and the important rulings yet to come. 9:45, inside elections reporter and analyst discusses key congressional primaries taking place today. ♪ good morning. it's tuesday, june 23, 2020. president trump is headed to the u.s. mexico border today near yuma, arizona for a ceremony marking the completion of 200 new miles of border while -- border wall. the president took action yesterday to further restrict legal immigration. monday the white house announced the temporary halt of several categories of employment uses, including one for highly skilled workers. president trump said the move was necessary amid the economic pain caused by coronavirus. this morning we are asking you about the new ban on job visas. do you support it?

if so, call in at (202) 748-8000 . it, (202) 748-8001. if you supported -- oppose it, (202) 748-8002. you can send us a text at (202) 748-8003. if you send us a text, let us know your name and where you are from. we are on c-span wj at facebook and on twitter. very good tuesday morning, you can start calling and now as we take you through the categories facing new visa restrictions through the end of the year and perhaps longer as a result of the president's actions yesterday. actions would impact foreign forers seeking h1 visas skilled high-tech workers, h two visas for seasonal workers, age four visas for spouses. l1 are executives transferring

from positions abroad with the same employer. and the action would impact visas including interns, trainers, teachers, au summer work travel participants. this includes some exceptions for those in health care or supporting the coronavirus response and for those who work in the country upon food service and food supply chain sectors. as julia of the migration policy institute points out, the proclamation by the white house does not affect people who already have valid visas or green cards, inside or outside the united states, or people applying for green cards or temporary visas from inside of the u.s. those are the categories of visa seekers that would be impacted by the action. for more on the why behind the kumar, turn now to anita

white house correspondent for politico joining us by phone this morning. some background on where the order came from and what the reaction was on capitol hill yesterday and around the country. guest: high, good morning. well, this started months ago. really it started at the beginning of the president's term. a lot of people wanted him to restrict even legal immigration. we think of illegal immigration, people that have come here and are undocumented, but this is legal immigration, people with mission to be here. the administration was really looking at it since the coronavirus hit, saying look the joblessness rate here in the united states is huge. we have seen how so many people have lost their jobs, why are we hiring foreign workers. remember in april, he issued an order two months ago saying that

he was going to restrict the number of people coming. not guestworkers, not the people coming for seasons or four temporary times, but the people getting visas to come here all the time for different jobs. all different kinds of jobs. that was restricted. what we saw over the last few months was a huge lobbying effort to immigration hardliners on capitol hill, people like tom cotton. people, immigration groups saying why are you letting guestworkers in when you are limiting these other immigrants and they really wanted these guestworkers included. yesterday the president finally did that, he made good on that promise. host: what was the reaction on capitol hill? did the people pushing for think it went are enough? guest: yes, there are brought exceptions, as you said, but this is the biggest restriction on immigration in quite some time.

immigration hardliners were very happy. you did see a lot of republicans saying that this was not the way to go. senator lindsey graham, a south carolina republican who is very much an ally of the president saying this was not the way to go. we heard from immigration in thiss who help them country, but also the big business lobby in the united states. chamber ofiness commerce tried to prevent this from happening. you saw a lot of tech companies. they say that even with the unemployment rate this high, there aren't enough american workers to take the jobs and they absolutely need foreign workers or they can't, their business can't go forward. you mentioned senator lindsey graham, here's a flavor of the statement he put out esther day in a series of texts, saying --

host: for those who oppose the action by the white house yesterday, and is it officially an executive order, or is it a proclamation? how should you be referring to it? it's an executive action that he did by proclamation in april and he added the guestworkers yesterday in the same proclamation and he did something else, the initial order was for 60 days and he has extended that as well through the end of the year. what's really interesting to me is how the president is going about this business, traveling now, saying that we are past the coronavirus and i make, but the reason for the order and the

proclamation is the coronavirus. on the one hand he's saying we have moved past that, on the other hand he's saying we haven't. guest: for those opposing it, is there legal challenge they can definitely ands, you have seen lawyers, immigration attorneys last night saying please contact me, we are looking at a legal challenge for this. so many of the presidents immigration orders and actions go through the court system. we saw one last week with the supreme court. i'm sure that this will quickly get there. caller: who is -- host: who is leading the effort on the front end of those challenges? see a lot of these immigration groups that favor immigrants coming here. you have seen business groups. you have seen attorneys. who will beat them? who will be the first to the courts? i'm not sure, but they will likely consolidate and say this is not in the best interest of

the united states. presidentsly, on the schedule today, he's headed to that ceremony marking 200 miles of wall completion. what else is on the schedule as he travels? he's alsoarizona doing an event that is sort of like a rally. it's afferent, i think young trump supporters rally. he will speak to them and as you mentioned, he will be in arizona, a huge state for him. he needs to win it in november. as the president travels again he's going to those public -- politically important states, even if he's doing official business. host: the president is expected to depart the white house at 9 a.m. eastern this morning. anita kumar, always appreciate your time. guest: sure, thank you. host: now we turn to your phone calls as president trump

restricts illegal immigration yesterday. if you support the effort, (202) 748-8001 is the number. if you oppose it, (202) 748-8002 . christian is up first out of arizona. good morning on the line for those who support. are you with us this morning? then we will try hairy in new jersey, also on the line for those who so work. harry, good morning. on yourkeep working calls this morning. we mentioned the order coming out from the white house via proclamation. the president putting his signature on the proclamation. here's part of what the president had to say in the proclamation.

host: that was the president in the proclamation available at whitehouse.gov. let's try the phone lines again. dan, ohio, on the line for those who oppose the order. dan, good morning. on we will keep working those phone lines for you to get your calls, get your thoughts this morning in this first hour ." "washington journal

phone lines a bit different this morning, that might be a part of the issue. if you support the proclamation, the order by the white house yesterday on immigration restrictions. for those who oppose it, (202) 748-8002 is the number. a few more tweets from members theongress and others about impact of this executive order, supported or oppose it. shelley pink ring following into the oppose it category. the democratic congresswoman saying this executive order --

host: congresswoman chellie pingree for you. we will try christian, in arizona. i believe it's the same christian we tried at the beginning of this program, on that line for those who support. christian, are you there? will keep working on the phones for you. a few more reactions with some more of the headlines this morning about this immigration order. the front pages of "the washington post," "the new york times," "the washington journal," it was one of their lead stories today, president

trump halt worker visas through 2020 that's the headline of the front page of "the washington times." this is how they played it -- "the one more here from wall street journal" for you -- host: that's just a bit of how it's playing on the front pages of national papers this morning. we will keep going through the reaction from groups that support and oppose this effort by the president, starting with the chamber of commerce. this is from the chamber of commerce ceo tom donahue, issuing this statement yesterday after the president released the order.

donahue, with the chamber of commerce and his statement that he put out yesterday. taking your phone calls again, working with us here as we work on the backup lines this morning. it's -- it's1

(202) 748-8001 if you support the actions of the president, , we will go to that line. on the first line for those that support? go ahead. >> i'm calling in regards to saying that president trump is doing a great job. i support him 100%. he's trying to make it a better america for all of us. let's all give him a chance. host: sorry i didn't catch your caller: brenda, from fort lee. host: we have talked about illegal immigration on this program, the president is on the border today to celebrate, commemorate the building of 200 miles of border wall.

do you support restricting legal immigration in this country? caller: i support what trump is doing to make it a better america. let's take care of the american people that are here first and then we can take care of anybody else who wants to come into our country for jobs. in newhat is brenda jersey this morning. california, jeremy, up early on the line for those who oppose the action at the white house. with the reaction that we went through so far this morning, tell me why you oppose. caller: first of all, thank you for taking my call. host: appreciate you calling in. i know you do a good effort being nonpartisan, giving everyone a voice and i appreciate that nowadays. anyway, i got to say i don't appreciate this executive order. i think it's tinted in racism and xenophobia.

could be slightly misogynistic. i'm just joking. i don't think there's a real issue with this. blocking out the high skilled workers from coming in and it's temporary. i think that right now we need to be focused on american citizens getting their jobs back . i think it's just a temporary order and i don't see anything wrong with it. thank you. host: mike in north carolina is next on the line for those who do supported. mike, go ahead. caller: having some phone problems this morning, are we? host: just a tad. [laughter] appreciate you sticking with us. caller: you guys do a good job. technology is technology. i support this. in response to senator graham, if you, if you, if you agree with this you don't understand economics. two things, i have a masters

degree in economics and i have worked in technology for over 25 years. wet are the two excuses always hear when we try to do something like this? one, we don't have enough skilled workers in america. what does that reflect? two things. reflecting an unwillingness or in incapability of our large technology companies, whether it is sas, software is in service, salesforce,know, netsuite, oracle, i can run down the list of every major software company in the united states, as well as, as well as the hardware technology companies. i have sold 3d printers and machine tools. where are the, where are the programs, where are the internships? the journeymen apprenticeship programs to get americans trained up to do this work?

we have known about the ever changing technology, the gig and the information technology for decades now. this isn't new. and on the other point, the companies don't seem to want to address this, like they do mostly in germany, where they, where they, where apprenticeships in certain -- r, r, iare our think they are subsidized to a certain extent. host: you brought up lindsey graham, i wanted to bounce off one of his tweets about this. you talked about the idea that american companies should be trying to give these jobs to work with americans. lindsey graham saying that the work visas for temporary and seasonal jobs covering industries like hospitality and forestry and other economic sectors can only be issued after american workers after -- after american workers have had a chance.

caller: and that makes sense and i appreciate that, but as they always say, classic cliche and many public policy debates, the devil is in the details, ok? how wide of a radius around a particular area are you casting this net to find employees to do forestry jobs, agriculture related jobs, so on and so forth? we have a serious unemployment problem in this country. i'm not saying we should go back to the work camps of the fdr again, i worked in technology, too. there's a gap, i agree with this. i don't think it's racism per se , but there's a big gap in technology with qualified and even willing minority groups, ok? technology jobs are mostly held by college-educated white people and i hate to get racist or racial about this, but we are

not, we are not serving, we are not tilting up our minority communities enough. i blame that on the public school system. who else is responsible? they have a monopoly on education in this country. paired with technology companies that lead the world, as far as the other stuff that's wonderful, but i think, i think, i think the presidents heart is in the right place here. i really regret again that it has to descendent to act as agents of bigotry, racism, xenophobia and whatever. we have got what, 20 million people out of work in this country right now? he's trying to stick up for them and he gets accused of not being what, i just don't understand it. he wants to try to encourage, because congress is obviously not going to do anything about this. host: i appreciate that call from north carolina.

in justifying the action yesterday, some of the white -- some at the white house have pointed to democrats in congress who have called for changes to program. visa senator dick durbin is somebody, a democratic senator from illinois, member of the senate leadership, the senate democratic leadership is one of those who sought changes in the past to the visa program. this was his reaction yesterday on twitter, saying "the action by the white house is not the right approach, we need to amend the program, not end it. instead of suspending the visas the trump administration needs to ask congress to pass the reform act of 2020 that reforms the program with a scalpel, not a sledgehammer." that's what he said. saying that the bipartisan bicameral bill with bill cut -- bill pascrell of california would protect american workers in and the abuse of the program

while ensuring employers could still hire talented immigrant workers when no qualified american is available to do the job." as we use the backup phone lines 202-737-0001 if you support the action of the president. -737-002 -- 0002 if you oppose it. good morning, i oppose everything this man in the white house puts forward. he has a war on black and brown people in this country. he is something else. i do not agree with anything that trump has to say. trump has a war on black and brown people in this country.

