shabbat, on the coronavirus's impact on economic recovery efforts. ♪ host: a live look at the supreme court this morning where yesterday the court, in its first abortion ruling during the trump administration, struck down a louisiana law aimed at limiting axis to abortion. -- access to abortion. good morning. more rulings ahead today on this tuesday, june 30. welcome to "washington journal." we will start by reading news stories and headlines. do you support or oppose the supreme court decision in the louisiana abortion case? if you support, (202) 748-8000. if you oppose the decision,

(202) 748-8001. , (202) 748-8003. tell us your name and where you are texting from. we welcome your facebook posts as well. more decisions are expected today from the court. the decision coming down at 10:00 eastern, a 5-4 decision. those five voting in the majority in the louisiana case. breyer,stice roberts, kagan, ginsberg and sotomayor. thomas,inority, alito, gorsuch and kavanaugh. the reporting this morning of richard wolf, usa today. the headline, "high court rejects louisiana abortion restrictions."

a narrowly divided supreme court struck down state restrictions monday for the second time in four years, signaling its conservative shift under president trump has not eliminated a deep split over abortion rights. ruled 5-4 that a louisiana law requiring doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals would unduly burden women. john roberts cast the deciding vote, though he did not sign onto the lead opinion endorsed the courts four liberals justices. reached the same conclusion in 2016 regarding a texas law. since then, brett kavanaugh ,ucceeded anthony kennedy giving abortion opponents hope for more substantial restrictions. cavanagh joined the dissenters in monday ruling. that from usa today. to louisiana, nola.com. there headline, following

supreme court decisions, louisiana abortion rights advocates claim cautious victory. just a bit about the law, they byte that act 620 offered katrina jackson passed in the louisiana legislature was signed by governor bobby gentle in 2014, but it never went into effect due to ensuing legal battles in appeals courts. the law stated every physician who performs or induces abortion would require admitting betweenes, an agreement a doctor and hospital which allows a patient to go there if they need urgent care within 30 miles of where the abortion takes place. are hospitals in the state religiously affiliated and don't allow abortions. supporters of the law say it was intended to make abortions safer. the american medical association, american public health association, and american college of obstetricians and gynecologists have all said that it is not necessary because abortion is a safe procedure,

and complications and hospitalizations stemming from it are rare. that is from nola.com. your thoughts, support or oppose the decision. (202) 748-8000 if you support the decision. (202) 748-8001 if you oppose. on the floor of the senate yesterday, the minority leader chuck schumer had this to say. [video clip] >> the supreme court struck down a law that would have restricted abortion providers so severely that a louisiana would have been left with only a single clinic. these types of laws have popped ,p in state after state backdoor means of banning abortion. an insidious campaign to undermine the rights of women to make their own medical decisions. thunderboltng is a of justice for millions of american women who are at risk of having their constitutional rights invalidated by a

reactionary state legislature. after surprising the welcomed and lgbtq daca rights, the supreme court once again made the right decision. enteringme court is buffalo springfield territory. there is something happening here. today's ruling should not have been a surprise. the louisiana law violated the court's precedent. in 2016, the court struck down a texas law that was virtually identical to the one in louisiana. the newest addition to the supreme court, despite promising the senate he would respect precedent, dissented from the majority's ruling. justice kavanaugh told senators he believed roe v. wade to be -- , but in the first ruling on the -- on a related issue, he decided roe v. wade could be undermined.

view wasy, kavanaugh's not the majority. today, america can breathe a sigh of relief that the supreme court kept the floodgates firmly shut against this attempt to nullify the landmark decision of roe v. wade. host: new york senator and democratic leader chuck schumer on the ruling with -- the ruling yesterday. (202) 748-8000 if you support the court's decision. (202) 748-8001 if you oppose it. to montauk, good morning gretchen. caller: good morning. hallelujah, hallelujah. on the air, go ahead. caller: hallelujah, hallelujah. american women still have control over their own bodies. thank you supreme court. have a great day. next on our support line in florence, kentucky.

caller: how are you doing? i absolutely support this. this goes into a graver circumstance of trying to ban abortion outright. when you try to take away rights from one population or another, which we saw in an earlier discrimination and gender, you are taking away constitutional rights from just about anybody. , orcan take away from women the lgbtq community, or anybody. so, -- claims they love the constitution so much, suppose their wife is trying to figure out ways to take rights from people. i absolutely support the decision the supreme court made.

thank you for your time. kennedy, one of the louisiana senators treated yesterday, "extremely troubling the supreme court strikes down a louisiana law that fundamentally protects women. the abortion industry insists the baseline standards of medical care do not apply to them." here is senator kennedy had to say. [video clip] and americans understand every life is valuable whether it is 82 years old or 82 seconds old. it is disappointing to see the supreme court add to the misguided legacy of roe v. wade by striking down a louisiana law that fundamentally protects women. be able to put basic health and safety laws in place to safeguard people from the -- that abortion clinics too often offer.

deny our duty to protect all lives. no matter how loudly the abortion industry insists that baseline standards of medical care don't apply that i'm -- don't apply to them. i have always been proud of louisiana and's -- louisiana's steadfast commitment to protecting live -- life. unborn boys and girls are the most innocent and defenseless people in our society. i will keep fighting for the life and health of every single person, including and especially vulnerable women and children. host: comments on twitter. here is bill king who says this, "i support the decision. are of ants independent judiciary. press he thought that by nominating conservative justices

they thought they were going to get rubberstamped." "john roberts is the new anthony kennedy, bravo george w. bush." "this decision should be among the woman, the doctor, and her creator." joining us from capitol heights, maryland. caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: i think the mainstream media is being sponsored bulb by not addressing this in proper context. it doesn't have anything to do with anybody's rights. it has something to do with people being responsible and irresponsible. thinkamazing to me how we allowing all of these margaret singer disciples to continue to eugenics -- i said that because for everyone that for

every one planned parenthood neighborhood they put in a european neighborhood, they put six in an aboriginal neighborhood. to continue to practice eugenics and disguise it by being somebody's rights i think is irresponsible. i think all of these margaret singer disciples need to be called to account for practicing eugenics and for the general public for being responsible adults consider being responsible. host: looking live at the supreme court. we are expect further decisions from the court as they wrap up their current term. likely beingns announced around 10:00 this morning. we go to chicago. caller: good morning. i just want to say i support the decision. discriminatory position they were not

obligating urologists to have admitting privileges when they do prostate biopsies. women have always been targeted. restricting gynecological medical services for women. if people do not agree with abortion, they shouldn't get one. women have the right to control their cycles. these decisions are between a woman, her doctor and her family. no one else should be involved in medical decisions that women have to take for their own reproductive health. host: to bob. bob is in florence, south carolina. everybody whok agrees with this decision is going to have to go to their grave and face their creator with their decision. i think it is a sad day when fetuses are not protected. host: here's what john roberts

had to say in his statement on the case. he wrote, "the result is controlled by our decision four years ago invalidating a nearly identical texas law. the louisiana law burdens women seeking -- abortions to the same extent as the texas law according to factual findings that are not clearly erroneous. requires usctrine to treat like cases alike." imposing aana law burden on access to abortion just as severe as that imposed by the texas law for the same reasons. therefore, louisiana's law cannot stand." here's what the writers of the editorial page of the wall street journal are saying about justice roberts. the headline of their editorial, "one man supreme court."

