nomination to the senate floor. we will have that live at 1 p.m. eastern on c-span. the following day, they will begin debate on the nomination setting up a final confirmation vote next week before the general election at a time to be determined. you can follow the senate live on c-span two. dr. anthony fauci talks about the coronavirus pandemic at an event hosted by johns hopkins university live at 11 a.m. eastern on c-span. after that, former vice president joe biden talking about health care policy at a campaign stop in michigan. and then president trump speaking to supporters at a rally in georgia. on c-span two, the brookings institution takes a look at the intelligence committed to his covid-19. we will have that lined -- we will have that live at 10:00 a.m. eastern. coming up on "washington journal ," campaign 2020 and the supreme court nomination of judge amy

coney barrett and later a look at the how the affordable care act is an issue this election year with the ♪ good morning. it's the washington journal for friday, october 16. both president and joe biden held separate town halls. a variety of topics were the stuff -- discussed. show you short bits from both of those town halls. in our first hour, we will ask you to comment. us a callt to give and you support president trump and mike pence, (202) 748-8001 is the number to call. if you support joe biden, (202) 748-8000. maybe watch the town halls, you

are undecided at this point, give us a call at (202) 748-8002 . if you want to text us this morning, you can do that. you can post on our twitter feed. our facebook pages available as well. usa today offering a breakdown of some of the topics at the town halls you saw last night. here are some of the breakdowns from that. when it comes to president trump with savannah guthrie, they became heated at one point. the president called the moderator so cute and complained you always do this.

those are just some of the comments that took place yesterday. we will show you bits of that as we go along. you can give us a call and let us know your thoughts. again, if you support president trump, (202) 748-8001. if you support joe barton just biden, (202) 748-8000 (202) 748-8000 it is. if you support another candidate, (202) 748-8002.

you can also send us a text. we want to raise an issue about steve scully. similar to the ones reported by the associated press concerning his twitter account. suspense kelly after he admits to lying about the hack. sees and suspended its political editor thursday after he admitted to lying about his twitter feed being hacked.

that statement directly from steve scully. another statement to read to you, this one from c-span.

if you want to find both of those statements, you can do so our website c-span.org. now back to the topic of those town halls. we will show you a little bit of both. last night in that nbc news town hall, it was moderated by savannah guthrie. the president responding to a question about the group qanon. >> let me ask you about qanon. democratstheory that

are a satanic pedophile ring and you are the savior of that. stateu once and for all that is completely not true? can you disavow qanon? >> i know nothing about qanon. >> i just told me about it. i do know they are very much against pedophilia. i know nothing about. i will tell you what i do know. i know about antifa and the radical left. i know how vicious they are. i note they are burning down cities run by democrats. not's sasse said qanon is and real leaders call it conspiracy theories. >> he may be right. i just don't know about qanon.

>> you do know. >> let's waste the whole show. you start off with white supremacy. you start up with something else, keep asking me these questions. you, they arell very strongly against pedophilia. i agree with that. you don't know that? >> neither do you know that. why are you not asking me about antifa? why aren't you asking joe biden questions? why doesn't he condemn antifa? antifa exists. they are violent. they kill people. they happen to be radical left. host: we will show you what

happened with joe biden. let's take some calls. this is kirk starting us off. what do you think about the events last night. i don't understand how this country could support a racist in chief. this't understand how country could support a man who said he grabs a woman by their private parts. host: why do call? caller: i did watch. i have a son who is black. i wanted to understand the paradigm we're lived living in. republicansat to and the police. mykills me to talk about son, he has to watch out for the police. i don't understand why we are

still back on qualified immunity. i don't think the police should have qualified immunity. host: we will go to rick talking about last night's events. caller: thanks for taking my call. i went back and forth from the two. it's amazing how they treat trump compared to biden. questions really ask did.den, like what he he was best friends with robert byrd. he signed the crime bill in 1994. i think the winner was the lady behind trump with the red mask on. everything.ith trump was on target. host: when you say he was on target, what do you mean by that? a good.he was

he was precise. he knew what he was trying to talk about. you can hate trump. he is at least for the country. he doesn't want to go to the marxism way of life the radical left wants. a vote for joe biden is a vote for aoc. the way that she attacked was like a child. host: let's go to randy in michigan. good morning. you are next up. to start byuld like thanking you and all of the other men and women for bringing us the show. you do a great service for the nation. i watched them both. that vice setting president biden seemed more calm, answered the questions.