where do you stand on this effort aimed at legal immigration? the president marking efforts to restrict illegal immigration. where are you on illegal immigration in this country and what should be or not be done immigrantsaller: have been around. these european white people were around. agree with him sending these people back. if he's going to send them back, why don't he send his wife and the white house back? she's an illegal immigrant. he's an immigrant. host: a legal immigrant. caller: i don't believe she is legal. host: why don't you believe the first lady is legal? caller: i don't like her, i don't like him, i don't like none of it. but i tell you what, he's going to feel the wrath of every black

american, every immigrant in november. we are going to vote him out of that white house. that's michelle in georgia. blake is next, mississippi on the line for those who support the action at the white house yesterday. for this didn't vote president. and i have a disagreement with some of his policies. but come on, america, man. what are you? are you an immigrant? you have to ask yourself, why do you have a problem with this? i don't see why people have a problem with this. caller: why do you think people -- host: why do you think people shouldn't have a problem with this? caller: the american revolution, the civil war, they should have given black people reparations.

reason.no come on, america. like they said in north carolina, big companies, especially in urban america, when you tell everyone to come to this country and where do they come? they take the job of an african-american. they flood the schools with immigrants. you cannot take the people who least and beenhe the economic fuel for the last 200 years and leave them out there like stray dogs. we should do like they did the jews. that is blake in mississippi. tom is next. good morning.

tom, you with us? yeah, tom. hello? host: good morning. go ahead. caller: i am not against whatever the president wants to do. they have to come to the country legal. i feel like -- hello? host: i'm listening, tom. caller: in the islands, become legally, we come here to go to school. for of the kids come education and go back home to work. you understand what i'm saying? the president says people coming here to take jobs from american people. what are the black american jobs out there? we come, we get a job, we support our family, we do the

right thing and most of us go back home. the kids that come through the , we doesn't take money from the system to go to school. why turn on us? what is the reason for that? when did you, did you come to this country through the immigration process? what was that like for you? caller: i came in 1995. i came legally. six years after that i got married. i brought my kids from the islands here to go to school. i attended college, university. there was a program for the kids to come to school.

it was for all the universities of florida. visa thatit a work you came on originally? caller: yes. teaching high school. host: what do you teach? caller: teaching kindergarten, established kindergarten. i had a business visa that i came on also so that i could export back to the island. we bought a lot of stuff from florida and shipped back to the island. that is tom in florida. appreciate the call, thank you for telling us about your experience. it's about 7:30 on the east coast and we are talking about yesterday's action to restrict visas, work visas and other types of visas for legal immigration visas to this country through the end of the year. the action by the president yesterday aimed at what the

white house said was ensuring americans can fill those jobs amid the economic turmoil caused by the coronavirus pandemic. a review of the types of visas being impacted by this action by the white house yesterday, it would impact foreign workers , h2bng h one v visas visas, seasonal work. h-4 visas, for the spouses of holders,l-1 visas, and visas, looking to become interns in the united states. pairs,s, teachers, au summer work, travel programs, the white house announcing that there would be exceptions to the restrictions for those in the health-care care industry supporting coronavirus response

and for those who work in the food supply chain. that's what we are talking about this morning, the new restrictions that are in place at least through the end of this year and getting your reaction online for those who support the effort. , for support. for those who oppose, (202) 748-8003. caller: good morning, how are we doing today? host: doing alright, getting through. caller: i live in a rural area. we had potato farms all over the place with immigrants doing the harvest. it only lasts a month and a half to two months depending on the weather. once trumpets the order in, we lost all the immigrants. but guess what happened? our company, my company that i work for, they hired 200 black people down in florida, some of them were from haiti. here we go, saying we need our immigrants for farming.

it was so cool to have these black folks -- i have a lot of black brothers and sisters and we could communicate. working with immigrants, they don't speak english, so it's a real difficult situation and it's a very high risk of getting hurt. because you can't communicate. i was in a factory inside doing the harvest of potatoes and the woman didn't understand english and i almost lost my arm because i'm telling her to shut down the machine and she didn't understand what i was talking about. host: to this question on the president instituting these new restrictions, the idea behind it is to try to get american workers into these jobs at a time when there are so many out of jobs. do you think there will be enough people to fill those jobs that you are talking about?

american workers in the area they are or who would take the jobs you are talking about? caller: yes, it's already happening, ok? del monte is right down the block from us. that used to be all immigrants. ok? there's no more immigrants. it's american people getting these jobs. you always think we don't want to do these jobs. when you don't have any job, you will take anything, just like the immigrants. they stop us from getting raises. they will take any pay. five years into a company and suddenly your raises stop because of immigrants? it's really, i'm not against immigration if they come through the front door, you know what i'm saying? it's the illegal ones. host: but that's what we're talking about, legal immigration restrictions. caller: well, i don't know, i'm just going by my experience, knowing about farmers relying on we don't have to.

think about all the black folks that got jobs. caller: that's sharon in wisconsin this morning. this order yesterday from the white house would exclude restricting visas for those who work in the food supply chain in this country. spelled out inly the proclamation from the white house yesterday. one of the reactions by text this morning in chicago -- host: along with this proclamation, other actions by the white house yesterday having scale ofh the pay foreign workers coming in uncertain visas.

it's spelled out in "the washington times" today about the actions yesterday, saying that these actions could reshape the way that tech companies operate, forcing them to look first to american workers and raise the wages for the foreign workers they do hire, creating an upward push on pay overall, noting that homeland security will propose a rewrite of how h-1b visas are doled out currently, as they are currently put out by lottery with 200 and 25,000 applications submitted last year and under the new proposal the highest paying 85,000 jobs will get the visas and the results will be upward pressure on wages. they write that soul-searching at companies that make the most of the program, the administration will also issue regulations requiring minimum pay be 50% of the local prevailing wage, which could tamp down on businesses trying to use the visas to cut costs by avoiding american workers.

it's more than just a visa restriction. these other executive actions and proposals are being rolled out. getting your reaction to all of this spending in the first hour of our program this morning. david, texas, on the line for those who oppose the action. myself, i don't understand the thinking of the american people. they think that president trump has done anything for us. he's done nothing. in the eyesered us of the world. we cannot go one place in the world now, being american, without the risk of being killed because of our president. why do you say that? what do you .2? caller: take your little bottom, take it to iran and see how long

you can walk the streets without being disappeared. take it to russia. take it to china. we are so hated everywhere because of our actions that we are not safe anywhere in the world. i think it's time that we brought the military into our country so that we can get the people in charge that will do good for our country. we know what the right thing to do and we know what the wrong thing to do. this is all wrong. you don't handle a crisis like this. precision.it with with respect. -- host:ou are saying you are saying military leaders are better at that? caller: the military will allow us to be safe while we make washington make the laws that need to be made in our country to make our life fairer. we cannot even leave -- live in

this country anymore because it costs too much. our apartments, our houses, our jobs don't pay anything. you're going to have to reverse everything. have to either make the jobs pay more or lower the price of all the food that you just raise the price on, all of the apartment living that you just doubled the price on and these 100 thousand dollar houses that are now 300 and $50,000. what kind of world do you think you are living in? host: that's david in texas this morning. richard, on the line for those who support the action out of the white house. go ahead, richard. caller: good morning. boy, there is a lot of different ways you can go with this. to work,e going to go going to bring your family over --e, your aunts, your ankle your aunts, your uncles, your

cousins in a chain migration, that's what he's talking about. if we had done the ppp that they wanted, that would have meant a major company, like ge, they could take a group of employees that we lived in a certain country and bring them in and fill a certain bridge in america and then they go home, ok? my biggest problem is, i don't begrudge any man, woman, child for trying to get to america. my god, everyone's trying to get here. but at the end of the day of all the jobs went to china and we have been watching this since the nixon administration, it's a situation where technology has taken over so a lot of your low-paying jobs have been taken over by technology, like retail. farming, a lot of technology coming into play there. i don't begrudge the people for wanting to come here, but if you want to become an american citizen, you come in, you take the test, you become the american citizen, drop your flag

from the other country, raise the american flag and stand tall. all that said, the american people in this country, black, white, american born, if you want a job and you want what's going on in america to work for you, you had better get in there, rich, poor, whatever you have to do. if you are living in a blighted community, stick your thumb out and hitchhike out of there. it's up to you to make your life. same thing with the immigrants. you got to give them credit, they are trying to get a better life. in america, they think you're going to give you something. no one has ever given me a thing except for my parents and they did the best that they could with what they had to do with. all i'm saying to the american people is that we have to get educated. don't get a history degree or an arts degree if you can't make any money. know how to build something. if u.s. 90% of the urban american of -- youth if they

could go plant a flower or grow a garden, they couldn't and when times get brat -- get bad like in the great depression, the soup lines, all the things that went on, you will hope you knew how to do something. minutes left in this segment, getting your reaction as to whether you support or oppose the proclamation out of the white house yesterday restricting legal immigration, that's what we are talking about certain visa programs in this country. want to keep you updated about what's happening around capitol hill in washington. as we said, president trump leaving the white house in about an hour, 20 minutes, to head to arizona. the u.s. mexico border, a border patrol station in yuma will be his first stop at 11 a.m. local time in yuma before he heads down to a ceremony marking the completion of 200 miles of border wall.

then later this afternoon he will be participating in an event with republican youth addressed tond young americans is what the president is expected to deliver at about 3:40 local time out phoenix, arizona. look to c-span.org later today for our coverage of that event. on capitol hill today, yesterday, of course there was a brief pro forma session in the house and the senate. returning again today at 10 a.m. eastern to resume debate on judicial nominations. you can watch that on c-span2. the house will not be in again until wednesday for another pro forma session later this week on thursday and friday at 9 a.m., this week on thursday and friday, a lot of business is happening this week. committee hearings are still taking place, despite no action on the floor of the house today,

including a hearing today on coronavirus response, featuring the leaders of the presidents coronavirus response teams, including dr. anthony fauci, dr. robert redford. -- redfield. you can listen to that on the free c-span radio app. that hearing is before the house energy and commerce committee at 11 a.m. today. speaking of committee work and other events happening in d.c., we are covering john bolton speaking at an event at "the washington post," a q&a there, there session with john bolton on the day of the release of his new book, "the room where it happened." we are covering that today on c-span2, c-span.org, you can listen to that on the free c-span radio app. one other effort we wanted to let you know about, news out of

the judiciary committee yesterday being reported by , the house judiciary committee chairman jerrold nadler preparing to subpoena the attorney general for his testimony on july 2, that's when they are looking for that according to a committee spokesperson. the expected subpoena comes after the firing of jeff berman, the u.s. attorney for the southern district of new york who had been investigating rudy giuliani. ranking member jim jordan made reference to the subpoena plans in a letter obtained by axios. daniel schwartz, a spokesperson for nadler, confirmed that they are seeking the testimony of bar and they plan to subpoena him if he doesn't agree to testify next week. so, watch for action on that today and over the course of this week. back to your phone calls this morning talking about the efforts to limit legal immigration, visa restrictions announced yesterday by the white

house. john has been waiting to talk about it down in florida on the line for those who soup the efforts. john, go ahead. caller: good morning, thank you for take my call. yes, i support donald trump 100% completely. i don't think there's anyone that could really for sure on the democratic side could even come close to him on that. i was born on the south side of chicago. i grew up in a union family. i left chicago, i got out of that and i learned that democrats just use you. the vast majority of americans should know that by now, that's all they do is use you. one thing i like about donald trump, the wall, security, but also america first. if microsoft needs more, train the people here and we will get them. but to just keep bringing them in? give america first a chance. that's the whole idea.

