaign 2020 i would like to see less accusatory language and degrading language offices or elected those running for office. as a result of the language used in these past three or four years, it has been very degrading. also it is not a very good role model for the young people. that is why the young people take what you say for gospel. violence that is used by the

andident saying "take them use whatever force you can to the criminals to the police," and to those kinds of things have been very degrading it to me. i hate to see that from the office of the president. --ook at the elected offices and they don't say anything. they do not contradict or ask the president -- i know you cannot tell the president what to do, but as a result of that how do you go home to your children and tell them you are using -- following a leader that uses this kind of language in the public? host: diane, a democratic color. what is your top issue? -- a democratic caller. what is your top issue? recent in light of the

police officer who brings a breaking of the law to the prosecutor, the prosecutor will take it to the grand jury and they will be indicted. i think they need to look at the relationship between the police and the prosecutors. the violence that is taking place, it was horrible and i don't believe they should be destroying peoples'businesses i have headed also in my life and family -- i also -- but i have had it in my life and family. i am 62 years old. when you take it to the prosecutor, the prosecutor doesn't look at the entire controversy and that makes the police not accountable. say if they are in a bad mood that day, they can go to the prosecutor and say, "they broke

the law." that is the reason why the people don't have to pay bail because the prosecutor gets it from the police, they prosecute them. most people do not have -- we americans do not have $5,000 to retain an attorney. that makes it also and injustice. injustice. looking at this prosecutorial system is a top thing for 2020. host: some campaign 2020 headlines for you this morning. this is published in the politics section of the pbs last night. soughtvenue seek for -- for president trump's rally. the governor has said he has asked the campaign to consider a larger outdoor venue to accommodate all guests.

over in her stead said monday after talking with trump and pentz that nearly one million people have requested tickets to the event. some supporters have already started waiting in line outside center in downtown tulsa. --e home to a prosperous that for the president's rally in tulsa, oklahoma. axios has this headline -- rocco palma -- barack obama is to hold the first online fundraiser for the former vice president. obama is participation with ramping up ofe obama's efforts to defeat president trump. this out from the des moines register -- president trump

biden by one point. in michigan, the detroit free press, a poll shows the president further behind with biden leading by 16 points. debbie dingell, a democrat from sheigan is quoted saying does not believe these numbers showing biden with a big lead. in elmore, ohio, democrat. your top issue for 2020? ahead.ood morning, go lynn, talk through the telephone. richard, west virginia, a republican. go ahead. caller: my top issue -- i don't think anyone is going to really bring it up -- my top issue

would be free speech. speech in attack on free -- most of that by democrats. we have a good example of that. google type telecommunications type people to censor speech. he wants them to decide what is true and what is not in this recent thing with coronavirus. a lot of falsification was put out. there certainly disputable information. this is like -- i don't have the exact facts but i know youtube would not let certain things go on because they said that it was not true even though these were videos made by credentialed people. continuesatic party

thereh for repressive -- was a bill introduced in georgia by one of the state legislators making political speech a protected category. in other words, you cannot lose your job because you say something political. there are people losing their jobs all over this country because they disagree with certain people. lost his jobuy who because he contributed to a cafe and people didn't like his opinion. we are going to lose our country . we are well on our way to losing the country. host: ok. free speech is his top issue. arry in fort worth, texas, democrat. what is your top issue? caller: i am voting just to get this -- dearborn bruce,

heights, michigan. bruce, your turn. caller: i have three issues. one, like the fella before me, i think we are seeing a terrible violation of free speech in this country. that is one. two, i am very concerned that they are going to force people to get vaccinations, including trump. hadthird, you just blumenthal on who in february 2013 showed there was no scientific testing on the frequencies of five g infrastructure. -- i have is both republicans and democrats are for censorship, forced vaccinations, and they are doing nothing to stop the deployment of 5g. earlier in the year there was a rumor that the 60 gigahertz

frequencies were going to harm people. i disputed that but today they are rolling out 60 gigahertz routers in the schools, which interfere with the ability of the body to absorb oxygen. it just seems that we have nobody to vote for because trump is for all these things and so are the democrats. it is very sad. anita, and independent from florida sends us this text message -- i was a swing vote but now i am solidly on the side of law and order. eileen texts us from connecticut saying, "exploitation of the environment. we must repair the damage to the natural world." u.s.-chinahe is his top concern.