i just like that format better. the president seems to be so angry when he talks about female reporters. onspends too much time social media. style of think the questions was different than the style joe biden got from george step an awful spirit -- george stephanopoulos. president biden wasn't arguing. you can't attack the moderator. havetells me you don't anything worth saying. i think she was -- you've got to handle him. you can't use kid gloves on the president. he doesn't respond that way. host: randy in michigan. one of the topics that came up

with george on that abc town hall was the idea of court packing. possibilityout the of expanding the number of justices on the supreme court. >> how about expanding the courts. this is what you said one year ago tonight. i would not pack the court. is the nomination of judge barrett reason enough to rethink your position? do, if i hadted to answered the question directly, all the focus would be on what is biden going to do if he wins, instead of is it appropriate what's going on now. this is the thing the president loves to do, take our eye off the ball. one of the things pete has are four or there five options to determine

whether or not you can change the way in which lifetime appointment takes place consistent with the constitution. i have not been a fan of court packing. i think it generates, it just keeps moving in away that is inconsistent with what is manageable. i'm not a fan. it depends on how this turns out. how it's handled. there are a number of things that are going to be coming up. there will be a lot of discussion about alternatives. >> what does that mean? >> there is a real debate on the floor, people will have the time to go through this. i don't know anybody who's gone on the floor and it's been a controversial justice in terms the court and is gone through in a day. when you think about it, we've

got a lot of people not been able to put food on the table, not keeping their business open, not dealing with what's going on in terms of the economy as a consequence of covid. they have no time to deal with that. they have time to rush this through. >> if they vote on it before the election, you are open to expanding the court? considering what happens from that point on. >> you so many times through your career, it's important to level. >> no matter what answer i gave you, that's the headline tomorrow. it won't be about what's going on now, the improper way they are proceeding. voters have a right to know. a clearill come up with position? >> yes. deals with joe

biden on another topic. when it comes to the crime bill that he was responsible for. did note bill itself have mandatory sentences except for two things. which ihree strikes voted against. that's misleading. he is understating the impact of the bill. voted for that crime bill, which included money for more prisons and expanded to death penalty. for lifetime sentences. there is more that available from the associated press. a supporter of president trump from pittsburgh. good morning. night, ihat i did last started timing things.

minutesan spent 48 attacking him. wanted tome, people talk to the president. she spit in their faces. the other thing is, biden was for three strikes and against busing. racist, to talk about a biden started all of these bills to put black people in jail. that was despicable what that woman did. she broke into some of the people talking to trump. she was disgusting. host: we will go to greg in indianapolis. the person you just let me go back.

everybody needs to go back to 1978, jim jones. donald trump jim jones. host: let's bring it to the town hall. caller: i will bring you to it. arejones, the republicans drinking jim jones juice with donald trump. how does that relate? --ler: host: chris is in santa clarita, california. caller: good morning. one of the most important questions which concerns me in most of america was not answered correctly. it was given by janet perfectly. there is a guy stuck in traffic asking questions.

he sent in a wire. janet read the question to donald trump. issue an executive order for $1200 stimulus checks right now. you don't have to go through the senate. why don't you do it? he didn't answer the question at all. he's got they was money and house. they don't have to dip into anywhere. it's just sitting there. it's available. pelosi and macconnell are not agreeing on the stimulus bill. again, he avoided the question. why not do an executive order to get the stimulus checks out.