what about if these companies cannot find the workers for these jobs? should they then turned to foreign workers? just like the gentleman before with the masters, and i have an mba myself, i don't think they really look. let's put it that way. how wide of a net did they put out? the bottom line is the government should have a list of all the people looking for jobs with their skills. you need something? choose it from there. it's not retraining. after you have gone through that then we can bring people in. i have worked for labs where we brought in engineers and this and that, but again, try to keep, just like you know at least use the constitution as a guideline. and we should say that maybe we should look for our people first. host: usually -- you think the federal government should become

something of an employment agency? caller: not an employment agency, but we are trusting, you know, google. to look for someone here when they could find people for a lot less overseas and bring them in here. you don't think businesses are going to, you know, try to save a buck? i mean of course, they are going to bring people in before bringing americans. but again, i do agree with the other gentleman that called in saying yes, if you are in an area like chicago, detroit, get out of there. bottom line, i lived there, i dropped out of high school. i got my mba in a physics lab. just worked to get it out. the bottom, you know, this gets back to donald trump. america first. host: got your point. john, florida. heather is in texas. on the line for those who oppose. go ahead.

heather, you with us? trump is a capitalist and believes in capitalism, like his claim is to the glory of the united states, then let companies hire who they want to hire. there should be no restrictions, the covenant should not choose the winners and losers. it isn't the job of the government. the government should only protect our right to property and mutual resources. the fact that he is saying i believe in capitalism, but i'm going to choose, this is why we lose now. because he's not that smart. being a capitalist country, we can decide for ourselves. the fact that the united states has not educated enough people in computer programming engine -- engineers, that's a problem. but you can't tell companies that you can't hire the people

they need to make themselves successful. conversationf this has revolved around legal immigration. i take your point on that. what if companies want to hire illegal workers? callers already today have pointed out that companies will try to spend the least amount on labor. would you be ok with the federal government restricting the employment of illegal, undocumented workers? i can hire someone undocumented to clean my house and mow my lawn and i think that's ok, ,ecause they are working working for a living and i believe that's the american way. i think it's ok. cities wherethese they are protected from the repercussions of any type of government saying we are coming after you because you did , especially the

cities on the border of texas, where i have family, they hate it, they hate it. it's horrible for them. these people, my family, the people on the border of texas, doing the right thing and having to deal with infiltration. a lot of them are criminals that don't care to do the right thing. that was heather out of texas. brown, good morning. caller: i would like to say one thing to two callers ago. andt run from chicago detroit, let's make those cities great again. school,he was in high he was able to learn a skill. an companies to give you internship where you cannot only become an expert or master tradesmen in the position, but

it provides you with a skill that you can apply to a life for the most part. you can always make money when you have a skill. having said that for the most part, when i think about the legals and illegals coming over here, it should be a balance for the most part but if you want to put america first, you've got to hire or cast that net, like the previous caller said about six callers ago, cast a wider net. top the 20 million get back work. help america become great again if you put your workers to work. not to become racial with nothing, but i'm pretty sure anyone who looks at the dynamics work, you can almost apply any type of, any type of racist or illegal to the problem for the most part. you know? anyway, that's my take on it. let's make america great again and put americans to work. once people are working, believe

me, a lot of the headaches will fall by the wayside. host: to the callers that have been saying that americans take the jobs or have a chance to get these jobs, on twitter they point this out when it comes to the h-1b visa restrictions. visas for skilled and high tech workers, saying -- host: taking your reaction and comments for another five minutes or so this morning. plenty of callers now, and we appreciate you sticking with us this morning as we had some phone issues earlier in the program. ron from ohio is next on the line for those who supported the action from the president. go ahead. caller: well, to start with i don't have an exact count, i don't think anyone in this nation does for sure know how

many illegal immigrants, whatever they want to be labeled, are existing in our country now. without taking on the fact of bringing more workers in, which all it does -- host: we are talking about two different things. restrictions to legal immigration, the legal pathways being shut down through the end .f the year that's what the white house is talking about. what the president did this morning was go to the border to talk about the border wall in the illegal immigration issue, but these restrictions would be on the legal path to immigration. well, that's understandable. again, we don't need to take the risk of inheriting more possible virus carriers into the nation. we have an abundance. we have an abundance of contagious people.

runninge the protesters nationwide and worldwide. you have got people inheriting the virus daily, walking around the streets of this country. we are going to bring in more on top of that? host: if that is your concern, would you be in favor of a complete foreign travel in this country? a lot more people are traveling in and out that way than through the immigration path. caller: yes, i'm not picking just on the, if they want to call them, the color of their i don't prefer the brown and black thing in this terminology. be a description that isn't so discriminatory in terminology and if the nation wants to go wild and ballistic systemic racism that is. but i don't think there's any

racism to this. it's just a matter of fact. it's not to be played with at .his time in our nation we have got what, 100 and 20,000 cases nationwide to start with without bringing more of a .urden on to our nation whether it is work related what it relates to, it's asinine and ignorant to even think about bringing more workers from foreign countries. that is ron and ohio. deborah, new jersey on the line for those who support the president's actions. go ahead. deborah, are you by your phone? then we will go to rick in massachusetts on the line for those who oppose. rick, good morning. caller: a lot of the stuff that trump is talking about, it's the

funniest way he got in there. no one can look at that resume. host: rick, let's talk about the legal immigration path. the guy talking about illegal aliens? the people busted behind him and whatnot. this is nothing but a bunch of phony garbage stuff is talking about. he can't come up with his own slogan. that was ronald reagan's thing, you know what i'm saying? you going to talk about helping poor people? you got to do better than coming out there at a rally. the guy don't even talk about nothing. all he talk about is himself. when he got off that helicopter, you saw how stupid he looked, trying to grip drag people to a rally, making people sick out here. telling all these lies. saying you don't need to wear masks and this stuff. how you going to have people working being sick, you know what i'm saying? host: that's rick in

massachusetts this morning. frank, delaware, on the line for those who support the white house action. go ahead. caller: what part of america first don't these people understand out there? he's the most pro-person you've that she would ever want to meet for the workers. friends,ican-american give it away from that democratic party. get out of chicago. that's all i have to say. texas.ames is in next. good morning. james, you are with us. yes.r: basically, i'm glad he did it. although i feel like he's three years late doing it.

i have a masters degree in engineering and i have not been able to find work in over five years. companies that take my resume, they won't even give me interviews for positions i can do with one hand tied behind my back. host: and you think the reason for that is the amount of work visas that we give out, i'm assuming? and you are especially concerned about the h-1b visas? caller: some of the others as well. i have applied to six month contract positions that have been sitting there for as much as a year. the contract houses don't even get any feedback. but the farmworkers? they get interviewed rather -- foreign workers get interviewed rather easily. same work. texas.hat's james in our last caller in this first

."gment of "washington journal former home insecurity secretary tom ridge just to talk about voting security ahead of the november elections and later, the head of the accountability center joins us to talk about the important rulings in the supreme court that are yet to come. we will be right back. ♪ week, watch house loads on policing reform and legislation, thursday live on c-span. the house debates and votes on the reform bill. c-span,riday, live on the house will vote on legislation to designate the district of columbia as a state. watch this week, live thursday live --ay on c-span, on

online at c-span.org free c-span radio app. what do you think we can do about that? >> with police reform, protests, and the coronavirus affecting the country, watch our live, theltered coverage of response, governors, mayors, updating situations. from the campaign 2020 trail, join the conversation everyday on our live call-in program, " washington journal." >> "washington journal" continues. host: c-span viewers know tom ridge former secretary of homeland security. one of his projects has been to serve as cochair of a group. what is vote safe?

how did you get involved? guest: vote safe is a bipartisan effort and cochairing this initiated -- initiative with the foreman or -- former admission, jennifer granholm. is to see that on november 3 there are safe voting for people. we sent out letters to encourage to make sure options were open. in person, safe and secure opportunities and likewise for absentee ballots. we also encourage them if they , given the severe economic conditions, if they needed additional dollars to help create and sustain those options, we have chosen not to

be too timid and insist that congress or via financial provide-- congress financial support. let's vote safe and secure. residential, senate, local elections, we want maximum participation. host: let's talk about the option of mail-in voting. joining us a day after president trump expressed his concerns about mail-in voting and whether it would be secure, you say safe and secure. how do you make mail in voting safe and secure. guest: it has been historically. interestingly, the states on some envelopes remind people of the penalties for fraud, pacific financial significant fines and imprisonment. ballotsion absentee were looked at him and cast over the last 20 years.

fraudound in 200 cases, had been litigated and people found guilty of improper action. it is a somewhat fraudulent statement to say historically there have been massive fraud in elections because of abuse of the absentee ballot process. and, i don't claim it to be a perfect system, but the infrequency of the impropriety -- remember, 200 cases out of 250 million suggests that the state andcials at the local level do a good job monitoring city ballots. host: we mention the president's series of tweets yesterday, starting talking about mailing to theconcerns referring attorney general interview on fox news when she was asked a

question about it. i want to play a little bit and get you to respond. [video clip] >> it opens the gates to fraud. they can be taken out. a lot of the states have you signing the outside of the envelope, so the purpose -- person who opens the envelope will now how people voted. a foreign country could print up tens of thousands of counterfeit ballots and it would be hard for us to detect, and which was the right and wrong ballot. it can upset and undercut the confidence and integrity of our elections. if anything, we should tighten them up. host: a few concerns there from the attorney general. guest: where'd you get the opportunity to publicly and respectfully disagree with the attorney general of the united states. there is a first for everything.

the fact of the matter is, the opportunity to commit fraud has existed since the civil war. secondly, the cautions at the state and local levels can minimize the impact with social security checks and there are ways local officials can validate or invalidate and authenticate mail-in ballots and absentee ballots. what sows the seeds of doubt and the notion of an illegitimate election is this very thought that somehow after decades of appropriate use of absentee ballots that suddenly the administration is raising these concerns. i would remind the attorney general and the president of the united states that the victory in 2016 was in an election where

25 percent of americans voted in absentee ballots. i would remind the president of the united states that the president, the vice president, members of the cabinet and administrative -- administration have voted at multiple times in absentee ballots. rather than raising fraud if they are concerned, it seems to me they would be paying close attention to and working with republicans and state governors and republican and democrat state governors to ensure any abuse was eliminated through the appropriate oversight in collaboration with the state. it is a red herring, and you begin to wonder if they are concerned about fraud or they are concerned about outcome. i just think they should be paying attention to maximizing voter turnout. one of the things that governor granholm and i agree on is that

voting in the united states, a lot of people believe and sometimes it is taught, is a privilege of citizenship. i personally believe it is a responsibility of citizenship and incumbent upon both parties, republican and democratic parties, to maximize participation at the polls. if you take a look at the results in 2016, it was 61% of americans voted. think about that. nearly formally -- nearly 40% chose not to vote for the president of the united states. elevateties need to their game and encouragement for maximum participation. if you are concerned about fraud, work with state and local officials to eliminated. that is the best way to go about dealing with potential abuse. -- host: tom ridge,

viewers knowpan him as the republican governor of pennsylvania from 1995 to 2001 and secretary of homeland 2005,ty back in 2003 to here to take your calls. phone lines a bit different this morning. 20, 737, 0014 democrats, -- we believe the numbers up on your screen. we realize they are different this morning. they are backup numbers and we appreciate you dealing with that. 25%etary ridge, you say absentee vote rate back in 2016. what do you project it will be in 2020 amid the age of pandemic. guest: i think it is an important question.