mary in las vegas, an independent. what do you say, mary? caller: economics is one of them. notave got -- people do want to give stimulus to the states and local governments to keep afloat. the thing is we have got the fed banker and a former private equity guy and i think our dollar is going to take a big hit because we are getting out of the global market and becoming more isolated. we have no problem with socialism when it comes to giving large corporations, to bailing them out. they got the $2 trillion tax cut put on a credit card before the pandemic and now they've got $6 trillion, he bought their debt and they do not want to send the

american people $1200 so they can help with the mortgage payment, buy groceries? we need the universal basic income. corporate america has been getting away with so many tax advantages. the irs doesn't even audit the big large corporations. they do not have the staffing. our government is being dismantled. we have a president who rage tweets. he has moscow mitch. he has hundreds of bills on his desk since february. he is not legislating. host: ok. jerome powell's testimony will take place in less than an hour right here on c-span. our coverage, live. the federal reserve chair is sitting before the senate banking committee. our coverage is also on our website or you can listen if you download on your mobile device

to free c-span radio app app. deborah, a democratic color. deborah, you are in a -- a democratic caller. deborah, you are next. see.r: the top -- let me the environment. hello? host: we are listening. caller: it was so wonderful to see the arrow was like gray across the world. they showed -- see the error was like -- it was so wonderful to see the air was great across the world. we are all being traumatized seeing this abuse of power and law enforcement before the virus, they were concerned about police officers with their high rates of suicide. they have to support them also.

i am concerned we did not pass the antilynching thing and then we had two lynchings right after that. i do not know what they are doing in congress and i am really concerned about being a citizen with social security. another thing, president trump is trying to put federal judges in these seats and they are not qualified. some of them aren't even 40 years old. i'm not age discriminating, i'm just saying, how can that be? host: sharon in pennsylvania, democratic caller. caller: the state of the country with no transparency, we still have not seen trump's taxes, nothing like that. he spews terrible things, saying -- to me as a handicapped person, it hit me to the core.

as far as the police, this is everyone. growing up, i was taught "yes sir, no sir," if you are pulled over by the police. you certainly don't run or beat up anyone. i hope the name calling the transparency comes out. and we can all get along. host: on trump's former nationals -- national security book, thehn bolton's associated press is reporting boltonsident said that will face charges if the book is released. the president said bolton could --e criminal problems if trump said it would be up to the ag to issue any charges but hinted that the matter would end up in court. you have this from abc news that martha raddatz will have the

first exclusive interview with john bolton on his memoir describing his experiences. the special will air june 21 on abc television 9:00 to 10:00 p.m. eastern time. she will have the first interview. yahoo! news -- the trump administration is expected to block the book. the week before the much awaited book by the president's former advisor. he is expected to seek an injunction to block the book from being released in its current form. the lawsuit is expected to be filed in the coming days. patrick in the copy springs, -- coffee republican springs, alabama, a republican. what will get you to show up at the polls in november and about? caller: joe biden because he can't be the president.

neverden -- if joe biden got elected, he would not be running the country. i would like to congratulate donald trump ahead of time. this is his sixth year of politicking. i believe it was today in june came down the escalator. even the republican party, they have thrown everything at him from the way he combed his hair so-called late-night comic. who is laughing now? donald trump is the president and he will be reelected. i'm hoping joe goes all the way to the finish line. maybe he won't need a nap -- well, he might need a nap before he gets there. host: william in maine, democratic color. your top issue -- a democratic caller.

your top issue? the republican party is working in the courts to remove all pre-existing conditions as we speak. as far as president trump, he is illegitimate. that can be proven without any problem. he is a criminal in progress. the american people need to know the facts because when our talk -- tax dollars go to other countries on his behalf to protect his interests, we need to start putting senators that work for the people, not for big businesses taking away our pre-existing conditions when you get heard on the job or any other matter for those with respiratory issues. that makes us susceptible to the virus along with susan collins