in that article, they write, "illegal doctrine of story -- requires us absent special circumstances to treat like cases alike. the louisiana law imposes burdens just as severe as the texas law for the same reasons, therefore, louisiana's law cannot stand. except, it is not that simple. as the four dissenters point out. when the chief dissented in the texas case, the majority used a balancing test he rejected. the chief writes he still rejects that balancing test, but this time his explanation is that the louisiana law is an undue burden on abortion under the court's precedent. the casey -- the case he relies on as president he says can't be broken was wrongly decided. the chief has come up with another legal justification for getting to the result the liberals want. have precedent will travel."

the writers of the opinion pages. jim is next in bedford, indiana. sorry about that. jim. there you go. caller: hi. anyway. i support this. i think women should have the right to make their own decisions. betweenrictly themselves and whatever you want to say there makers and doctors and families. most people who don't support this type of thing are people who change their minds when they need service. then they go back to their set point down the road. i noticed too, people are calling in about this are guys. i don't know what a guy could do about this anyway. that is about all, thank you for your time. host: marietta, georgia. this is oscar. caller: i think i would like to

voters, we the american especially republican voters are weeping with jesus. that is all i want to say. next fromph is kalamazoo, michigan. caller: yes. i agree with the decision. i don't understand why so many men in congress are trying to tell a woman what to do with her body. trying to make -- [indiscernible] let a woman make her own choice. she knows what's wrong with her body. [indiscernible] host: joseph's reaction on twitter and texts. texts are welcome at (202)

748-8003. tell us your name and where you are texting from. "i doebook from kathleen, not care if clinics stay open but they should not receive one penny of taxpayer dollars. let the murderers pay for themselves." "women are smart enough to be trusted with the abortion choice." inwonder how many clinics louisiana are located further than 35 miles from the hospital and how many abortionists do not have hospital admitting privileges." here is the statement from the democratic -- presumptive critic , former vice president joe biden. "today's u.s. supreme court reaffirmed that -- cannot put in place laws that unduly burdened woman to make her decisions.

let's be clear, republicans and state legislatures will stop at nothing to get rid of roe, and we must be strong in our defense of it. they are trying to appeal to the supreme court and hopes that trump's justices will -- be it as partisan -- as president, my justice department will do everything in its power to stop the rash of state laws that blatantly violate a woman's constitutional right to choose." jacksonville, florida, good morning. say is all they have to a couple of quick things. thank you for your time. want to over populate, and we do not want to kill children. you can use birth control of killing the children. people don't read the bible good enough.

kings, 15:16ok of says the -- to go for the women that are pregnant, rip open their stomach and the fruit of the rooms. host: to jerry in locust valley, new york. caller: thank you very much. because first of all i have a question. when did a woman's body become political? i don't remember anybody telling me how to run my body as a man. i watched anthony kennedy speaking about committing murder too. how many black men have been sent to jail and executed for crimes they never committed? that is somebody you could -- ask questions. we are here talking about a woman must -- how is a woman's

body political? a woman's body is a woman's body. --n republicans want to make you don't want the government telling you how to -- the second amendment. that is a gun, not a human being. you want to tell a woman how to control her body? this whole process of abortion rights i think should be left to the woman. a lot of men calling in on the opposing line, you never had a child. you never know what it is to carry a baby. i don't think you have a say. host: we will go to the opposing line. p, south dakota. wanda, good morning. caller: thank you. off, i don't belong to any organization. there are too many fanatics. i am not republican, not democratic, independent. i am against abortion.

i am a christian. before whento women sitting in a group talking about this, i say to them this one thing, i am god. i am sitting in front of you, you can see me. say to me, god, i am pregnant. can i abort this baby? everyone sits there with their mouth closed because they know, if they are christian, they know god would say no. arguments when you go to some of the legislatures -- legislators, one of the things they will bring up is the fact that many children might be born and abused, this might happen to them. i want to say to them, how many maybe out there were

emotionally abused, didn't grow up in the best neighborhoods were the best families? you are sitting here making rules for people. wouldn't it be better you be dead? i think it is horrible. their bodies,ng it is the baby's body too. host: what is the abortion law in south dakota? how easy or difficult is it to get an abortion? caller: i think it is easy. it amazes me that people think it is right. my daughter told me years ago that young people use it as birth control. i could just get an abortion. host: wanda from south dakota. from the u.s. capitol, reaction from republicans on the supreme court decision. senator cotton of arkansas

tweeting, "the chief justice may believe he is protecting the institutional integrity of the --rt, but he has politicized his politicized decision-making has undermined it." itief justice roberts at again with political gamesmanship. this time he sides with -- instead of women's health." "it johnson from louisiana, is about whether states have the right and responsibilities to institute basic health and safety regulations to protect women and whether the abortion industry should have the ability to strike down common sense health regulations." louisiana congressman steve scalise, "horrible decision. the supreme court ruled that states can't hold abortion clinics to similar health standards as other medical centers. women and babies deserve urgency care no matter the situation. we want quit fighting pickup to joe -- we won't quit

fighting." live video from the court. go ahead, joe. listen, i agree with women. if a person has to choose -- when she looks down the road, her future and the future of an unknown, and make a decision for herself -- i call that the choice whether or not the unknown -- her and she decides her future is the one that she will lean on, there is no one in this world that should tell her this is not what she should do.

furthermore, when you look at these people that call themselves that they say jesus, , the, jesus, jesus congress -- especially they will quote every programs -- they cut every program that helps the same people that had decided they didn't want to bring this child in because they wasn't ready for it. takes tot have what it help them support that child. these people are hypocrites. reportede news on the briefing of the president on russian intentions in afghanistan. "is is washington examiner, john bolton briefed trump on russian bounties on u.s. troops in 2019. president trump was briefed on the bounties on u.s. troops by

former national security advisor john bolton in early 2019. unnamed officials told the associated press trump was briefed on russia's decision to place bounties on troops fighting the taliban aired -- the taliban. the briefings included one written report and an in person briefing with bolton in march, during which the allegations were the sole focus of the meeting." here's what kayleigh mcenany said in a news briefing yesterday. [video clip] >> this was not verified. >> not everything in his daily briefing is airtight. they let the president know about what they are hearing. why would that not be something that rises to that level? councilational security and intelligence community constantly evaluate reports and briefs the president as

necessary. -- [indiscernible] what is he going to do to hold russia accountable? won't speculate on whether this intelligence is verified or not. i won't get ahead of the president. >> [indiscernible] there are dissenting opinions within the intelligence community. is noconfirm there consensus within the intelligence community on these allegations. i want get ahead of the president on action, but with regard to russia, this president has been strong on russia. sanctions, expelling diplomats, closing consulates, withdrawing from an inf treaty. further notifications for you other than to tell you there is no consensus and there are dissenting opinions. >> you don't think the report is

true? >> there is no consensus in the intelligence community. follow-up on that story from cnn's proper and see and come of the headline to the online piece "from pandering to put into abusing allies and ignoring advisors, trump's phone calls alarm officials. in hundreds of classified phone state,ith heads of president trump was consistently unprepared for discussion of serious issues so often outplayed in conversations with leaders like vladimir putin and receive erdogan -- the calls helped convince some senior u.s. officials, including his former secretaries of state and defense, two security advisors, and chief of staff that the president himself posed a danger to the national security of the u.s. according to white house and

intelligence officials familiar with the contents of the conversations." hour iss of our first the supreme court decision in the louisiana case. striking down double louisiana a 5-4d a5-four vote -- in vote. a number of these cases are --es we aired the audio from the oral argument audio. you can find that audio and all of our coverage of the supreme website,ine on our c-span.org/supremecourt. mary, opposing the decision yesterday. caller: good morning. my opposition is because of doctors like -- who did not have any rights to any hospital in the area, and a woman died.