it is germane to the vote safe of -- ase as well one well. one of the reasons governor granholm and i agreed to chair this was the basic concern that americans might be put in a position to choose between potentially exposing themselves to covid-19 by going to the polls are not voting at all. wet is just not a choice think we should put our fellow citizens in the position to have to make, so the alternative to waiting around with amounts, and let's meet very clear, epidemiologists have suggested, and time will tell that there is a real possibility there could be a second wave, god forbid it be as horrific as this first death, but the00 could be a reemergence of covid-19 in the fall and we do

not want our fellow citizens to make that very difficult decision, should i vote or not vote. those who choose to vote, we want safe and secure polling stations. we think there will be an unprecedented number of people voting absentee this time around . that is why the concerns expressed by the president and the attorney general about potential fraud, if they really believe that, then the focus on to be on ensuring all of the precautions are taken at the state and local level to maximize participation, but to minimize fraud. host: i wonder your thoughts on the concerns raised in the lead story today in the "washington post" that a lot of people will be voting absentee ballot, the day of results for the presidential election is unlikely to be november 3 and that voters turning to mail-in

ballots could mean long waits until the results are announced, and what that could mean in the meantime as people wait for those ballot to be counted, whether people will trust that process and whether concerns might be raised, whether from the white house or others, about whether voters can trust that process. guest: i haven't seen the article, but as you described it, it seems to me somebody broke the glass and pulled the alarm to try to raise the concern that frankly americans ought to dismiss. it is more important to have an accurate count than a speedy one. by the way, it could be a very close race. no one has that cristobal to predict the outcome -- crystal ball to predict the outcome. the election is on november 3 and is wearing is january 20. if you feel like there is a

concern with the voting, there are ways to expedite counting, but suggesting that somehow we are into immediate gratification and like to note results immediately that we have to be concerned that the network models may prove to be inaccurate or a little off, i think we just need a thoughtful look at what the election process is all about. it may be overwhelming when way or the other, we have five months before the election, so i don't think we should be raising any alarms. headline int the the newspaper that it may take a while to count millions and millions, that could be true. done,ing they could be and my state of pennsylvania is an example, the law in pennsylvania says that local countals cannot begin to

absentee ballots until 7:00 p.m. the night of the election. i don't how that applies to the other 49 states, but if you want to accelerate the counting of votes, you can certainly make those significant changes in the individual states to accelerate the process. host: should there be a national standard? guest: i like to see them make the recommendations, but i think the different states go about things differently. i don't onto sacrifice that notion, but if there were recommendations -- and again, this is where the president and the attorney general, if they , thehat concerned legislatures across this country could take a look at their own internal rules and they could

begin counting absentee ballots before the election, election night. host: tom ridge it with us taking your phone calls. (202) 737-0001 four democrats. (202) 737-0002 plenty of callers waiting to chat. victoria is first out of connecticut on the line for democrats. good morning. caller: i wanted to tell you that you do an excellent job. you are never biased and i am glad to watch you every morning. i have been an election official for 35 years. no clue how the elections work. none of the higher ups do. there is an outer envelope and you signed your name to it.

then there is an inner one when you separate the votes. no one knows how you vote. .hat is my comment i think there should be a national election rule of law for every state and everyone .ould have to do the same thing host: what keeps you coming back to volunteer your time in that effort at the polls and doing it for so long? caller: i just enjoy the people. i was born in my small town in connecticut and people know me and trust me. if they need help with a line or where go i help them. i just enjoy the people. it is a small town. i was also the librarian in my town. it is something you do as a civil service, but i get upset when misinformation goes out to scare people like bill barr

saying they will know how you vote. that scares people. i have friends who have asked me, do they know how i vote, and i said there is no way. i do 100 ballots conversing with we do is open them and throw the outer ones in the garbage and then lock them and then we read them. no one knows how you vote. thank you for the call and thank you for what you do. tom ridge? guest: i want to put multiple exclamation points after says.hing that patriot we have thousands of people in the primary and general elections on an annual basis who give up the day, who have entrusted with the importance of

self government and that is standing by to assist and counting votes when it is all said and done. the percent of people in washington, d.c. to denigrate or question their personal integrity as they go about engaging the process, i find beyond disappointing. it is disturbing to me. i want to thank her for outlining what they do in connecticut. that is a process that most states, to my knowledge, employee, and other states might do more. i want to thank her for her service and remind your listeners that there is a process that thousands of people on election day, your friends, neighbors, your kids to school with their kids, go to church, you socialize together, they take those responsibilities seriously and the suggestion don't do their job properly is very disturbing. host: robert is next out of

maryland on the republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. secretary ridge, i want to talk to you. my question is voter fraud is irrelevant. approximately002, 5 million black babies were aborted in this country, and that is why donald trump is going to be the next president. when you kill eight out of nine people that would vote for you, that is why president trump and i voted for him and he is going to win again. host: stick around for our next segment where we will focus on the supreme court key decision yet to be released this term on abortion access. it has to do with a case in louisiana and we will talk about more. tom ridge, did you want to weigh in on that and the decisions they have already come down? guest: i appreciate the

opportunity, but i dare not go down a path i have not yet traveled. so i will say no. host: i just wanted to give you the opportunity. paul is next from tennessee. caller: good morning. i would like to say right offhand that we need to get away from this democrat and republican crop. -- crap. that has ruined this country. i had a younger brother who tried an experiment and i went with him. he voted for obama three different times in three states. host: can you explain a little more about how that happened and how that was allowed to happen? had three drivers licenses or three different states and he had an address in three different states and he voted in all three states.

it was just an experiment. he wanted to show that voter fraud does exist. host: tom ridge? guest: i suspect the statute of limitations may apply, so he can avoid prosecution for abusing the system. don'tnot perfect and i envision thousands of people would deploy that to demonstrate there are flaws in the system. but i would say this -- the about democrats and republicans and i would add -- neither party is advantaged by absentee voting. there is not inherit advantage for the democrat or republican party for absentee votes. there is an advantage to the party or the candidate that

chooses to focus on that alternative to get his or her supporters to the polls. so one of the things i really am somewhat befuddled by is that i've got a president of the united states, the incumbent, who has a sophisticated team around him, who has a huge warchest, who has millions of electronic followers -- how and why the president wouldn't be encouraging his followers and his state chairman in all 50 parties to maximize the use of absentee ballots is beyond comprehension for me. because it seems to me at this point in time, the inventors are inherit to him and his incumbency. i might also say -- if he is interested in retaining the senate as republicans and

hopefully, from his perspective, flipping the house from democrat to republican, collaborating and working as individual candidates , incumbents and challengers, can maximize absentee voter participation, which seems to be a focal point of his national campaign. i assure you there is not an incumbent or challenger within the republican party -- if they are they are making a mistake -- who will ignore the reality in covid-19 environment and with historically military people voting absentee and people with disabilities and people overseas voting absentee, that they will ignore the reality or the opportunity to get maximum participation from absentee ballots. it is almost counterintuitive to what he did because he voted absentee. it is counterintuitive because he has all the assets available

to him to maximize participation. it is counterproductive if you want to keep the senate republican and flip the house, why he would be working with your party to make sure those candidates receive maximum support. i just don't understand it. i wonder if they are worried about fraud or outcomes. host: we have spent $1.2 billion in this country since 2016 to better secure our elections. what have we gotten for that? guest: i think there are a couple of things. we need to do more. we have some electronic balloting. there was a recent bipartisan commission out of washington, d.c., republicans and democrats, house and senate members, said they want secure electronic balloting but ironically if we secure it we want to have a

paper trail in building redundancy. i think the concern about the electronic impact on balloting in the november 3 elections is focused -- i realize on some of the machines -- but it should be more focused on misuse of social media. bipartisan a intelligence committee in the senate of the united states, again, bipartisan, there were particularly,sia, but you cannot discount china, north korea, influencing voter outcome by tinkering with machines and we have to be wary of that and trying to use social media to influence voters to vote or not vote. there is a lot more to be done. i don't mean to give this long monologue, but i noticed there were long lines in atlanta and elsewhere in the primaries and a

lot of it has to do with the new voting machines. where additional dollars need to be expended, additional time needs to be taking is train, train, train. new voting machines -- sounds like first impressions for men and women were to get assistance at the voting stations aired we need to train them to do a better job and then call in vendors to help out. they paid a lot of money and you have to instruct people properly. we have plenty of time to do it. host: taking your phone calls. (202) 737-0001 for democrats. (202) 737-0002 for republicans. (202) 628-0205 for independent. voting security in campaign 2020 is our topic. sergio in florida, a democrat, you are next. caller: good morning, john, how

are you? host: doing well. you are on with tom ridge. how are you, sir? guest: everyday is a good day. thank you for asking. --ler: my question is this how can we get our votes heard, to display our votes and how can we protect our votes , especially from interference? host: thank you for the question. guest: you raise and interesting question, whether or not nationally we will have people able to vote online, i think would be innovative things and that would be the ultimate security challenge for voting officials everywhere, because every time you are connected to

the internet, you expose it to vulnerability. we are a long way, if i understood his question correctly, from voting online from your homes and the like. government,at the state and local and federal, are doing all they can to provide cybersecurity around some of the new machines. training the elected officials at the local level -- i think the system by and large is insulated from the concerns at the heart of your question, we have done a good job of securing elections over the past several decades. the more we use electronic ballots, frankly the more vulnerable the system will be. that is why, ironically, this commission, bipartisan

commission, that people look at cybersecurity and they focus on elections and they said, you do have electronic balloting and you need to have a paper backup. you raised a good question, but i don't think we will go to massive online voting, if ever. host: what is your prediction for the turnout for 2020 question mark guest: -- the turnout for 2020? guest: john, ever since i was a young man -- when i was in military in vietnam and the average age of the man who i was privileged to serve with died were less than 20 years of age. servedlly, those men who couldn't vote for the commander and chief, because you had to be 21.