-- has betrayed her owned own constituents. this is more important than donald trump making money and turning people against each other. host: bemidji, minnesota, democratic color. good morning, sharon. caller: good morning, greta. you hit it on the nail when you read that piece about to bolton. what is trump trying to hide here? his and over again, this is game. now a buck is coming out that he issn't like, -- a book coming out that he doesn't like. let's go, joe. i don't even care. let's get that racist pig out of the weiss -- white house. host: terry. give the would like to

people of our nation some information. what gets me is before they passed the probation of alcohol laws, there were no alcohol gangs. before they passed a drug laws there were no drug gangs. they kept the alcohol law 13 repealed it.they the crime rate went up after they pass to the probation of alcohol. the murder rate went up 100% after drug laws were passed. after they repealed the prohibition of alcohol law, it broke up all the murderous alcohol gangs. it does not take a rocket scientist to figure out what needs to be done about the drug laws. issue in this campaign? caller: i think the year of the mask, which i call it -- it's amazing how we all complied with it -- will also be the year of awakening.

host: oop. dropped. sorry about that. lost the call. sorry about that. hope you can call back on another day. we will take a quick break and when we return we will turn our attention to police reform. we will talk to bob barr. frompresented a district -- until 2003. we will be right back. ♪ >> with the federal government at work ndc and throughout the country, use the congressional d.c. andk in throughout the country, use the congressional directory to contact your representative. you can purchase it online at c-spanstore.org.

>> binge watch book tv this summer every saturday. settle in and watch several hours of your favorite authors. we are featuring david marinus, author of a dozen books including once in a great city: a detroit story and his most recent, a good american family. watch saturday, june 27 as we feature david mccullough. binge watch tv all summer on c-span2. ♪ >> the presidents from public affairs, available now in paperback and e-book. it presents biographies of every president organized by their ranking by noted historians from best to worst and futures perspectives into the lives of our nation's chief executives and leadership styles --

features perspectives into the lives of our nations a chief executives. order your copy today wherever books and e-books are sold. washington journal continues. host: joining us from atlanta this morning is former congressman bob barr. he represented the seventh district of georgia from 1995 to 2003. mr. barr, let's begin with your foundation. how is it funded? law enforcement education foundation headquartered in atlanta is a 501(c)(3), that is a not-for-profit tax deductible foundation. we are funded by private donors and we provide information to law enforcement and to the public on law enforcement matters. as resourcesble permit to provide grants to law

enforcement agencies across the country. host: what is your foundation's position on policing? thenews we have seen, protests reacting to what has happened to african-americans, and what do you think should be done? guest: there are a lot of things that can be done and we always need to be willing and open to making reforms to law enforcement. i am a strong supporter of law enforcement as a former u.s. attorney, however i note that from time to time and we see this recently as well, that there are problems that manifest themselves that we see in law enforcement. are thees i think these result of poor training and poor resources available to police departments. one of the things or a couple of the things for example that we need it to be doing is

dramatically increased training and resources to police training. we also need to do a better job of making sure that law enforcement understands their role in our society is not to be an armed force, but to be a domestic law enforcement agency that is bound by the constitution, which of course is very different from how the military operates. therefore, i think also some of the proposals to lower the militarization of prospective or aspect of policing would help also. includesyou think that also not giving law enforcement military gear? yesterday there was a headline in the papers that police have received nearly half $1 billion in military gear under the trump administration. guest: this is not something that began with the trump

administration. it has been a problem i think for several years, particularly since 9/11. billion's of dollars over the course of the last 20 years have gone to law enforcement, civilian law enforcement agencies in the form of military equipment. much of this is really not needed by local police departments. most police departments do not need armored vehicles, armored cars. they have an only limited need for fully automated weapons into the whole notion that every time a law enforcement officer or group goes to serve a warrant, that they need a swat backing thisup, that leads to notion and perspective on the part of some law enforcement that they are not bound by what traditionally should be the standards for police officers. that is within the bounds of the

constitution including the fourth amendment, which does not apply to our military overseas. i think that dramatically trimming back on the military equipment given to police departments will help in that regard. host: how long are police officers trained for the job and what changes would you like to see to that training to address the concerns that you have spoken about this morning? guest: as with most things in our society, greta, sooner or later the answer to these questions comes back to resources. when police departments are facing limited or cutbacks in their resources, that is the tax dollars that they have with which to work, one of the very first areas to be cut seems to be training. this is unfortunate. i think that police departments need to pay a lot more attention to and put a higher priority

than they often do on training. this falls not so much to the federal government although there is a federal role here that we can talk about, but the primary responsibility for ensuring that police departments across the country are properly trained falls on the local elected officials, the county commissioners, the city mayor, the city councils and the state governments. they need to put more resources into training and they need to do it consistently. host: let's go to robert and brooklyn. a republican color. you are up first for the former congressman -- a republican caller. you are up first for the former congressman. caller: train and d arm the the police.arm know that that -- several of