she bled to death. it would have been simple. rights. it took them a half-hour to find some hospital that would take her. and he was in south philly. if he went 30 miles around the butcher shop -- because that's what it was -- you would find that there had to and nobodytals, would take her, and she died. healso had a young girl that did who got infected, and she had to go to a regular doctor in order to get to a hospital, where they did a hysterectomy. host: in the wake of that famous case, and they made a movie of snell case,e gods were there any restrictive measures on abortion taken up in

the state? caller: they finally decided to inspect them. they put off inspections although they had a lot to do -- they had a law to do it, because they were afraid it would end up in the supreme court. we had a lot of clinics in the state that kind of popped up, in which you didn't even have a state lawcause in the you don't have to have a doctor. you can have a practicing pa.stant, apa -- a south philly,ion you're nowhere near south philly, correct? caller: i'm nowhere near south philly. there are. most of them are hospital related. so that -- as a matter fact, there is one hospital that does them. -- the major one is up in doylestown, and within

that vicinity, there are more hospitals that will take somebody if there is an emergency. host: we appreciate your call. bob in louisville, kentucky, opposing. caller: thank you for taking my call. what i can't understand is, what's the difference between what the nazis did to the juice people and the murdering of bait ish people?ew and the murdering of babies? reaction side of the aisle. this is senator elizabeth warren from massachusetts. "let's not lose sight of the bigger picture. after years of industry attacks and gop opposition, a conservative supreme court recognized what we all knew, the cfpb is constitutional.

.t is here to stay huge win in the supreme court. decision should send a clear message that any attempt to limit abortion access and take away reproductive rights will not go without a fight." ,lso from senator hassan saying "the supreme court made a right call when women's rights are constantly under attack. we must continue to stand up and say my right, my decision." kirsten gillibrand tweeting, "in a 5-4 ruling, the supreme court rejected limiting access to abortion." descended from massachusetts referring to another significant decision coming down from the on the consumer financial protection bureau. this is reporting at the washington times and their

headline, "supreme court rules president can fire cfpb had. "the consumer financial , launched bureau under president obama, puts too much power in a single director, making it unconstitutional. left the agency intact, saying it could give the president the power to fire the director. in covington, tennessee. go ahead. caller: hello? host: you are on the air. theer: yes, i support able to haveing the abortion because i am not god. i don't go for abortion per se, but i go for choice. everybody has a right to make a choice.

god gave us a right to make the choice, so man cannot take that away. let them stand before god with that decision and i will love them either way. thank you. host: larry in maryland opposes the decision. caller: i agree with the caller from maryland. this is eugenics. i go a step above that, it is a sacrifice to the devil. chief justice roberts was blackmailed when he made a decision about obamacare, and now it has nothing to do -- he is blackmailed. have been killed than soldiers in the vietnam war , so there are a lot of people who disagree about it. hear from washington, we from marie next. good morning. caller: good morning. i support their decision.

to the days before roe v. wade, only the rich will be able to abort -- will be able to afford to travel to get an abortion. and those that are poor will not have the option to choose what rights they have with their own bodies. that or they will be going back -- to backdoor abortion clinics and we will have even more health issues. host: that is marine in washington, the supreme court striking down a louisiana law that had not going into effect with the ensuing litigation that would have required abortion providers have hospital privileges at nearby hospitals. struck down in a 5-4 decision. more decisions expected today. writing about that, this is the brookings institution. a potential ruling on the finances of president trump, "waiting for donald trump's tax returns" is the headline.

"don't wait -- don't hold your ."eath "one set of subpoenas issued by several house committee seeks records from the president's finances and businesses from his ,ccounting firm, mays ours cyrus and scum of the district attorney from the county of new york seeks the same records the house committee has requested with eight years of trump's personal business and tax returns. mazars has indicated they will turn over records. hasbrookings -- suggest she a better chance of prevailing s and his parent case, most americans -- it is

doubtful most americans will see his tax returns anytime soon. this is gary in sterling, virginia, supporting the ruling. tell us why. caller: yes, sir. .n 1957i was in a er nurse once a week they would have a botched abortion and once a month one of those women would die. in the late 1980's, governor george allen restricted social workers or had a gag order in place that they cannot say anything about abortion. fast forward 15 years, i go to work in a section eight housing unit, and three women offered to let me spend time alone with their children. they were all white. this has nothing to do with race . the next day i went to work on a

attachedsingle-family to elling occupied by a single mother of five children. ,wo were juvenile delinquents three were special-needs children. cocainele child was a baby, spent nine months in an incubator, and he was on lung therapy because his lungs had not developed. host: tied this experience of yours into our question today about the supreme court decision. caller: i don't want to be subsidizing dysfunctional families with my tax dollars. that one place, the section eight housing place was a playground for pedophiles. host: here is the reaction on twitter and on text. justice roberts will never let his court be known as political,

he will be the swing vote to end that. from tony in henrietta, texas, "i oppose it, yielding to the city kingdom autocracy. this, "some says pregnancies are fatal to the mother, as summer do to unreported rapes or unreported insets. why not give women and girls the right to manage their own bodies?" one says "there are two people involved. a baby is not a tumor to be cut out of the body our next caller. caller: good morning. i think a lot of the problem is people are not being taught biblical principles and the plan of god from the very beginning because of a lot of nonteaching properly in a lot of religious houses. if you don't know the foundation , the beginning, there is no way you can understand a lot of

this. your right to choose what you want to do with your life, but you've got to take -- if you believe in god at all, here is a phrase that you can take and maybe ponder on it -- "jacob i loved, esau i hated ." that is god saying that. to lloyd in brooklyn, supporting the court ruling. tell us why. lloyd, you are on the air. i call these people who say that they love the unborn so much and hate the born. it is measured by how you treat with what you have seen. god said, "how can you claim which you have not seen and hate that which you do see?"

right now we have black lives matter. how many of them are trained to make provision to take care of the born? no, they are going to take away food stamps and care for the and love the unborn. that is hypocrisy, and the bible says how can you claim to love that which you have not seen and hate that which you have seen? host: chief justice john roberts again, the key vote in this 5-4 decision, striking down louisiana law. this is the opinion piece from "the new york times." "john roberts is no pro-choice hero. ruling set the stage for further attacks on abortion rights." "the chief justice really takes a direct route, preferring incremental rulings that slowly

chip away the court's long-standing precedents. so no one should be fooled this time around. the current court is as hospital -- is as hostile to report their freedom as it ever was." involving challenges to other state law that make it difficult, not impossible, for most women to obtain an abortion. continuing with your calls come asking you about the ruling yesterday in that louisiana case 5-4 decision. the lines if you support the .ecision, 202-748-8000 if you oppose the decision, 202-748-8001. hanover, pennsylvania, is next. hello to linda. i am against and for a little bit of both. my thing is, you don't hear men saying, "i'll take that baby and raise that baby on my own."