billid he could sign the in the morning and have the checks running at the same time the next day. host: that is chris in santa clarita. next roundes to the the wallvirus relief, street journal reports the white house and democratic negotiators agreed to including a national testing strategy in the broader economic relief legislation. let's go to william. liam is in houston talking about

the town hall last night. good morning. caller: good morning. good morning to you, pedro. as far as joe biden, i want everybody to understand about. mored trump says he's done it was held up. biden asked a question about packing the court. whats simply do exactly donald trump and mitch mcconnell

do if the situation was different. that should answer the question. host: that is william from houston. you heard a little of that break down when it comes to topics of the crime bill. this is joe biden addressing the question. >> things have changed drastically. the black caucus voted fort. every black mayor supported it. the crime bill did not have mandatory sentences except for two things. it had to strikes and you are out. it had a lot of other things in it that turned out to be bad and good. the assault weapons ban was good. givingwas against was states more money for prison systems that they could build. jail in statee in prison. they built more prisons. there was a thing called drug

courts. i don't think anybody should be going to jail for drug use. they should go into rehabilitation. we should be building rehab centers to have people housed. we should decriminalize marijuana. you could actually say that you've been arrested and say no. we will pass along say there is no background you have to reveal relative to the use of marijuana. there are a lot of things. we have to change the system. i joined with a group of people in the house to provide changing the system from punishment to rehabilitation. i wrote the second chance act. >> a lot of people were jailed for minor drug crimes. was it a mistake to support it. >> it was. the mistake came in terms of what the states did locally.

about theer, it was same time for the same crime. the circuit court of appeals. we did a study. we determined what happens for the first, second, third offense. if you are a black man, you commit a robbery the first time how long do you go to jail. the black man would go to jail 13 years. the white man, two years. i went down the list of every crime. we set up a sentencing commission. every single maximum was reduced. what happened was it became the same time for the same crime. it said you have to serve between one and three years. it was much lower.

black folks went to jail a lot less than they did before. it was a mistake. host: this is tom in fort lauderdale, florida. good morning. caller: i would like to correct something that somebody said about the money laying around. donald trump did answer that question. he said congress has to change the language for the money. that was alive. the democrats and the news organizations have a big problem. for years, they've been screaming donald trump is not above the law. are not asking joe biden about the emails on his sons computer that put him above the law. they just don't even mention it. joe biden has broken several laws. he lied to the american public

about not knowing anything about what his son was doing in his business dealings. that's been proven to be alive. -- alive. a lie. he accepted billions of dollars from the chinese in a deal with his son and the chinese. they set up this fund. host: you are saying those topics should have been addressed? caller: absolutely. this is the corruption of the news organizations. they are not asking about that. host: let's hear from bob in massachusetts, and undecided voter. caller: good morning. what i saw last night, i did

watch both debates. i thought the town hall with mr. biden was nerf balls. ask him about his son. the woman that was interviewing i can't explain why she was like she was. she made him the aggressor. host: as far as what you saw from the president, what was your assessment? sure.: i'm not i really don't know. i don't like mr. biden either. the i wish there was a third candidate. did spy to me like he on donald trump's campaign.

he was a part of all of that stuff. cia to beatrned the people up. you say at this point, you are still undecided? caller: like i said. mr. trump, he's done great things. the brought back the bodies from korea. host: ok. we will go to canton, ohio. caller: i appreciate being able to speak. i'm a 52-year-old african-american male. i can appreciate trump saying what he said that he's done more for african-americans than lincoln. to, be real wanted

about where he's coming from, he should address the differences in how african-american people are treated. all of that other stuff they are talking about, talking about trump. i think the issues that should , let'sessed honestly talk about how there is a difference in how we are treated. i respect trump. i don't have anything against him. a lot of people don't like it because he's keeping it real. joe biden's delivery is more pleasant. his delivery is more presidential than trump.