them commit genocide and still get to come into the united states. host: let's take the first part u.s. policere the officers being trained by the military in israel? guest: for many years there has been a sharing of police officers or certain specialized training and to familiarize themselves with the -- four certain specialized training and to familiarize themselves with certain specialized training and to familiarize themselves with the israeli police. i have no problem with that. techniques can be really effective. as some are not applicable to our society and the laws into

the constitutional provisions that are law enforcement officers have to operate under so it is a good program to broaden the familiarize asian of our law enforcement officers to ion of our lawt enforcement officers. host: let's go to south carolina, independent. good morning. caller: good morning. i have been listening and all of the things that need to be done as far as police in this country. i have been listening to bob barr into the rest of them, but do you really -- if you really think about it, just like your own household, you are the man of your house and you take care of your family. we all sit there trying to figure out how to govern -- are governors going to take care of states, everybody. you know as well as i know what

you have been listening to on ,he news that president trump all right, and a trey gowdy and lindsey graham, if you put them care in control of taking and putting things in place like you are talking about, it will happen, but people all over this people with that leadership and you know that. host: ok. joe in alabama, a republican, you are next. caller: it is pretty easy sitting in your office they are saying that the police don't need military type weapons when you are not doing the job. that is the problem. most people are trying to run the show from an office. you are not out there in the public having to deal with people that have a lot of heavy

duty weapons now. for -- think it is right a lot of people sit back and like i say run the show from an office. host: ok. mr. barr? valid your color makes a point and that is that the -- your caller makes a valid point policet is that the way are held accountable must factor in. the circumstances that police officers themselves face, for as congress is now proposing a one-size-fits-all for use of force, use of deadly force by police officers, i think this would be a mistake. there has to be a view that the officer on the street facing the circumstances that he or she

faces, that has to be the primary focus of their accountability. that is not to say that officers should not be accountable for abusing that authority. they should. this notion that you can set an objective standard for everybody in the country, all police officers, will not work. it will create more problems than it solves because police officers be very hesitant and will back away from confrontations and that will only embolden the criminal element and lead to further problems. with regard to your colors s question oraller' statement about military equipment, i'm not saying that police don't need any nilla terry grade equipment. metropolitan police -- any military grade equipment. some do, especially metropolitan police. to give police across the

country all sorts of military equipment is not needed it. it needs to be more carefully utilized and selectively given. president'sbout the executive order today on a standard for use of force? do you a -- disagree with that? guest: the president can control federal law enforcement officers and setting a standard, a careful standard for federal law enforcement officers use of deadly force is entirely appropriate and within the jurisdiction of the president. translating that to law enforcement officers across the country is not quite so simple. the president doesn't have the authority to simply mandate a standard for all police officers as he can do for adderall law enforcement off -- federal law enforcement officers. through the use of grants to

local and state law enforcement officers, tying those to a reasonable standard for use of force is entirely appropriate and timely. host: the president will be signing that executive order at rose p.m. today in the garden. ironworks, new hampshire, an independent. caller: you can have the house and senate work together. that is what they are paid to do. maybe the world would be a better place. host: the democrats as you noted in the house and senate have put forth the justice in policing act of 2020. it would prohibit racial and religious profiling. the federal criminal statute to prosecute police misconduct improves investigation of police misconduct at a federal level, bands choke holds and no knock

warrants and makes lynching a federal crime. guest: i think all of those are worth looking into and i support many of them. the lynching provision is already irrelevant. that is -- is irrelevant. it is already against federal law if it is on federal property or against a federal official. that's already on the books as a criminal, sometimes a capital criminal offense in some states. are somem that, there worthwhile elements in this piece of legislation that the democrats have provided. some of the concerns i have related to the effort to mandate standard forts-all police across the country. for example, use of deadly force --vision in this peaceful piece of legislation has several

pages that the individual officer would be held to account for the four they use deadly force or afterwards in terms of a review or a lawsuit. it is unworkable what this law, what this legislation provides. for example, before the officer would be allowed to use deadly force permissibly, he would have to essentially know what is in against of the civilian whom he is confronting. he would have to take into account for example according to this legislation whether the individual is pregnant. how would the officer know that in many cases? the officer would have to know and to take into account whether the individual that he or she is confronted -- confronting has mental problems or for septage problems.