it takes two to have a baby, but all you hear about is the women, what the woman has to go through for the rest of their lives, but maybe raising, as most of them do, have to raise that baby on their own. i think if men -- if women would say i have this baby, you helped make this baby, i will give it to you, you raise it for the rest of your life, and i think a lot of men might change their mind about how they feel about it. in savannah, lucy georgia. good morning. caller: good morning. i am a passionate pro-lifer because of the lord saying, "thou shalt not kill." i'm also for once you rear the child, the child not being shot down in the street, whether it

is by individuals or the law. americao say, last week is in judgment because a lot of people don't understand that it is wrong to murder your precious little baby. that is basically all i want to say. host: ok, to jason next in holiday, florida, supporting the supreme court decision. caller: thank you for allowing us to speak even though i definitely disagree. i want to say that some of your comparisons i have heard on here nazis are wrong. womenzis used to force through the kaiser wilhelm institute for racial anthropology so that they could on babies eight days

after birth. i'm sorry, the comparison was just ridiculous. eugenics was sterilizing people so that they would not be able to have children, it was not abortions, it was sterilization. that is all i really wanted to say. everyone bringing up nazis lately is a ridiculous argument. is difficult and i apologize. host: it's ok, i'm glad you got through. why do you think the arguments still exist? caller: because about the most people thing that people think of these days are the nazis and the things that they have done. they don't know what they are talking about, it is just that they are completely evil and that is there comparison. they say it is like nazi's and, even though nazis practiced force birth. -- forced birth. they forced women to have children so that they could

experiment on them. it is the opposite of what that guy was saying. maybe i'm wrong, but i studied some of this stuff being a jew. we put an end to it because it was ridiculous. host: appreciate you calling in this morning. house and senate both in this way, the house with a late day yesterday, finishing work on a bill. reporting, "house democrats pass bill to expand and strengthen obamacare, looking to put health care back in the debate against -- ahead of the general election to shore 234-179,are, passing the bill aims to expand the affordable care act by lowering insurance premiums, expanding eligibility for premium tax credits. it would also increase funding for medicaid to encourage other states to expand their programs. there are also provisions that incorporate some aspects of the

lowerat pricing bill to prescription drug prices for consumers the washington times writes that the republican bill would not only exacerbate the troubles of an already dysfunctional program but end up impeding americans' ability to get new prescription drugs." it is an early day in the u.s. house. once again infer legislative work this morning, 9:00 eastern, and we will go life to continue our commitment to over 40 years of gavel-to-gavel coverage of the u.s. house. and the road ahead, this is a look at roll call, roll call.com. this meant -- defense discussions dominate. the house taking up a $1.5 trillion infrastructure measure. to ken in georgia. welcome. thank: good morning and you for taking my call. i would like to say that i am

billntly opposed to the and uphillted down by the justices, with justice roberts voting in the majority opinion. history willt judge him harshly. and i think it is a travesty of justice that we require so many hoops to jump through for treating children at a public school that might have a boo-boo, for lack of a better description, getting treated by a nurse or a physician, and all tops of -- all types of

liabilities associated with that, but the society has turned its head even in a crisis situation, given that roe v. wade says it is the law of the land, that that person has a choice to murder the child that is in her womb, that we don't provide and don't require the same medical attention to these people. it goes to show you the disregard for life. i think the chief justice is going to have a hard look at his conscience. maybe he should be one that is refused communion by his local priest. brookfield,l in virginia, also opposing the court's ruling. joel in virginia.

caller: good morning. i believe like the last gentleman here, that abortion is murder. believe god will punish anybody who does have one, although he is a forgiving god. mistakes but we have a forgiving god. if you don't want to have the child, have it and let somebody who cannot have children, let them adopt it. do it the right way. don't kill the baby. people and give it to who want to adopt it. host: we have not heard yet from the president specifically on this ruling, but here is part of the statement from his press mcenany,, kayleigh after the decision yesterday.

"states have a legitimate interest in regulating any medical procedure, including abortions, to protect patient safety. unelected justices have tried on the -- by imposing their own policy preference and favor of abortion to override legitimate abortion safety regulations. facebook,n twitter, and by text. matthew on textbook says he opposes the ruling. all lives cannot matter until all lives matter. no constitutional right has value unless we have right -- unless we have lights -- life. this one, i believe roe v. wade should be repealed when each decide -- which -- when each thee decides -- no one has right to vote or legislate upon the power one has over their own body. sometimes the supreme court has to step in when americans cannot

be counted on to do what is right. her body, her choice, no one else's business. jan says that ticks me off, there is no abortion industry, it is health care. white men who cannot get pregnant should not have a say. our next caller in favor of the court ruling. good morning. caller: good morning and thank you for accepting my call. i support the decision, and i think the majority of americans do. i think the national polls show 75% do. but my concern is that this discussion has been going on and i don't think it will ever be resolved, since the decision was first submitted to the american public. but my concern is that this is a wedge issue. this is an issue that brings up a lot of emotional fears and emotional feelings, one way or the other. severe like to be a

a test for political candidates, i think decisions are also made for this single issue, and and allows this sort of tilting of the political standards that should be evaluated. they seem to make decisions based on this one issue, do you or do you not support -- like one party or another based on this issue. and you cannot be with one party if you believe in this ruling, or if you disagree with the ruling, you in a sense will go with another party. to in as candidates sense manipulate certain emotions, these blocks of voters that will go with just one direction and not look at the candidate.ue of a like i said, since this has come out, i remember hearing discussions on talk shows in the early 1960's where they had the

same banter that we have now. at the bottom line is that this will never be resolved because this is a very core issue. i see it as being divisive, and i wish people would understand, this is not something that is going to be resolved, this is something that will be used by certain people, certain political parties and and we will probably see 20 years from now. host: "the new york times" writing about this, "abortion issue rises in republican races. it did not take long to leverage monday's supreme court ruling in the race against susan collins. decisivecollins cast a vote to confirm brett kavanaugh to the supreme court in 2018, she did so on the premise he would uphold precedent to preserve abortion rights. but on monday, justice kavanaugh

dissented, arguing that the court should have ruled differently in a nearly identical case four years ago. collins likely democratic opponent. ms. collins, a rare republican who supports abortion rights, is facing the most difficult campaign of her more than 20-year senate career, in large confirm her decision to justice kavanaugh. good morning, charles, who is supporting the decision -- opposing rather. go ahead. caller: good morning. i disagree with the decision of the supreme court, and the reason why is because i do not agree with abortion at all. theuld like to refer to unborn victims of violence act of 2004, united states public

108-212, which recognizes a fetus as a legal victim if injured or killed during 60 different listed federal crimes. so basically if you kill a pregnant lady and she is pregnant, they can also get you .or killing the baby well, here is a situation i would like to recall. the situation is, there was a lady, i do not recall where it was at, but she was drunk, she ran into a pregnant lady, and she killed the lady and she killed the baby. was the district attorney and all of them, they took and was trying to get that lady for murder, both the lady and the baby, and the parents were all for that and theything, but in court

attorney found out and even the parents said that the lady was planning on getting an abortion the next day. so how can you have it both ways ? that is my comment. host: erica is next from san diego, supporting the court's decision. caller: erica? host: yes, erica, go ahead. caller: yes, i am 78 years old. i never had children but i had two abortions. the way i look at life the way if we did not have abortion, we would have stanley -- standing room only on this planet. and: more of your calls comments ahead here on "washington journal." being up next, we will joined by eddie glaude, princeton university african studies professor, talking about

his new book, "begin again: james baldwin's america and its urgent lessons for our own." leader in the program, steve about joins us, talking the response to the coronavirus program. next, a speech off james baldwin, which he gave at the university of california at berkeley in 1979 about being a black writer in america and the civil rights movement in the u.s. that this is going to be a difficult seminar. and in this nation, black fathers industry watching their sons, and neither one of them has a place to go. that is not their fault. only do their value, their capabilities, their merit. worse under nothing heaven.