finally, in 1971, they reduced oat -- the age to vote to 18. i am concerned that people twice a year are asked to express their citizenship and responsibilities of citizenship to select their leaders. my biggest concern is that in , oncritical election november 3, it is the most important national election at the time. my biggest concern is that we will not have the turnout i think we need a government in this democracy. i am confident that in the next four months, the state and federal and local officials will work together. i would like more pulling stations. polling seeing --

stations. you are seeing people who give up their day and a lot of people have not done it due to covid-19. my biggest concern is you will have a significant reemergence of covid-19 in november and you will have a reduction of poll workers and stations. that is why governor granholm and i say safe and secure options. don't create my health or my vote. let's have absentee ballots at the ready so americans can exercise their civic responsibility and vote. host: republican, indiana, good morning. is a republican, indiana, good morning. the extent of the people risk don'twho are at

vote because they go to churches and other places. we need to have young people stepping up. my concern is all the community voting that they are doing in different states. i don't see how they are ever going to get that down. elections, state every two years you vote on representatives. , we are votings for senators and the presidential election. when these community voters go out in new york city and california and oregon and washington and denver because they have community voting, how are we ever going to decide

because it is clueless stated a citizen. it has been changed time and time again. there is no safety for the citizens. it sets me that everyone says new voting thing will work. they don't even have to show an id. when i originally registered in indiana, i had to show my social security number. how are we ever going to make when citizensair vote on the president. host: we will take your point. tom ridge? guest: part of the conversation i regret i couldn't make out. could you make it a simple question. host: he was mostly concerned

about talking about the voting rules that some localities have that allow noncitizens to vote in local elections, not federal, whether that becomes something of a slippery slope and whether noncitizens, we can find out whether they tried to vote in federal elections. in the latter part was more concerned about the idea of mail-in voting and not having to present an id to prove who you are and that you are a citizen and the security of mail-in voting by not being able to present that. guest: local officials have a registrar and some do purge the lists on a fairly regular basis. others, sometimes there is a longer delay. i know there is some concern and controversy about stale voter registration lists. i would say to the gentleman

that most officials at the local level do all they can to sure that the voting registration lists are current and that the people registered to vote actually are the ones who get to the polling places. the woman from connecticut identified earlier in this conversation that we had this morning, there are ways they checked against potential fraudulent votes by checking signatures and other devices they employ to validate the boats. i would say to the gentleman, it is an imperfect system and wanted to individual persons may sneak through but the whole notion that it is a huge national fraudulent enterprise, casting seeds of doubt into the november 3 election, i think is statement the

president likes to say, it is fake news. host: earlier we were talking about spending on the election structure that you think we could spend more. wonder if you think more of that spending the potential for more absentee ballots could go to the u.s. postal service. diaspora because ron wright's on, as a former mailman, i can tell you the post office is not ready to do this. absentee voting has increased and it has caused no trouble from separating votes from the mail stream too late arriving ballots. guest: i would say especially to this gentleman. i get a lot of solicited mail every day, a ton. and somehow you are able to deliver that without question and without comment. suddenly the notion of one more piece of mail and every individual mailslot is somehow becoming an incredible burden

that falls on bad ears to start on an almost deaf ears. i think the postal service has a lot of good men and women who do their job well. an additional piece of mail in the sorting room in order to deliver it or to get it to the local officials i don't believe is an undue burden and, frankly, i think you and your fellow workers can do the job admirably and as a citizen, i would expect you to do it. that is part of your role in the process of seeing to it that the november 3 election is conducted and we maximize dissipation. by the way, they can, rain, snow, sleet, all my mail gets to my mailbox. one more piece will not make much difference to you and your fellow mill carriers. host: a washington post story we talked about today had this as a

factor when it comes to when we will know on election day who the winner is. another big factor is the deadline for returning completed ballots. some states require them to arrive by voting day. but some states require them only to be postmarked by election day. five states require postmarked the day before. ohio allows ballots that are postmarked by election day to arrive as late as 10 days after the election. days.ada, it is seven i know we were talking about a national standard and it is not something you support, but do you think that may cause confusion in the days and weeks after november 3? guest: the confusion arises if people think they need to know who the winner is on election night. confusion arises if the election is close. there is no confusion if the election is close. ballot officials around the

country have to meticulously go through and count all absentee ballots. thee is a false premise and premise is that americans need to know -- and i guess that is the environment we live in now -- but the fact that it is a federal system. one of these days harmonization of those rules is probably a good idea. it could be harmonized between -- i don't get could be harmonized between now and november 3 and the states will move accordingly. there is an assumption the race could be so close that absentee ballots would be critical. the race maybe close, but you may have millions and millions of absentee ballots cast and you won't know if it will be close are not. part of our vote safe campaign is to remind people that we want accuracy. we want maximized voter

participation. in addition to accuracy and maximizing voter participation, you accept that the states do it differently. perhaps in the future they will harmonize when they have to be postmarked and counted, but for the time being, axman participation and minimal imperfections and challenges. let's understand, accuracy is important. i am quite confident the local officials will do it well and right. host: a good time to get out the website. feus.a him.an talk to just a few more calls. james, in washington, and independent. you are next. good morning. caller: i just want to make a

statement and then follow up with it. since the electronic voting machines don't have a paper trail, there is no way we can tell the voting machines have been hacked in or votes have been changed, because there is no audit. you would have to audit the machines. there is no way and i heard people on tv saying no votes were changed. there is no way for you to tell whether the votes had been changed or not. let's follow up on the idea of the paper trail and auditing elections. tom ridge? guest: i think you have to give some recognition to the department of homeland security. they are working closely with state and local officials to make sure that all possible limit andre taken to

hopefully eliminate any digital interference in this election. they have done a good job in the past and i am confident they will get the job done. i think it was quite unusual for a group looking at our digital world in the 21st century and everybody is moving quickly in admitting technology in every sayct of their life, but to if you are concerned about it, we will try to minimize all -- cybersecurity concerns, maybe we should have a paper trail as well. let's let those working on it needn and day out and we to have faith in their ability to be sure the most important function is protected from

external interference. by and large, we have republicans in democrats -- and democrats. people on both sides of the aisle at the local level working hard and daily to make sure there is limited interference in our election. we need to encourage and support them in any way we can. they do a good job. and secure options, in person or absentee. that is the best way to ensure the legitimacy of this election rather than sowing seeds of doubt that you are concerned about absentee ballots. very, on the line for democrats. am concerned about a trademark for voting machines. are you? host: is that something you are

familiar with, governor rich? guest: no, sir, i am not. larry. think we lost i will give you the final 30 seconds that we have for viewers who are interested in this topic want to get involved, what would your advice be? the advice i would advice, governor granholm and i, republican and democrat, i have been working between now and november 3 to make sure you have saved voting options. if you want to vote in person, vote. if you want to vote absentee, vote. we do not want you to make a choice between covid-19 and exposing yourself. but i know i state for governor

granholm -- speak for governor granholm that it is the responsibility of citizenship. youse -- i don't care how are affiliated, republican, democrat, independent, vote. it is our job to make sure you have safe and secure options, but just vote. us is the website. nice talking to you. more to come. up next, we will be joined by elizabeth wydra from the constitutional accountability center to talk about the supreme court key rulings to come. back -- we will be right back. during the summer months, reach out to your officials with the c-span directory. it contains all the contact

information you need to stay in touch with congress, federal agencies, and state governors. ater your copy online today c-span store.org. week, watch house on policing reform and d.c. statehood legislation. thursday, live on c-span, a vote on the policing reform bill, the george floyd justice in policing act. theriday, live on c-span, house will vote on legislation to designate the district of columbia as a state. what this week, live thursday and friday on c-span, online at c-span.org, or listen live on the free c-span radio app. >> what do you think we can do about that? reform, protests, and the coronavirus continuing to affect the country, watch our live, unfiltered coverage of the

government's response with briefings, congress, governors, mayors from across the country updating the situations. 2020 trail, camping join the conversation every day on our live call-in program, "washington journal." demand watch anytime on at c-span.org or listen with the free c-span radio app. ♪ >> c-span has unfiltered overage of congress, the white house, the supreme court, and public policy events. you can watch all of the public affairs programming on television, online, or listen on our free radio app and be part of the national conversation through c-span's daily ""washington journal" program.

it is brought to you today by your television provider. "washington journal" continues. host: with the supreme court creeping toward the end of the term, we are joined by elizabeth wydra, the president of the constitutional accountability center. remind thend -- viewers with the cac is. guest: it is a nonprofit public interest law firm that works to make real the promise of the constitution. we focus on the history and values that have overtime made our country a more equal, inclusive, democratic, and free society. we were particularly in the supreme court and in congress and with the public to help inform and educate the country about important issues going to the courts today, the importance

of the court itself and the meaning of the constitution. host: 14 more cases yet to be handed down, would it -- but when it comes to the cases we have seen so far, has this been a good term for progressive values at the court? guest: it has been in many important ways. the recent cases have seen where the court upheld the application mosttle vii, one of the important employment antidiscrimination laws to lgbtq employees was incredibly important and important it was a ruling that was written by term appointed justice gorsuch and joined by justice roberts and the other liberal justices, because i think it is important to model for the nation this bipartisan, if you will, or nonpartisan ideological consensus in favor of equality.

that is incredibly important in all aspects of our life. we saw that with the ruling with marriage equality. that equality follows us into the workplace. incrediblyling was important, not just for the rule of, but an important review to the trump administration to tell them that when you want to engage in policy actions, you have to be transparent about it. it was an incredibly meaningful victory for the tens of hundreds of thousands of daca recipients in this country, the families, the communities that love them and need them, and that was, i have to say, a really good day as a suppressed -- progressive supreme court lawyer. host: the high-profile case having to do with the abortion case in louisiana -- what tea leaves can be read in the days to come from what was seen so

far? , in particular, is interesting, because it is not just about the issue itself in the case, which has to do with the laws put on abortion providers and admitting privileges and there have been briefs from the medical association and the college of obstetricians and gynecologists saying these rules don't actually help the health of women. there is the issue itself about whether that limits a person's right to choose under the constitution. but then there is also an added layer to that case, because if this case sounds familiar to many of your viewers and listeners, it is because we had pretty much an identical case out of texas a few years ago. there, the court said these restrictions were a constitutional violation of the persons right to choose and struck them down. but now that we have even more

conservative justices on the court, at that time justice kennedy had been revised by justice kavanaugh, now there is a push again. now we are seeing chief justice roberts whose role is to be a steward for the institutional integrity of the court, we are seeing a challenge to the idea of whether the court will hear -- adhere the precedent. front to the able supreme court for the lower courts to have upheld the state restrictions on abortion provider. case, you might see the ruling breakdown more along the lines of people -- justices who are concerned about the importance of precedent and the integrity of the supreme court, rather than necessarily how they feel about the abortion right and its fundamentals. i think the allies will be on

chief justice roberts. if he is going to say supreme court precedent matters and you have to adhere for it and simply because there is -- has been a change in the composition of the justices, it does not mean we will automatically rethink every decision we have him even the a few years ago. our guest,beth wydra the president of the constitutional economy -- accountability center, is our guest taking your questions on the supreme court's key decisions, not just about the presidential finances and power, church,, contraceptive, state, and schools are all topics of cases to come down. phone lines are open. it is (202) 737-0002 for republicans.