going down into that kind of detail that would be required or which the officer would be held to account for would be completely unworkable. many of the other substantive positions are worthwhile. host: according to tim scott's office, this is what republicans are looking at -- this is age of act.aft of the justice it requires reporting of -- increases funding for body cameras, makes police recruiting reflective of the community, requires reporting of uses of force that causes death or serious injury and adds conspiracy to commit a hate to criminal code. tocommit a hate crime criminal code. guest: that's only good if

cameras are turned on and at the right time. there are problems with some officers not turning on their cameras are not ensuring that the cameras are working at sometimes the most important time. yes, body cameras are good, -- cameras are good. -- body cameras are good, but cameras are they are only as good as their turned on -- they are turned on at the right time. with regard to hate crime's into the statistics, the database -- statistics,and the the database, it is good to have information on police officers so appropriate legislative measures can be taken. this is the same whether we are talking about mental illnesses and firearms purchases.

we need to have a comprehensive, consistent record-keeping so both police departments and individuals can both be held accountable and properly protected. grant in the go to washington dc, independent color. -- independent caller. wrong: barr is completely about the value of sending u.s. police to israel for training. every american should visit xchange.org, which theils all of the things israelis have done as they racially profile those. there is no use for american

police to learn israeli techniques of racial profiling and bring that back to the u.s.. you can see all kinds of images of the knee on holds and other israeli training techniques that police are getting as they travel overseas. nge.org.t deadlyexcha tok to get your police not go to israel for training. host: any thoughts? guest: your caller, and your prior question that i did not that -- that i failed to question i believe, regarded racial profiling. such policies should never be tolerated or allowed in any police department. they aren't officially as far as but if we need-- to take measures to ensure there is no racial profiling, we should do that.

limited number of u.s. law enforcement officers participate in the exchange program with israel. it is very limited. it is important that the officers understand both before, during, and after their exposure to the israeli policing techniques that some of these are appropriate and work and are constitutionally permitted in the u.s. about others are not. simply rotten inc. the exposure of our law enforcement officers asother techniques, as long they are properly vetted and as long as they are properly limited here in the states, i think that is entirely appropriate. we need to do more to broaden our exposure of law enforcement officers to other areas, techniques, and cultures. host: stone mountain, georgia. caller: love c-span. thank you so much. this tomorrow, i'm from georgia.

i know your history. the work that you do -- this is what you have been dealing with. police reform so you say. i do not know what your organization has been talking about, what reform you have been advocating for. have beenu representing the police unions, but that is not what i am calling about. what i would like everyone to do is noe the time -- there way, know how that the police department should be taking up a ow thatan half -- no h the police department should be taking up more than half of anyone's budget. there jumping over fences, running through they are jumping over fences, running through neighborhoods -- let's talk about the

money, the percentage of the budget going to police officers in communities. , your callerof all mentioned my work with police unions. i have nothing whatsoever to do with police unions. i have never represented them. that is an entirely different matter. the police education foundation does not get involved in such -- law enforcement education foundation does not get involved in such matters. pay far mored to attention to these matters than they do. i am glad your caller is doing so. with regard to the percentage or amount that local and state governments should be providing to law enforcement, there is no one-size-fits-all, but i do think it ought to be viewed from the standpoint that the primary job of government is to provide

a safe environment whether at the state, federal, or local level for individual citizens to be able to exercise their freedom. reasonableiding a and sufficient budget for law enforcement ought to be one of the top priorities for government at all levels, with regards to the federal government of course it is somewhat different. here again, the job of the federal government, one of the primary jobs is to provide at the federal level that sort of safety net so that individuals within the country can operate in freedom. i think one other point to bring responimately, the sibility of an individual citizen to protect themselves is not the job of the state government or local government, to pick -- protect an

individual. the job of the government is to provide the overall environment within which individuals can exercise our god-given freedom. i know that sometimes gets a little convoluted but that is the primary perspective here that i operate from. .ost: we will go to illinois eric, a democratic color -- caller, you are up next. caller: i was concerned to read in the new york times today that againsts use tear gas demonstrators. could you comment on its use, which seems to me to be an extreme measure against their own citizens. what is the thinking behind it seeing as it has been banned in warfare? thank you. guest: very interesting question. thatis one of the issues