there may be no greater crime. and to attack a man's integrity, to attempt to destroy that man. of the american constitution, in spite of all the born-again christians -- [laughter and applause] know that my father was not a mule and not a thing. was not bornister -- what am i saying? we finding that

ourselves between a rock and a hard place. i am saying something else. i am saying that our presence in terrifies every white man walking. i am going to go back and clarify that a minute. i want to suggest -- and it is a very important suggestion -- not now,all, there has never has been, and now never will be a white country. [applause] announcer: "washington journal" continues. host: where joint next by professor eddie glaude, chair of the african studies department at princeton university. watching a speech by james baldwin in 1979. professor claude with a new

book, "begin again: james baldwin's america and its urgent lessons for our own." good morning, professor baldwin. what drew you initially to james baldwin, to write about him? ofst: i was initially afraid reading jimmy because of what he would demand of me, but what ultimately drew me to him was his honesty, was his willingness to be vulnerable, and his rage and love. he spoke searingly about the contradictions of the country and spoke these prophetic and poetic truths. he became an example for me, a resource over the years, which led eventually to me writing "begin again." the rage do you take in literature that james baldwin writes about his emotions and translate that into actionable things that people can do in their daily lives, and the

current crisis that is going on with racial issues in our country? ways, if you are not angry about the current state of the world, then something is wrong. it seems to me that if rage or anger isn't a part of your emotional economy in this moment, then you're not paying attention to the world. but what baldwin insisted upon itthat rage and anger -- cannot turn into hate. it would corrode the soul. so he tells the story about his stepfather, about the dangers he experienced and why he had to leave the united states. that is because his stepfather began to believe what the world set about it. and he himself began to be kind of pinched in by the ugliness of american racism, like he was going to lash out. he said i was going to be killed or i would kill someone, so i had to leave. some wayse becomes in

a kind of righteous indignation, a spur, to begin to think more critically about the world. going back to the ancients and aristotle, we see anger is a critical feature of virtue. but if you are not angry, according to the ancients, then you are probably a fool, if that makes sense. host: it is always hard to put words in the mouths of historical features, but what do you think james baldwin might say about this moment, in the wake of the death of rayshard brooks and george floyd and others? cooguest: the iron is we don't e to put words in his mouth. the words that he spoke until 1997 -- responding liberty, responding to the statue of liberty, how

consistent we confront our lives so that we can imagine ourselves otherwise, that even in the midst of the disillusionment and despair, he still believed in the new jerusalem. i love the line where he says hope is invented every day. so i don't need to put words in his mouth or to kind of think about how he would respond to this moment because we seem to be on a racial hamster wheel, constantly running around and around. baldwin sen. ernst: are as relevant today as they were -- words are as relevant today as they were in the 1960's until his death. our guest sen. booker:, james baldwin's america and its urgent lessons for our own. the eastern time zone,

202-748-8000, mountain and central time zones, 202-748-8001 . this is a time where statues are part of the conversation. even at the princeton university, not statues but the name of the building, the name of the international school, woodrow wilson being removed by the school there. what is your take on that instance particularly at princeton. guest: i thought the president made a great decision. he said that the history of the country is a history of disregarding the reality of racism and its effect on our fellow citizens, on people like me and my dad and my family. princeton's celebration of woodrow wilson is an uncritical reflection of woodrow wilson. the first chapter of "begin again" is a chapter entitled "the lie," that we have told

ourselves a lie about what we have done to black people come and we tell ourselves lives in order to in some ways hold off the reality of what we have done. so the monument are in effect monuments to a lie. most of them were built in the 1990's -- in the 1890's and early 1920's as civil war veterans were dying, as racial jim crow with -- was taking root. some were built in the 1960's as response to the black freedom struggles. so the monuments around the country are monuments to a myth, an ideology of white supremacy. so i think what we're doing in this moment, which we have to do, is to confront the lie so that we can at least imagine ourselves to see otherwise. host: one of the monument getting a great deal of attention in the nation's capital is the emancipation .onument in the

do you think some of the efforts by those who want to take down the monuments -- is that being rushed? is there not sometimes consideration of what these monuments, why they are there and what purpose they serve? a messy process trying to get from where we are to where we will be. i understand that some people take issue with the imagery of the freedom monument. but when we think about how it was paid for, the blood and sweat and tears that went into getting it built, frederick douglass dedicating it. we might want to at least pause and think about the history in that moment. so the pulitzer prize women historian out of yale wrote an op-ed on defending that monument. but i understand that there is a clamoring for a different kind

of iconography come a different kind of symbolism around the landscape, and that process is going to be messy. we are going to have to fight it out in the public domain. this is one spot, one site where the argument has to be made, that we need to keep this particular monument. host: you right in your book that the u.s. faces a moral reckoning. is this all part of that? broaden that little bit of what else do you cs part of that reckoning. guest: this is part of that reckoning, but i think we have had these moment in the past when we have had an opportunity to be otherwise. you think about the second founding, the civil war, and radical reconstruction. representative stevens and others decided to go back and expand our notion of citizenship. the modern usa was founded in that moment in some sense, and we saw in that moment for genuine multiracial democracy.

but what happened in response? we got jim crow. we got racial apartheid in the lynching,stant another form of slavery. mid-20th century we had the second reconstruction, the black freedom movement, in the 20 century. ordinary people clamoring for full citizenship rights. the call for law and order laid the foundation. the shredding of the social safety net as white americans said that big government was intruding on their liberty by reader shredding hard earned money from white workers and disturbing it to lazy black and brown people. -- and disturbing it to lazy bra black and brown people. so here we are after electing the first black president in 2008, the country responded by voter suppression laws, voter id laws.

vitriolic tea the party, and then we elected donald trump. so we are at a crossroads. who are we going to be? at the heart of it all, there has always been this moral question -- who do we take ourselves to be? what is a just society? not a more perfect union, but a just society? that is what we grapple with, with the shifts and the political challenges that confront us. host: our guest is with us until 8:30 this money, eddie glaude. 202-748-8000 for those of you in the eastern and central time zones. zones,n and pacific time 202-748-8001. first up, from pennsylvania. caller: good. hi, mr. glaude. i would like to say that i see you every day on msnbc. but here is a question -- i was

one of those women as a young selma participated in the and montgomery march years ago. one of the questions that i have been asking myself -- could not ask too many other people because they do not have the answer -- i know that one of the problems that we have in our country is because caucasian people were not taught to correctly. they taught them what they want them to know, not what they should have learned. been, iy questions has know some of the problem is that -- why do white men man so much?k host: we will get a response

from professor glaude. guest: that is such a powerful question at its root. has distorted and deformed american democracy for a long time. you can read in thomas jefferson's notes, in the state of virginia, where he is worrying about what the institution of slavery will do, what it means for our democracy. we know that in moments when it seems as if the country is fear,ng rapidly, white evidence is itself in violence. the heart of this is challenging this belief that white people matter more than others, trying to lay the foundation for a genuine form of mutuality, where we can get past the category that in some ways can confine and imprison us come and see

human beings right in front of us, with all of their vulnerabilities, and that is going to require some hard work, some honest and difficult conversations, honest and difficult work and honest and difficult policy initiatives. the fear at the heart of all of to be theit happens case that our community had to bear the brunt of that fear over generations. host: we will hear from richard next in brentwood, maryland. caller: good morning, professor. i appreciate your book. one of my first experiences with mr. baldwin was when he debated robert kennedy at oxford. it was a wonderful debate, laying out some of the fallacies of the system in which we live and work. and also, your most recent ofsertation or explanation the economy of the situation we are dealing with.