(202) 737-0001 for democrats. (202) 628-0205 for independent. -- independents. we know the numbers are different so we will put them on the screen for you. elizabeth wydra, with 14 more cases to come, we are used to it ended -- ending in june. how likely will it be pushed into july? guest: that is a really good question, and with both -- with most things involving the supreme court, we don't know. they can do it they want with their schedules, for the most part. normally, we are finished by the end of june. there is no specific rule. here you had arguments stretching into may when they normally and in may. not just any old argument, but very weighty cases that will majority.equire

there is a really good chance we will go into july, at least for the first week or so. ,n a more human level frequently the justices have plans to go give speeches overseas or teach courses, so they have their plane tickets that keep them on a tight schedule for the end of june. and, obviously, most who aren't going anywhere due to the pandemic. host: have they officially added any days? guest: we don't know yet. the courts, again, like they normally release opinions on mondays, they can add days. they usually do. i would suspect we will see a couple days per week toward the

end. sometimes they will do three days per week. it depends on when they get the opinions finished. i think for the general public it might seem odd for the overall waiting for them to finish their papers and release them to the nation, that they are doing incredibly important work of setting the law and trying to get colleagues on board, trying to respond if there is a concurring or consenting opinion. it does involve a lot of work, even up to the very last minute. are not doing this to torture us and make us wait, they really are working hard. host: glenn, in california, publican. you are on with elizabeth wydra. caller: good morning, elizabeth. guest: good morning. caller: remember this -- we have to pass it and see if it was in

it because they still hundred billion dollars in medicare that they were going to pay back. remember that? that got changed into a tax law by chief justices. it is not even written yet. we have to pass it and then the supreme court justices doubletalk because now it is a andlaw, where the president congress and senate are going after the american people and double taxing us. host: are you talking about the affordable care act and the aspect of the care act before the supreme court. actt: the affordable care was passed a decade ago, and many of us have been working to defend that law for the entire

decade. before thee cases supreme court, even after the court has repeatedly upheld the affordable care act in its most fundamental aspects. even so, there is going to be a case next term that deals with the existential question of whether the affordable care act can survive. that case will be argued likely in the fall. this term, in particular, we see cases about birth control requirements that employees who coverageh control have for what the affordable care act called for and whether providing exemptions for employers who claim an objection to birth control is something that the law requires or allows. there, it is a little unclear how the court will come out. they seem to want the parties

themselves to come to some sort of compromise. that might be a slightly muddy decision. big -- theeally affordable care act was a very big step forward. as we have seen throughout , medicaid,h medicare social security, with the government negotiates these big policy actions, there are often big fights in the court. we are seeing that with the affordable care act. thattainly think affordable health care is all -- for all is a good step to take for the nation. the constitution constitutional- accountability center will be arguing that. part of the docket for the last several years. host: how does one become cocounsel? how are you picked?

guest: we have been doing work on the affordable care act for about a decade, first in the very beginning, when there was a question about whether the government even has this authority under the constitution to regulate health care. constitutional experts who know well our constitutional street, we were able to put forth strong argument that the drafters of the constitution intended to have a national government that could provide national solutions to national problems. certainly, the health care crisis certainly continues to fit into that category. in addition to it be legitimate spending tax law power. the government did not get as much coverage as the commerce clause argument, but it was not something that first came up in the opinion guide of the supreme

court. it has been argued all along. itittle bit wonky, but certainly was a surprise to those who followed the case closely, which might have been a few legal nerds. on the working constitutional narrative supporting health care reform, this is how we end up where we are today, cocounsel for the house of representatives and the supreme court. host: a call from florida, independent. caller: i would like the supreme court to recognize, which i am sure they do, the genius of the rule of law, which mandates government's duty to value and protect individual citizen rights. the only alternative to the rule shows -- tyranny, which benefits only monopolizing power grab and they corroborate

rs. it is important, this rule of law concept, based on individual, not group, rights. the truth of the matter is, someone looking at the situation in america and the world as it is now over the last several decades up to this point, you know, you see that, believe it or not, president trump does represent the rule of law, and -- theen represents supreme court needs to look at that in that context. host: elizabeth wydra? guest: i do not think the supreme court will look at it in the context of biden versus trump, in particular. the rule of law, obviously, is very important in any judicial institution. but i think the cases we are seeing this term really look at it in an acute way. had the idea intrinsic

to the rule of law that no one is above the law, and we see that playing out in the cases this term involving the president's financial records. there have been efforts for oversight, whether it is from for financial records for president trump and his companies or through state grand jury efforts for financial records that could relate to criminal wrongdoing. andy trump administration has, in a wholesale fashion, resisted providing any of those documents. so there we really do have the question of whether the rule of law applies to everyone, including the most powerful, up to and including the president. and we also have rule of law aspects of the cases we have term indaca and last the census case, where the supreme court has said to the trump administration, when you engage in the governing, you have to follow the law and these

cases, the new administrative procedure act, that says we have to give clear, reasoned justifications for taking action. seemed kind of like the bare minimum of what we should expect from government, but the supreme court has had to say to the trump administration, look, if be want to resend daca, clear about your reasons, take into account the hardships of daca recipients and their families, and be clear about what you're doing with the policy decision. same thing with the census case last year. a strong rebuke from the trump administration who put forth reasons for wanting to enforce the voting rights act by putting a citizenship western on the census. the supreme court said it is very clear from the record that is not your actual reason. you might have the authority to do this, but you have to be clear and transparent and reasoned when you take action to the government. that is kind of a basic rule of law feature. host: to arkansas, jesse.

line for democrats good good morning. caller: hi, i would like to make a comment about the supreme court. they need to follow their hearts instead of trying to please trump administration. carson andabout ben our representatives, tom carton from arkansas, they have been nothing but puppets. stick on the supreme court topic. do you think the supreme court has been trying to please the trump administration with their rulings this term? caller: sometimes. host: which rulings and in what ways? caller: they are not considering the people of the united states. you know, in your heart, you know what is right and wrong you have to follow the rule of law and whatever, but do what is

right within your heart for the people. host: that is jesse in arkansas. elizabeth wydra, do you think the supreme court is trying to please the trump administration with their rulings this term? obviously, we do not like to think of the court as acting for the favor of anybody, certainly not the powerful president. thei think, especially trump-appointed justices, unfortunately, have a rather high burden to bear on that because trump himself has politicized the nomination process to an extraordinary degree. i mean, obviously, the court, even though they like to portray themselves above politics, it has been politicized for quite some time. i do not mean to say trump is the very first person to do this, but he has done it in a very heightened way, by making

it seem like these are my guys and i can go up to the supreme court, as he said repeatedly, with his muscle and get them to basically rubberstamp what he wants them to do. i think we have seen the court in this term push back a little bit more on that. findthink the justices themselves in a rather high-pressure situation of needing to show to the public that they are independent and focused on the rule of law and not just a particular ideological agenda. but your caller raises a point. judges andhe justices, first and foremost, always follow the text of the law, whether it is statutes or the constitution, and follows precedent. but the human element does come into play, at least in the sense of expressing some sort of understanding of how the

constitution affects people in their real lives. and that is not something that is extrajudicial. that is part and parcel of the law. we saw justice sotomayor in her pressure -- partial dissent from the daca decision note that the court kind of sidestepped the issue, even while it allowed the daca program to continue to exist for the moment. it sidestepped the question of whether the trump administration enacted it with animus. she noted the ways in which the hardship caused too, particularly, immigrants who were and would become daca recipients would feel. i think that is important because they supreme court does not just make cut and dry legal decisions. they are the supreme court of the united states, and the american people, i hope, read their decisions. and the justices need to know that they are writing for the country, as well. host: on the case that got so

much attention, how does neil writing thatp case, something that put him even more in the spotlight? guest: i am so glad you asked that question. soak the constitutional center is perhaps a little bit unique among the rest of litigators in that we specifically embrace the idea of contextualism, whether it is in regards to statutes or the constitution, because we feel the words of the constitution do have progressive promise and you guarantee the rights if you follow them where they lead, including equality for lgbtq americans and people living in this country. so the brief was textual list about how title vii, prohibition on discrimination because of sex includes gay and lesbian employees, includes gender identity, protects trends ginger employees. so -- transgender employees.

so we looked at that brief thinking it could be something to persuade neil gorsuch. the fact that he did not only join the opinion but wrote it was something that i was, i guess, pleasantly surprised about but not shocked because it was simply a demonstration that he was going to be faithful to his professed contextualism. i will be watching to see whether that carries through in other cases and how that impacts his ruling in constitutional cases, as well. title vii, guarantee of equality, is really just a way to enforce the 14th amendment much more broader than just a during t -- just a guaranteed to equal lost all of them. host: how does the process work of writing them? for those into -- how does it work for those not into the nitty-gritty of the internal workings of the court? guest: the way it officially

works is the most senior member of the majority, so in that case, because chief justice roberts was in the majority, that most senior justice signs the opinion. and that justice can assign it to him or herself or they can assign it to someone else. in this case, chief justice roberts assigned it to justice gorsuch. it was a great opinion for justice gorsuch to write because he does identify quote -- so closely to being a contextual ist. host: next call. caller: the two latest cases, the first one, roberts, who everyone thought was a conservative of some sort, it is a proven fact he is ultraliberal and is the one in charge. he told the trump administration, hey, guys, you cannot do this because you did

not get the paperwork right. so what did he do? the daca kids and families and everything were waiting for something to happen, and he kicks the can down the road. way to go, roberts. and donald trump is trying to get the democrats to the table to work on the problem, to do something for these families to help us so we can figure out if they can vote or whatnot and that they will not be called illegal aliens and such. but no, democrats like to use it because it is a wedge issue. -- he made thech writing, this is from a 19 since 1964 law where it talks about you cannot discriminate between a man or woman for a job -- i am just a lame man and do not know the legal terms, but that had to do with a man and a woman. now you have gorsuch in these other ones that voted to this,

they rewrote the law. they rewrote the law. host: richard, let's take up those two points with ms. wydra. guest: with respect, richard, you are rewriting the law. it does not say discrimination between a man or woman because of sex, and the idea behind gorsuch's ruling is that when you're talking about discrimination based on sexual orientation, it is because of the sex of the person to who they are attracted. e, if you swap out joe and jan swap jane out for joe and joe, that is because of sex, and that would be wide that sexual orientation, why they were discriminated against. similar with respect to gender identity, the supreme court said if you discriminate against an employee because of the way they, in your opinion, do not conform to gender stereotypes, that is unlawful. so applying that to transgender

individuals, i think the applications of those plaintext words is obvious. with respect to the larger issue of cheese -- of chief justice roberts, he is not a liberal. he may, from time to time, side with the more liberal justices. frankly, that is in cases -- those cases are ones in which it really is unavoidable for him to do much else without being met with outcry about advocating his role as the chief justice who should be focused on the rule of law and not political favor. if president trump wanted to , he could do so. he just needs to follow the administrative procedure act in order to do so. so the court is just saying, you can still follow your policy ideas, president trump, you just need to do them in a way that

follows the law. i think a lot of progressive, you know, i mentioned justice sotomayor's personal defense, this particular rescission of daca by this president is an equal protection violation, but the court did not do that. it was much more modest. chief justice roberts, if you look at his law of work, is very much a conservative. givenk the high cases people the wrong idea, but that is certainly not the case when you look at his broad body of work. he does sometimes surprise, but he is certainly very much still a conservative. i would note, i think there are legislative -- waiting in the house of representatives, a dream act ready for the senate to vote on whenever they want, but mitch mcconnell is not inclined to bring that up to help daca recipients. host: a lot of discussion this term about who is a liberal and

who is a conservative on the supreme court bench. here is a story we talked about yesterday. "washington times," conservative celebration over supreme court appointments of gorsuch and cavanaugh was premature. carolina,rth independent. good morning. caller: good morning. i am asking the question and commenting that 57 years ago, the roe v. wade decision left the door open that if at some point in time the preponderance of the scientific medical community would decide that human life begins at conception, that their ruling could be overturned. and just as the dred scott decision showed us that precedent does not always have to hold, i think if you're looking at margaret sanger's vision when she started planned parenthood, that 40% of blacks are a major number of victims of