may be your color -- i don't know how old he has -- your caller, i don't know how old he is, but we can think back to waco, texas. one reason that tragedy unfolded in which our than 70 men, women, 70 babies were -- more than was women, and babies died because the federal government injected a certain gas compound into the building. it was known that that gas was potentially flammable and could explode, which unfortunately was what happened. use of tear-gassing domestically for demonstrations i don't -- the use of tear gas domestically for demonstrations i don't think should be limited. if a demonstration is moving in

the direction of -- of becoming violent, i think it may very well be appropriate to use certain types of lawful tear gas to help disperse the crowd and move them back. it has to be carefully used, but i do not think that a ban on any use of tear gas or other types non-incendiarys, gas should be outlawed. sometimes that line between a demonstration being peaceful and suddenly turning violent can be very quick. you have to allow the police to have a range of options available. ,ost: we will go to dave mckinley ville, california, republican. your question for the former congressman daca -- former congressman? have becomepolice

scapegoats for fundamental underlying social issues such as dissolution of the black family. i have a simple solution for police to stop killing black men. the solution is for black men to stop committing crimes and resisting arrest. host: mr. barr? guest: i think your caller correctly puts his finger on one of the important things to keep in mind when we look at this and that is the underlying cultural problems. the disintegration of the family importanteen a very factor in the increase in criminal activity on the part of young people, particularly young black men who are growing up or and more nowadays without these support -- this support from the

family unit itself with both a father and mother in the household as well as the neighborhoods support that we used to see, which was very important in communities, particularly black communities. i recall for example when i was serving as the u.s. attorney and atlanta in the 1980's, speaking with a high-ranking atlanta police officer, explaining to me as we looked out from my office window on downtown atlanta the neighborhood that he used to live in, which now was office buildings. he said when he used to live in that neighborhood on that street if he were to walk out in the early evening, neighbors would see him and say, "go back home, it is too late for you to be out here. have you done your homework?" the support that comes from those tight knit communities where neighbors watch out for neighbors is missing in so many

neighborhoods around the country. i think that the disintegration of the family unit has been a tragedy that has given rise to many of the violent acts on the part of youth we have seen in this country in recent years. host: pennsylvania, democratic caller. we are talking about police reform with bob barr. what is your comment? caller: i heard them ask you a question regarding training and i went to go back of that. six months training for cadets is not long enough. for you to understand constitutional rights. everything that they try to teach. take a look at that. is that something that you would be reforming and it training -- changing? six months training before you get into the field -- cadets are 18 years old.

36 in some states. you look at that as a cadet. i was 18 years old. i didn't even have the mentality to understand what i was getting involved in. host: i will leave it there because we are approaching the top of the hour and we want enough time for mr. barr to respond. guest: it goes back to the fundamental issue here -- you get better police with fewer problems and better training. it is not just the length of training, it is the quality of training that has to improve. it is your state and local officials primarily that have to do better at setting standards for training both quantitative and qualitative and in -- ensure sufficient money is available to implement those training standards. you: mr. barr, where do

think there could be compromised between the two sides in congress? on thei think certainly issue of militarization and putting limits and scaling back the provision of military equipment to police is something i think both sides could and should agree on. i think in proofing the money is support local to --ice to increase and superior training is important. providing money for much better record keeping for use of extremely important. these are some areas, training, data keeping, demilitarization are included both in republican and democratic proposals that will hopefully provide a basis for bipartisan legislation. some of the more complex issues

i mentioned earlier such as the one-size-fits-all standard democrats are proposing for use of force, i do not think are workable. u.s. bob barr, former congressman and now the president and ceo of the law enforcement education foundation, we thank you for your time this morning. that does it for this morning's washington journal. tomorrowack -- be back at 7:00 a.m. eastern time for more conversation with all of you. see you then. ♪ ♪ announcer: we are waiting for the senate thinking committee to begin their hearing with a jerome powell, expected to talk to lawmakers about the economy.

once that begins, we will bring you live coverage. in the meantime, we learn about what is on voters' minds when it comes to the 2020 presidential election in new hampshire. the statehouse borough chief for the union leader joining us from concord, new hampshire, and over the last 20-25 years the granite state has become a battleground. announcer: jerome powell is getting ready to testify. he will talk about monetary policy and the economy. you are watching live coverage on c-span. >> i will gently tap the gamble at 30 seconds remaining -- gavel at 30 seconds remaining and remind you that your time is almost expired. senator brown and i have agreed to go by seniority for this hearing.