you left out the fact that giving poor people's tax dollars to rich people, black and right, which i think is appalling. , in the clinical side, as dr. king spoke about sick white brothers, when is the clinical side going to be opened up to when we can do with -- what is it in the heart structure that a person needs to be as vicious and as greedy, or what is coming to mind about the woman'sn in 1919 when a husband was lynched, and she went to the sheriff to complain, and he turned her over to the same wench mob and they hung her upside down and cut a baby -- the same lynch mob and they hung her upside down a cut a baby out of her belly. when are we going to get into the viciousness of the heart and

the mind of individuals who feel that they can be that inhumane but at the same time lift themselves up as something that can be emulated, duplicated, in every facet of our lives? professor, keep what you are doing, brother. i love you work -- i love your work. guest: thank you so much. look, there is trauma at the heart of the american project. there is wounded at the heart of the american project. in 1968, jim's baldwin was interviewed by "esquire" as cities were burning, and they toed him, "what can we do get african-americans to cool it?" i paraphrase. and he said it is not up to us cool it. said, aren't we dying the

most? no, we are dying the fastest. king echoed this formulation as well. so there is this, at the heart of the whole thing, a valuing -- a devaluing of bodies. iste america, we know it rooted in slavery and profit and greed. i talk in generalities. they think that white bodies are valued more than others. -- thenizers are sold economic and political life, resulting in horrible, heinous acts that we continue to live with. the first thing we've got to do is simply tell the truth about it all, to not hide behind the illusion or stick our heads in the sand. or be surprised that the world that we have created is as cruel and barbaric as it can be.

the first thing we have to do is tell the truth of how we got here, and again, that is going to be hard work. host: we talked a moment ago about the removal of statues, or the attempt at removal across the country. some other things to point out, the state of mississippi voting to change their flag, which included the confederate banner included in the mississippi flag. the governor is expected to sign that bill. also on capitol hill, the debate on the defense authorization bill in the senate with this headline, "senate to challenge trump on renaming military bases they write that although there is still opposition locally to remove confederate names, there is an amendment to strip the renaming requirement. republican support suggests it will survive any challenge during this week's floor debate. do you think these sorts of things -- does this surprise you at all, the speed at some -- at which some of these proposed

changes are taking place? guest: somewhat, not too much, though. i think we are at a stage when it comes to the confederate monuments and naming of military bases, i think we are at that period where we shifted around same-sex marriage. it happened, and it just happened abruptly. but it was the result of decades of struggle in some ways. i think we are there with regards to the federal monuments, but i think it is important for us not to get caught up in that moment for this moment around those monuments. what i mean by that is this. we have a tendency in this country to congratulate ourselves quickly when we do something that is basically decent. we want to pat ourselves on the back and say this is ok, we are better. and typically whenever we get to that point, we hear the version in thequestion we heard 1960's, "what else might the need want?" and usually when we

hear that question, it is a voicing of the limits, that we've had enough now, go back toiland take up the daily of life, as it were. we want to be mindful that we do not want to congratulate ourselves, we do not need to express gratitude. we have a long way to go. plus, we don't need to get caught up into asking too little. we need fundamental transformation in this country. we have some of the poorest people in the country in the termsof mississippi -- in of employment, education, health care. confederate flag -- the confederate battle flight out of the state flag of mississippi is important. host: one more thought from a viewer on the confederate monuments. jodey tweets, "the history behind confederate statues, i

seem to remember, that black people were once slaves and they could be again because that is what bullies and racists do when they lose. to wisconsin we go and we hear from greg. good morning. thank: good morning and you for c-span. good morning thank you thank you, professor. guest: good morning. caller: i am part of a mixed race family. we are proud of it and i talk about some of these issues. much of the divisiveness that we thatround the country is people like yourselves -- we are in the streets, we are living this, we get along just rate. but when people like yourself continually harp upon the divisiveness and history, why can't we all just get along? because we are doing it, but you can't try to pull this racist trigger that makes people become enemies.

stop what you're doing, get along, live your life, and stop all the bs that you are a part of. host: eddie glaude, your reaction? guest: that is an old argument that goes back to the early 19th century and before. to describeanguage racism is used to reinforce racism. let me give you an example. if it is the case that police are singling out the black community, or a particular type of police is, the data shows that you are subject to a certain kind of policing that is violent or a relationship to the criminal justice system, or a kind of conviction rate, levels of sentencing and the like, and you see the factors that are at policing --nfair

how do you name it if you cannot talk about race? what the caller wanted me to do is to say don't use race language even though race is doing all sorts of work in distributing advantages and disadvantages. don't use race line which even the race and racism is engaging or producing all sorts of harm, essentially killing black folks. this is the problem. we want to think that loud racists are the problem, the folks running around with confederate flags and folks running around screaming the n word and clamoring for white power. we think they are the problem. the problem is the science and complicity of those who want to hide in their comfort. that is the problem. if we get to a place where we can call them out -- james baldwin was clear that he doesn't want to work with people who want to do something for him. he wants to work with somebody who fundamentally wants to transform the society.

that caller is content with being comfortable, content with the illusion of safety. we have to be able to name the problem. you cannot hide. what does he want me to do, to be silent in the face of another generation of children dying at the hands of the police? i find that unconscionable. host: let me ask you about the debate over policing after the george floyd killing and other incidents. when you hear the discussion over the defund the police and that whole argument, what do you think folks who support that are trying to get to? guest: once we clarify the matter, we have to see if folks are engaging in debate in good faith. so some people say the slogan is too divisive. what is the slogan about? saying that new york city should not spend to this billion dollars on its budget on police,

that we need to invest in other areas like education, mental health, housing, and the like, in order to address underlying conditions that we are trying to respond to, so we are using the police to respond to. when we think about defund the police as a slogan, it is a reflection of an ongoing effort by grassroots organizers to challenge how our budgets reflect what we value. so to become, defund the police is a challenge to a broader framing of policing, that is to say a framing of policing that comes out of the view of law and order, being tough on crime, that it led to communities being over policed, under surveilled, and under attacked it. under selective. if you subtract the tear gas and the rubber bullets, when you see police engaging the

protesters, that is the way our communities are policed every single day. what i mean is the encounters are rife with contempt, insult, spite, force. part of what the defund the police argument is all about is changing the frame of how we understand policing and public safety in the country. i think we will get to that if we get beyond -- how can i put it? on slogans. we focus on the slogan of black lives matter come of block power, of freedom now, -- of black power, freedom now. with tying in a quote james bultman here, "james baldwin said that if one wishes to know how justice is administered in the country, one does not question the police men, the lawyers, the judges or the protected members of the class.