ending life before birth, that i think the trend is going to go the other way because we now have the medical community agreeing that life does begin at conception. we saw ae have -- president who was not supposed to win who spoke at the washington march for life in person the first time, and we are seeing all these laws changing around the country because people are aware that this is not a precedent that has to remain. when we look at the human rights of 60 million unborns that never made it to the light of day since roe v. wade, and the minorities are the ones that have been most impacted by yet. there is now a movement to take a better look at how we can shore up the minority rights. host: elizabeth wydra? guest: yeah, so the supreme

court's precedent regarding abortion has recognized that the ability to decide whether, when, bear a child, to carry through a pregnancy, is a decision that must be up to the person who will be most impacted by the decision, the person who becomes pregnant. if this is a decision that, this person is not allowed to make for themselves, than it is really impossible for the person to truly be an equal citizen of society. you cannot decide your own destiny in that most financial basic way. how can you truly be considered to be an equal citizen in this country? that i think is the important constitutional backdrop for these cases and for the law. and the supreme court has repeatedly upheld that, including in cases like when you

talked about from a few years ago involving the restrictions put on abortion providers that may be do not attack the fundamental constitutional right at its root but chip away at it in a way that makes the right perhaps one that is meaningful on paper but not meaningful to the lives of the people who need abortion access. i would note that those particularlyfell hard under people of color. so we're going to talk about ensuring a quality of black women in this country, i think restricting their ability to make choices for themselves is not probably the way to go about that. with about 10 minutes left elizabeth wydra this morning, talking about the storm of the supreme -- this term of the supreme court, cases you are interested in and cases that have come down. jason in florida, independent. caller: good morning, sir. thank you for allowing all these people to speak without

censoring like google and youtube. my question is, is there any kind of accountability that can be held? isn't it some kind of crime or violation that trump sent away so much of our medical surplus? it is supposed to be the people's medical surplus here in the country. and i heard him on the press briefing with the coronavirus task force early on before the pandemic really got spread out and a brave reporter asked him about sending ships of our medical surplus over to europe and asia, and trump come out of his own words, admitted it and refused to turn back the ships. i have not seen it on cnn. i have seen some stuff on the guardian and cnn about planes was 17.5 tons of medical surplus going to woo hand -- host: we will take your question. elizabeth wydra, it legal challenges stemming from the

coronavirus pandemic? what are your thoughts? guest: we have seen some challenges related to the coronavirus come through the lower courts. none have yet made it to the supreme court. suggestshat the caller is an important point about oversight. he talked about accountability, and i think a lot of us are thinking about accountability these days, whether it is for our government, for police violence. accountability is truly an important concept. and here we see the trump administration andy supreme tort this term, with respect financial records subpoena cases, really resisting oversight. and they have fought oversight in pretty much every arena in which oversight can be given, whether it is in congress with respect to these congressional committee subpoenas that they are fighting in the supreme court, in the states with grand jury's -- again, fighting the

new york grand jury subpoena in a case that will be cited very soon. so i think that oversight, a lot of people think it is a very political thing like it has to do with trump financial records or taxes, which are very important but also very hot button political issues. but oversight is truly a life or death issue that relates to public health crises like covid, taxpayer dollars. it is a basic bread and butter constitutional democracy. as sexy as some of these other high-profile issues, the idea of oversight and accountability. but without it, we cannot have a functional democracy. host: have there been previous cases on the issue of oversight? did the obama administration complained that republican-controlled congressional committees were going too far in their oversight efforts? guest: yes, so to be clear, administrations pretty much some ways, back in

especially congressional oversight. so that push and pull is not new. what is new here is pretty much the wholesale refusal to participate or cooperate in oversight activities. and the argument that the president is making, in particular, i would note his personal attorney, the argument he made in the court about how basically you cannot subpoena information to investigate wrongdoings by the president because he is the president, was know, it was a telephonic argument so i cannot even imagine what the justices faces looked like, but it was not received well by the supreme court. it is not that administrations will push and pull on oversight. that is kind of a normal part of the political process what is unprecedented here is the trump administration's complete like it refusal to cooperate with

oversight in pretty much every context. it is a shell game where they will say you cannot do, for example, the emoluments case, you cannot get into court to enforce the emoluments clause this if you cannot get foreign profits if you are a federal official from foreign governments or actors, so you have to do it through congress. then they get into congress and say, no, you cannot investigate emoluments activity either, so a private citizen will try and they will say you cannot do it either. it is this constant shell game of trying to avoid oversight and accountability that is really what is new in the conversation. host: about five minutes left with elizabeth wydra, president of the constitutional accountability center. website or onion twitter. a call from north carolina, republican. thanks for waiting. caller: yeah, i think all three

of the branches of government need to get back in their lane. our president is making executive orders, and it is more and more each president we get. but obama said even though his executive order was illegal, he was going to do it anyway. ,o trump tried to reverse it and even though obama says it is illegal, the supreme court rules that he cannot reverse it. and as for abortion, the most effectiv -- the most affected life is that baby. the baby is the one that dies. and even, by chance, if it survives through an abortion, now we have states that say you can lay them over on a table and let them die naturally. this country has got to come to their senses. host: elizabeth wydra? guest: yes, so i would just push

rather that, you know, horrific description of how abortion is provided in this country. pointtting to the first about president obama's initial announcement of the daca program, he never said that it was unlawful. i think the statements he made regarding the desirability of a permanent solution for dreamers and immigrants brought here as young people and know this country as their only home, the preferably of having a permanent solution passed through congress is certainly a goal that he fought and saw his executive stopgapof daca as being measures to ensure protections for these young people. but with the hope that congress

would eventually act. so that is actually exactly what we are talking about with the supreme court. the trump administration said that they rescinded daca because it was unlawful. but the courts have never said that daca was unlawful. the supreme court has never said that daca was unlawful. intensified bys the trump administration to kind of get the benefits for those who want to see him rescind daca while making the court do his dirty work, because the majority of americans do support protection for daca recipients. so that is why the court was trying to say, look, in our system of three branches of government, we have in place protections so that accountability can't be placed on the right branch -- can be placed on the right branch or the trump administration was

trying to shift accountability for decisions that his administration made to the court, and the court said, no, that is not how it works. you have to be clear about why you're taking and actions of the american people can decide if they like it and provide you with the electoral benefits of doing things the majority of americans like. or, in this case commit seems that the majority of americans support daca, so they see the trump administration getting rid of it, then they can act accordingly when it comes to an election. that is what we're talking about here. host: last call, dominic out of new york, independent. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i would like to comment on something she said earlier, which was no one is above the law. is that correct? no one is above the law. you support illegal aliens, and they are breaking our laws by being here illegally. aren't they above the law? thank you. so no one is above the

illegal.no one is also so people who are here without are cognizant of the fact that they are here without documents. and many of them would like to adjust their status. and what we are talking about with the daca situation are young people who were brought here, who came here with their families, and have known this country as their only home, contribute to communities, contribute to society. we saw a brief in the supreme court that focused on how so many daca recipients are on the front lines fighting for all of us against this covid crisis. so i think that it is important to recognize the distinctions between what we're talking about when talking about undocumented immigrants. no one is suggesting that the

laws do not apply to them, which is really what we are seeing with the president, that the laws do not apply to him. and that is where we get into a very dangerous situation, particularly contrasted with undocumented immigrants who are among the most vulnerable in this country, talking about the most powerful in this country saying that the laws do not apply to them. that is a very dangerous situation to our constitutional democracy, and that is something i hope the supreme court will make it does not hold in the night at states of america. host: we will end it there for now paired hope you join us again down the road. elizabeth wydra, president of the constitutional accountability center. follow her on twitter. thanks so much for your time. guest: thank you for having me and for the callers. host: about half an hour left to turn the phones over to you. we are asking for your top public policy issue. phone numbers on your screen. republicans.0 for

(202) 748-8001 for democrats. ♪ >> what do you think we can do about that? reform,police wer protest, and coronavirus continue to affect the country, watch our coverage with briefings from the white house, congress, governors, and mayors updating the situation, and from trail.paign 2020 join the conversation every day on our live call-in program "washington journal." if you missed any of our coverage watch anytime on demand at c-span.org or listen on the go with the free c-span radio app. house votes, watch

on policing reform in d.c. stated legislation thursday live c-span.the house will debate and vote on the democrats' policing reform bill, the george floyd justice in policing act, and on friday the house will vote on legislation to designate the district of columbia as a state. week thursdays and friday on c-span, online on c-span.org, or listen on the free c-span radio app. ♪ c-span has unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court, and public policy events. c-span'satch all of public affairs programming on ourvision, online, or

free c-span radio app. be part of the conversation through the "washington journal" program or our social media feeds. by america'sed cable television companies as a public service and brought to you today by your television provider. >> during the summer months, reach out to your elected officials with c-span's congressional directory. it contains all the contact information you need to stay in touch with members of congress, federal agencies, and state governors. order online at c-spanstore. org. "washington journal" continues. host: asking in the last half hour for your top public policy issue. the phone lines are split up by political party. for democrats. (202) 748-8002 for republicans.

you can call in. the president headed to arizona for a series of events. there is air force one at andrews air force base outside the beltway in d.c. waiting for the president's arrival to take him to yuma, arizona. ae president will head to border patrol facility and participate in the commemoration of the building of the 200th mile of new border wall at about 12:40 local time in yuma, arizona.later in the afternoon the president headed to dreamcity church in phoenix, arizona to participate in an address to young americans. that happening about 3:40 phoenix time. look to c-span.org for coverage of that event later today. to back here on capitol hill, the house is not

in session on the floor of the congressionaling hearings, including one on the coronavirus response. taking place in house energy and commerce committee today at 11:00 eastern. you can watch that on c-span, c-span.org, listen on the free app. also, today's coverage featuring john bolton's interview with "the washington post." c-span will cover that on p.m..2 at 1:00 the former national security advisor out today with his book "the room where it happened." that book is on the president's mind, tweeting this morning about 6:30 a.m. eastern, "washed up creepster john bolton is a low life that should be in jail. money seized for disseminating

for-profit highly classified information. member with a did to the young submarine sailor, but did nothing to crooked hillary. i ended up pardoning him! -- it wasn't fair!" the senate coming in in 25 minutes working on judicial nominations. we will have their weekly party lunches as well and expect statements from house and senate leaders, as we always do, after the lunches. we want to hear about your top public policy issue this morning. george out of ohio, a democrat. caller: good morning. out i was calling to find on the voting rights by mail, if state, does the federal government have the right to control a state when it comes to voting rights, or is it totally 100% up to the state

for voting?ir plans i know each state is different, but how much does the federal government play? is it part of -- host: that is part of the conversation whether there should be more federal standards, not just for polling access and identification of polling, but also the machinery, and what types of machinery individual precincts should use. are you someone in favor of more standards across the nation of the federal government laying down this is what you have to have at least in your state? caller: yes. i was just wondering if it was totally up to each individual state in if the federal government has any say-so whatsoever in the states having mail in ballots.