but the unprotected, those who precisely need the law's attention most. ask any mexican, puerto rican, like men, poor person. ask them how they fare in the halls of justice, and then we will know not whether the country is just but whether it has any love for just muscle -- for justice or any concept of it. it is the most ferocious enemy justice can have. what year was that when he wrote that? was published in 1972, and the first that he wrote was about -- was after the assassination of martin with the king jr.. anaheim,ve in california. you mentioned policies and how you are going to change the system. we stand around and yell that all white people are racists -- that is not going to do you any

good. defunding the police is not going to do you any good. the policies that you need our health care and a way to pay for it. paying for it would be a 6% tax nationwide and a 6% tax on wall street speculation. that would take care of that problem. the next problem would be education and doctoring. stop the war in afghanistan. that would pay for that problem. and the most important of all would be the access to cheap capitals. bringould help people to --mselves out of poverty and instead of defunding the police department, why don't you have the same resources as the prostitutio prosecution in cour? agree with you with

regard to health care and education, but i want to resist the idea that we cannot talk about the way in which white supremacy continues to distort and i deform our basic principl. we have to. i cannot worry about the comfort of those who are -- let me be clear, when i talk about white people in a generality, i am talking about those who -- there it is distinguished difference between those who are white and those who happen to be white. white people are those who are invested in their identity. i'm talking about specific things here. i don't think we can hide from that. we have to address the reality of what gets in the way of being a truly adjusted body at all levels. host: to respond to the caller's accusation, you did not say in

this segment or in the past segments, white people are racist. guest: never. that is not the point at all. and usually when you hear that response, his -- eddie glaude from princeton university. his book is "begin again: james baldwin's america and its urgent lessons for our own." thank you for being with us. we have a half-hour less -- left on the program. in at 9:00.gaveling --persmith steve chabot, congressman steve cabot >> during the summer months, reach out to your officials with the c-span directory. it contains the contact information you need to stay in touch with congress, federal agencies and state governors.

today, coronavirus task force members after at the file tree redfield, and the admiral testified before the health committee on what federal, state, and local communities are doing to help americans go back to work and y.hool in the fall as safel atch on c-span-3, on demand c-span.org or listen on the free c-span radio app. >> this is a crisis. people are losing their lives. >> with police reform taking center stage in congress, watch our live, unfiltered coverage and the response to the pandemic .

downauci: we were going and now we are staying flat and now we are going up. >> and briefings on the white house, congress on health care from health care officials. >> i do think there is a line one should not cross where governmental power is used essentially exclusively for personal benefit. stand proud we will and we will stand tall. >> in the latest from the 2020 campaign trail. join in on the conversation on our live call-in program "washington journal." you can watch on-demand at c-span.org or listen with the free c-span radio app. -- >> c-span has unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court and public policy events,

and you can watch it all on television, online, or listen on the free radio app and be part of the national conversation through c-span's daily "washington journal" program or through our social media feeds. c-span, created by america's cable television company as a public service and brought to you today by your television provider. >> from public affairs, available in paperback and e-book, presents biographies of every president, organized by worst.king, from best to and features perspectives into the lives of our chief executives and leaders to -- leadership styles. to learn more about each president in order your copy

today wherever books and e-books are sold. "washington journal" continues. host: we are joined by steve c,an rankinghabot, here to talk to us about the economic impact on small businesses and canonic recovery efforts. economicion -- and recovery efforts. we read comments from a number of colleagues on the supreme court ruling what is your take? guest: i am pro-life. . in theery disappointed decision yesterday. i think it will put any women

potentially in greater risk, greater harm. that is unfortunate. i think certainly there should be much better protection by having the hospital involved the dangerous procedure. i was disappointed in chief justice roberts, who is unfortunately much more to the left where he was originally, but ultimately presidents make those choices and judges grow and evolve over time. i have to say i was very disappointed. host: we are having you on the air this morning, a notable day for the payroll protection program, and the response of the congress to the coronavirus pandemic. a deadline for the ppp and a headline in the wall street journal, companies raised to spend ppp loans and recent hanges came too late,

scores of concerns. program worked for small businesses in your district? guest: small businesses are critical to the economy. half of the people who work in the country work for small businesses. two out of three new jobs created are created by small businesses. this pandemic with them particularly at risk. so we needed to do something. congress acted swiftly, in a bipartisan manner. act,ssed the cares including the payroll protection program, or ppp. it didn't come off without any glitches. it wasn't smooth sailing from the very start, but i was at the signing ceremony at the white house on that friday, and by the

next date we were making loans that didn't exist before that. we didn't know how long the pandemic was going to last and still don't. we didn't know how long the payments going out should go before the loans would be, so eight weeks was what congress put in their originally. we made some adjustments. the program ran out of money into two weeks and wait replenished it, a bipartisan effort. we made some changes to allow businesses if they want to have those loans forgiven, to not just have an eight-week period, but 24 weeks. we wanted to make the program more flexible so more small businesses could survive this pandemic. a lot of people work for small businesses and families depend on that. so the program has helped a lot of small businesses, not perfect

but maybe we will make more changes, but it was the right thing to do. host: what concerns you have in terms of small businesses with states slowing down some reopening, some states closing down things like bars, restaurants, stores -- do you think the ppp that stands now will be able to get them through an additional couple of weeks or months? guest: we don't know right now. there is a hundred and $35 billion remaining in the fund come over -- $135 billion remaining in the fund. there is a fair amount of money left. but today is the last day small businesses can apply. we are in the process of trying to decide what's the best use of that funding. should we just pay down the national debt? we want to make sure this

economy continues to move in the right direction. we had the strongest economy we had in many years until the pandemic hit. it was a huge blow on the pandemic and a terrible blow to those directly affected, especially families who lost loved ones. we are working on that right now . do we need a new program? do we need to wait and see how this money ultimately goes to the economy and how many businesses are saved? it is something being considered right now. we need to do this together. we have to have republicans and democrats working together. host: are lines are open (202) 748-8000 four republicans. four -- for democrats. four republicans.

and also for small businesses, (202) 748-8003. are things in cincinnati mainly open? our cases under control? guest: we are reopening and trying to do it in a safe manner time to keep the pandemic under control. hopefully we will have a vaccine and we don't know when that will be, so we have to socially distant, where masks under circumstances when we are out. we need to do the common sense things to keep us safe. our governor, mike dewine, and his top health person, dr. acton, were very aggressive in trying to keep this under control and didn't want to reopen until they were satisfied it was the right thing to do. they did it in stages. we have to monitor this as we go on.

it is critical. we are reopening and trying to do it safely. host: let's hear from gary in newport, kentucky, republican line. ,aller: good morning representative chabot. plans to extend eight $600 a week unemployment that work in small businesses. i know people in new york and in this area, and people are fine with the $600, but a lot of people in new york are $600,ling with that extra because of the cost of living. is there any other plans? it runs out on july 31. guest: congress has not decided

yet. it is something being considered. mix up theeople federal unemployment on top of the state. example,e in ohio, for they have different unemployment compensation systems. each state does that on their own. the federal government put on top of that an additional $600 a week for those unemployed. there has been concerned for some small business owners that you add the federal and top of arestate, that some people getting more income than not working. there has been no incentive for some to come back to work in some cases. that is something we want to consider we don't want to make the situation worse or keep the economy slow down longer than necessary. the stimulus checks that went

out whether a single or couple were all things that are being considered again at this time. still working on those things. host: laura calling from raleigh, north carolina, democrat line. caller: i have a couple of statements. first of all, i know small businesses are the backbone of our country. i know that because i used to work for small businesses and contracts from the federal government. disappointed very in our leadership. you keep talking about the pandemic how it gets worse and and opening up businesses and stuff like that so people get out more in more.

economyt seems like the is more important in our health in our lives. also, the stimulus package , $1200 forven out adults and 500 four businesses, but the millionaires and billionaires got millions of dollars and we are the ones paying the taxes. host: your thoughts? payments,ative to the people at higher income levels were not eligible for the $1200 or 2400, cut off at $200,000 of income. got, were some people who for example, a ppp loan who may have been wealthier and had a business for a long time. relative to the question about helping asr peoples

important as well, they are both important. the economy is important and people having a livelihood and supporting their families, obviously that is important. they have to pay for the health care and a lot of times that is to employment, but we need to do it safely. that is the balance we have to have. that is why at the federal level we didn't tell people how they had to open or when. the states weighed in and were doing it. mississippi is different from downtown manhattan in new york. government federal and we also have states and local governments, city councils commissions, so we left it at the state and local level to make those decisions on their own. some did it well and some not as well. host: wall street journal

reporting that the last a businesses can apply for loans under the payroll protection program. they write their is 100 maureen million left.0 is there anyway that would be extended beyond today? guest: that is one of the considerations. there is talk of having it 1 for theo september small businesses who couldn't get to the process. the smallest of the small businesses would have an opportunity. second programa similar to the ppp program, but have some differences. some have suggested reducing the number of employees to be eligible for the program. most categories of

small businesses is 500 or less. 500 can be a large small business, so perhaps we come back to 100 employees or less. those are the ideas kicked around in the house and senate right now. i cannot predict certainty which one we will ultimately settle on. the house and the senate will have to pass it. right now, the house is controlled by democrats in the senate is controlled by republicans. host: this is likely to, tonight, the secretary of treasury steven mnuchin, jerome powell testified at the senate hearing. that is at war well 30 time 12:30n -- that is at

eastern. we will cover that. host: let's go to martin in wisconsin area -- wisconsin. comment earlier about the supreme court recent iling and judge roberts -- would like you to expand on that a little bit. i have been following what has been going on in the supreme court over the last 10 to 20 years. it is becoming more political than becoming objective. that is what i would like you to comment on. thank you. guest: there are a lot of people think that is the case. i share that view. i don't think that is what the founders intended. i think you are supposed to interpret the constitution and the law and then make their decisions based upon that. judges, to have many

depending on who they have been appointed by, for example, the obama appointed judges are almost always on the left. isically when a republican appointed by a republican president, they tend to be more conservative. you are going to have some of that, but i do believe that politics has gotten too involved in the supreme court in recent years and recent decades. i don't think that is particularly healthy for the country. we have three branches of government, and we all interact and keep an eye on each other with the checks and balances. the supreme court is supposed to be the least political branch, but they are appointed by the president. there will obviously -- the president will be one party or another so it does get political. i would like to see it be less

political. eta --ne eta -- one juanita in cincinnati. what i am calling about -- i am a little disappointed in you. three weeks ago, our police joined the march through four.ct for -- i wish you had been there, down,e when you walked you have seen numerous black businesses in avondale. i want to know what plans you

have two re-energize the minority businesses in avondale and the rest of the city? guest: i appreciate you asking the question. as the ranking member and the former chairman of the house -- havemall business, we tried to help economically is advantaged businesses in our area and all over the country. we have been working with the african-american chamber of commerce. i have been to american owned working onand we are example,ty zones, for trying to bring tax incentives into the mix so people open up dusinesses in disadvantage areas. we have seen that

disadvantage be the fact that they can't open the business, or if they do, they don't him -- and have sufficient funding to make sure they can get through tough times, like this pandemic. is how we are seeing how the ppp program is working for them. a lot can be done, and i have been doing that and intend to keep doing so. host: alan on the republican line. why we i want to know people on -- more money. on social security living month to month and they have to borrow money to make it

to the first of the month. how we are paying people unemployment up to $1500 per week. these people are putting their lives on the line and they have and house to pay rent payments and car payments. they didn't stop for the economy. host: congressman? guest: clearly, people who are unemployed, there was some assistance for them in the $600 payment on top of what the state unemployment paid, but there were a lot of people continuing to work so didn't receive unemployment. this pandemic has hurt an awful lot of people. the gentleman mentioned social

security, and it is clearly the case that the cost-of-living increase has been eaten up by insurance costs, additions to medicare costs and all of the rest. the cost of living hasn't stopped going up, but unfortunately, social security does not cover that. we need to make sure social security is on sound footing not just for this generation of seniors but for future generations. that is why i am the cofounder of an act that would save every penny a person puts into social security going only for social security and not for anything else. why is that? for years, the federal government has dipped into the social security trust fund and used it for other things. it is used for welfare payments, foreign aid, for highways. that is just not right.

when one is taken out of people's check for social security, it should go for that and nothing else. host: a suggestion on twitter. this says, landlords need a program where they get direct payment to keep them in their rentals and avoid evictions and keep them in the house during the pandemic. has that been talked about? guest: there has not been any resolution at this point. there were rent payment suspensions during this time, it not paying rent because they didn't have much income. but who were they paying the rent to and a lot of times they are paying a mortgage somebody else, to the bank, and they are in the middle. they are expected to make their payment to the bank. situationry difficult , and they weren't covered by ppp, which was for small businesses. that is something as a community that we absolutely have to deal

with. if they go down the tubes, there would be sufficient housing. it is something that we have to lewdly -- we absolutely have to come up with a solution. host: we will hear from alvin in florida. welcome. caller: i want you to stay woke and put this in your playbook. i am a schoolteacher. all we are hearing that school has to be back open, school has to be back open. but guess what? we teachers are woke and we are looking at this. we probably are going to strike. there will have to be guidelines on kids coming back, because we are the key to the economy. if these congressmen think school has to open because of the economy, that is not going to happen. they are going to have a fight. so you as a host, get some

teachers on. we haven't heard from them yet. we have heard from congressman have done nothing yet. we need to get paid as much as congressman. host: i want to be clear, governor desantis said schools will open in the fall? caller: that is his thing. host: your thoughts? guest: happened to be a former schoolteacher myself. i taught seventh and eighth grade some years ago. gentlemen raises an important issue and that is -- opening the schools and doing it safely. we want our kids educated. area, it looks like they may be doing a hybrid opening, where many of the kids will come to the classroom and they will try to maintain social distancing. ,hen you are dealing with kids it will be challenging.

the teachers are also at risk as well. they are also at risk if they spread the virus and bring it home to the most vulnerable, who tend to be the senior citizens, grandma and grandpa who have complicated medical conditions, heart disease, lung disease, asthma, diabetes. those are the most vulnerable. that is why we have to make sure we do everything possible before we have a vaccination to keep us safe. we do have to educate our children, they are our future. we will see have to see how this works out to reopen the schools, but do it safely. it will be the state that make that decision, not the congress. that will be made by the governors and by the local school boards, which is the way

it ought to be done. host: do you think there is a role for the federal government in terms of expansion of broadband across the country, broadband standards, of helping schools, not just local schools but colleges, etc., conducted classes remotely? guest: that is an excellent point. we do need to improve broadband in this country. it depends on where you are. some have top-notch but some of areas not sol well. that to be part of an infrastructure bill. not only should we be improving our highways and ridges and and our -- bridges airports and docs and waterways, and waterways, but we also need to improve our broadband. host: that is on the house

agenda. chabot, thank you for being with us. a 1.5 trillion dollar infrastructure measure proposed by house democrats. live coverage of the u.s. house on c-span. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's rooms, washington, d.c. june 30, 2020. i hereby appoint the honorable henry cuellar to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, nancy pelosi, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the order of the house of january 7, 2020, the chair will now recognize members from lists submitted by the majority and minority leaders for