host: like i said, that is a conversation happening now leading up to the 2020 election. congress has let its opinions be known in terms of money being distributed to states in terms of trying to strengthen the election infrastructure. some $1.2 billion heading out to states, and states of being allowed to figure out how to use the money themselves. that money going towards strengthening the security of the 2020 election. topics we have covered a bit throughout the course of this election cycle, and i promise we will be talking about it again as we get closer to november. ned next in idaho. caller: good morning. just -- i was wondering if we were ever going to get around to marijuana? kind of like they were doing with gay marriage. it was one state after the other. thewhere it is illegal,

allowed to bust people for it, the local cops don't. i just wondered if we would ever get around to figuring out a federal rule on that? host: do you think a supreme court case is the avenue to go to make that legal? caller: i don't know. it's getting pretty hairy, you know? what, i, i tell you think the military is the one in charge right now. i think all three branches of government have been broken. host: why do you think the military is in charge? the national state at -- they are manning all their food places because everyone is hungry, because everyone is still locked down. all the covering

elderly homes to keep the virus out. host: that is because governors of states have called out the national guard in response to the coronavirus pandemic to help in that response effort. that's something governors can do. yeah, that's actually interesting. in idaho the governor and toutenant governor went civil war over the coronavirus lockdown. the governor issued it. the lieutenant governor was going around the state telling counties to reopen, we don't need it. know, it's pretty bizarre. they don't even talk anymore. idaho this morning. we are asking for your top public policy issue. the phone lines are open for you to call in. phone lines split democrats,

republicans, independents. joseph, new mexico, a republican. caller: good morning. hey, john. why is it theook, , all, the latino movement these you have out there that are racial our pick and choose. they are picking and choosing, the democrats are peaking and choosing -- host: picking and choosing what, joseph? caller: taking down all the statues when they are saying that's a symbol of hate and supremacists. how come you don't say nothing about the democratic party, where they came from. where do you think they came from, john? they came from the south. those people are a symbol of don'tand slavery, and you

even bring that topic up to nobody. nobody at all. all you guys want to do is say bad things, everything you read in the newspaper about the conservatives, the republicans, president trump. what about the democratic party? there is symbol -- the president tweeting about statues being taken down around the country saying "i have authorize the federal government to arrest anyone who vandalize his or destroys any monument, statue, or federal property in the united states per theto 10 years in veterans memorial preservation act or other such laws that may mean pertinent." placection has taken immediately but can be used retroactively for any vandalism or destruction caused. they will be no exceptions, the president promised. democrat as we look at noreen

headed to arizona headed to air force one and andrews air force base. does the supreme court have on its docket that the president and his administration must appear when subpoenaed by the house or senate? christine, that case about president trump's finances is described pretty well in this article by "the washington times." it is a group of cases that has been combined. the high court will have to decide if president trump's financial records can be obtained by a third party or in a state criminal probe wally prison is in office. the description noting within oral arguments, the supreme court appeared divided along ideological lines when scrutinizing house democrats' demand for the documents. lawmakers subpoenaed eight years

of the president's records in april 2019i head of the formal impeachment probe last year. the split on the conservative-leaning court would appear well for president trump. chief justice roberts remained the wildcard in the legal battle that could affect the election november. if you want to read more about the cases, that from "the washington times." marcus is next out of california. a republican. good morning. caller: good morning. i just have a question, i watched the trump rallies and things like this, it just seems to me that a lot of stuff is always going down in the democratic states for the writing mostly happening -- happening.tly why doesn't it seem like the mayors and governors know their own laws on how to protect their citizens? host: open phones to end our

program as we ask your top policy issue. you can call in on the phone lines for republicans, denver democrats command independents. it is primary day, 42 congressional seats will be on the ballot, including senate and house seats. an insidened by elections reporter. good morning. the us to new york and high-profile race featuring the chairman of the house foreign relations committee trying to hold onto his 16th district seat in new york. guest: good morning. one of the most senior documents in the house of representatives could lose to a challenger backed by bernie sanders and alexandria are class your tenants. he is in the fight for his political life against the

medical -- middle school principal. this race has attracted .ttention from progressives he has made some unforced errors that have folks on both sides thinking he is vulnerable this year. we have seen hundreds of thousands of dollars in outside spending from both sides of this fight. because this is such a democratic district, the winner of the democratic primary is inctically i shared a seat congress next year. host: high profile because of the seniority of eliot engel. some of the high-profile faces that have showed up that are playing in this race on both sides. well, bowling made the first couple of slashes when he secured the endorsements from elizabeth warren, bernie

sanders, and aoc, who scored a similar upset in 2018.since that official push from bowman, the establishment has rallied around ingo. he has secured endorsements from hillary clinton, kristin gillibrand. he is endorsed by the black congressional caucus because of a policy of supporting incumbent members of the house who they think are supportive of the issues they care about. host: imagine pulling in the 16th district of new york doesn't happen -- polling in the 16th district of new york doesn't happen too often. do we know who's leading heading into the ballots being counted today? guest: there is scant information about where the race stands. jamaal bowman's campaign released an internal poll showing him 10 points ahead of

ingle. they released a poll showing that he was eight points ahead of bowman. there is no high-quality public polling. all we can say at the moment is it's going to be close. host: remind viewers of the on that if he does win mr. bowman probably turned on. guest: the first was an atlantic article about how engle's staff said he was attending advance in the district when he was actually in his home outside washington, d.c., quarantining because of coronavirus. then there was the hot mic moment at a rally with the bronx borough president and made a comment caught on tape that seemed to suggest the only reason he wanted to be there speaking at the rally was

because he had a primary challenge. that made people in the district feel like he was more and more out of touch with the issues they cared about. host: you mentioned congresswoman alexandria ocasio-cortez. a story in usa today focusing on this being her first reelection and hert she is in primary. any chance she might lose her primary today? guest: there is no real indication congresswoman alexandria ocasio-cortez is in trouble in her reelection campaign. any good income but knows you are running unopposed or you are running scared. it is not surprising to see aoc take this primary challenge from michelle caruso carrera seriously. she has spent real money on this race. aoc knows better than most

congressmen and congresswomen in new york that you can never dismiss a primary challenge. to years ago it was her who was counted out by the establishment and shock the world. it is not clear she is any real danger, but she is doing what she needs to do to make sure she can return to d.c. next year. tot: from the empire state the bluegrass state. take us to the senate primary in kentucky. guest: for the past year it has looked like amy mcgrath, a retired marine fighter pilot, had this primary in the bag. launched aker has someus comeback that has thinking this race could go the other way. the has run an unabashedly liberal campaign and has found his moment in the wake of the killing of george floyd in minneapolis and breonna taylor

in louisville. he has been in several demonstrations and was even teargas to buy police at one point. in the last couple of months he has picked up endorsements from bernie sanders, aoc, elizabeth warren, and powerful local kentucky democrats. he turned what was looking like a blowout into a real nailbiter. host: if amy mcgrath is the candidate the national party is looking for in the race, what does that mean for the chances to knock off the senate majority leader mitch mcconnell in november? guest: which ever one of the candidates makes it through the primary is going to start off as a serious underdog against mcconnell.this is a man firmly entrenched in kentucky politics who has the full weight of the republican party behind him.he is going to be a formidable opponent. mcgrath has shown she is an amazing fundraiser. she is i believe the best

fundraiser of any democrat running for senate this cycle, or potentially any cycle, right up there with beto o'rourke in 2018. she has an unparalleled ability to raise money. if she is the nominee she will to hammer mcconnell with $70 million in advertising. while that not be enough for her to win, because kentucky is a very republican state, it means republicans will have to divert energy from more winnable contests to make sure mcconnell is doing what he needs to do you not to get upset by mcgrath. host: a good place to go for race ratings as we creep up on the november elections, insiderelections.com has all of have beens we talking about this morning. we mentioned virginia also having a primary day. it was last week one of the

virginia republican congressman lost his primary. explain how that worked and what that means for a potential pickup opportunity for democrats in virginia. guest: the freshman republican congressmen to lose renomination this cycle, even though he had been endorsed by president trump.the way he lost was interesting . the nominating convention where the republican party of the fifth district of virginia picked its nominee, we are a few thousand party activists got to vote, was held as a drive-thru event on the grounds of the riggleme rigell -- n's opponent. the primary that he lost was very contentious when it happened.

it now has democrats thinking that this could be a potential pickup opportunity. ae new republican nominee is fundamental christian conservative. even though this is a pretty republican district, the cats really like their candidate. today they will go to the polls theyck which of those four goode. put up against while this is not in the top-tier pickup opportunities for democrats at the moment, depending on who wins the primary debate it could be one that the national party takes a closer look at in the fall. host: we will find out in a few hours, or in a few days if voting comes to that. time, as much for your always, and thanks for joining us throughout this primary season. back to our phone calls with a

few minutes left in our program asking viewers for your top public policy issue. florida, independent. john, what is your top policy issue? caller: it's about the statues, lincoln and andrew jackson. lincoln had 39 american indians anduted the same day, andrew jackson without saying had 50,000 american indians die on the trail of tears. but what has been done about destroying those statues? what statues should be allowed to stand? should not beey allowed to stand. 39 american indians were executed by lincoln's approval and andrew jackson had 60,000 american indians die on a trail of tears. host: i'm asking what should be the standard for having a statue in this country or taking one down? caller: i think the standard

should be dedication to the people. -- like martin luther king statues should stay. form ofg like on that limitations. host: robert is in utah. republican. caller: good morning, thank you. there are a lot of public policy issues going on right now. the one that the gentleman just spoke about, the tearing down of statues, reminds me in the news not very long ago isis and of the other terrorists were tearing down the statues of the and trying to destroy the basis of their cultures.

on its ear and we are standing by, letting it happen. left of theone public officials we have elected that is willing to come forward and stop this madness? people who are doing this have terrorist ideas and terrorist tactics. host: we talked about the president's tweets about this topic today. do think he is that person willing to come forward and stand against that? but fori know he is, some reason he is holding off. i believe it is probably good, because the american people could now see what -- and i call

them the global left, this is -- this isican left a global left movement. you can see it throughout the world. host: mike, california, democrat, you are up next. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. in my opinion the more important issue is the fight against racism. -- host: i think we lost mike, but we will go to carolyn. they republican. -- a republican. good morning. are you with us this morning? stick by your phone. stay with us. steve -- caller: i ask you about voting by mail. can you hear me? host: yes, ma'am. do you trust voting by mail? caller: i'm against voting by

mail. i am for voting at the polls, but against voting by mail. host: why are you against voting by mail? caller: i think it leaves it to open for fraud, and i think everyone should have to show a photo id in order to vote, and i think everyone should be able to prove they are a citizen of the united states. only citizens should vote in any election. out of kentucky, our last caller. join us again tomorrow at 7:00 a.m. eastern, 4:00 a.m. pacific. in the meantime, have a great tuesday. ♪

>> during the summer months, reach out to your elected officials with c-span's congressional directory. it contains all the contact information you need to stay in touch with members of congress, federal agencies, and state governors. order your copy at c-spanstore.org. a conversation with former pennsylvania governor tom ridge who served as homeland security secretary in the george w. bush administration. he joined us earlier on "washington journal." in about an hour dr. anthony fauci, dr. robert redfield, and dr. stephen hahn testify about the federal response to the pandemic.

i've coverage begins at 11:00 eastern. this afternoon the senate judiciary committee holds a hearing on china's coronavirus response. we will have live coverage at 2:30 p.m. eastern. votes on watch house policing reform and d.c. statehood legislation. thursday 10:00 a.m. eastern live on c-span, the house will debate and vote on the democrats' policing reform bill, the george act. justice in policing friday at 9:00 a.m. eastern, the house will vote on legislation to designate the district of columbia as a state. watch this week live thursday and friday on c-span, c-span.org , or listen on the free c-span radio app. host: c-span viewers know tom ridge. one of his pje