trump is very rude. host: ok. can i ask a question? you talked about the delivery of joe biden. how much of that is a factor in deciding who you would support? caller: i am going to support biden just from him being able to verbalize his plan for america. saypreciate him wanting to what he is going to do for african-americans. roosevelt is the one that started redline. this has been in the fabric of our society. that is the original. host: that is jonathan in ohio. about his worknt

in the african-american community, that is a fact-check in the washington post. the quote from last night, i've done more than any president since abraham lincoln. this hascheckers say been dismissed as fantasy. it goes on from there. any of these publications will have topics, fact checking from those town halls last night. those are the topic of our first hour. you can comment on the themes that were addressed by both president trump and joe biden. you can send us a text if you

want. you can post on our facebook page. one of the questions the president had to address was that of his financial records. here is some of that exchange. the subject of taxes, the new york times has obtained your tax returns. $421ys you have debts of million that you personally guaranteed. is, who do you owe $421 million? >> what they did was illegal. the numbers are wrong. when you have a lot of real i'm very -- under levered. i have a very small percentage of debt.

some of it i did his favors to institutions that wanted to loan me money. $400 million compared to the the bank ofe, america building in san francisco, i don't love what's happening to san francisco. >> $400 million isn't that much. you are confirming that you do owe $400 million? >> it's a tiny percentage of my net worth. we are doing things. 112 pages of financial details to elections. we have to file. you have to file. they see how incredible the company is. they see where this debt is. i don't owe russia money. small -- it's called

mortgages. >> any foreign bank? >> it is so easy to solve. i will let you know who i/o. it's a very small amount of money. number two, it's very straight. it's a tiny percentage of the worth. i am extremely under levered. >> you could clear this up tonight by releasing your tax returns yourself. >> i am under audit. >> the irs says that doesn't stop you. >> i am under audit. no person in their right mind would release prior to working out the deal with the irs. from james in oklahoma, you

are next up. caller: how are you today? unfortunate that they don't have somebody running that town halls or debates would do it like you do. i was at the doctor the other day. said you must be a republican. i said it i'm an american. what did you think about last night? caller: he get so bent out of shape whenever anybody disagrees with him. exactly what needs to be going on. donald from massachusetts was

exactly right. if we don't wake up, this country is going to be in trouble. what would you advise the president to do going forward in this final debate? what would you advise them to do? well, he needs to settle down a little bit and be more articulate with his answers. host: james in oklahoma talking about the dueling town halls from yesterday. bill and ohio, good morning. caller: good morning. i noticed earlier they mentioned the crime bill. 90% of the senators voted for that. of those 90, two of them work

mitch mcconnell and senator grassley. think it was a vote that should not be held. since he's behind the legislation, what did you think about the answer he gave? was right innk he saying three strikes was not the correct thing to do. did you watch both of the town halls? caller: i was going back and forth. host: go ahead. trump: i think president did his usual not answering. -- he didt admit admit -- i can't remember what it was now. theas too busy keeping on

subject and couldn't say a mask with something you should do for the virus. in hisisappointed answers. host: this is marvin in indiana. go ahead. caller: i watched both of the debates last night. i was more happy with bidens answers. i am a big trump supporter. he flip-flopped on all of his answers. guthrie interrupted him too much. i will say that. thevoided the question on $421 million. i think he needs to answer that. i will still vote for donald trump. why do you plan to vote for trump? i'm here.

host: go ahead. why do you want to give president trump another term? theer: because he is to point. he is not a career politician. he believes in america. i know he does lie a lot. business people have to have tax breaks in order to provide jobs for americans. host: marvin in indiana. talking about that town hall that he participated in last night. tony is in detroit. go ahead. you're on. caller: good morning. say, how could donald trump after catching the covid disease still not be able to just put on a mask for america? died fromople have

this disease. his words matter. over 20,000 lives, i know trump supporters don't really believe that he cares about them. there must be an ulterior motive at play. what what did you think -- did you get from the former vice presidents town hall? caller: joe biden has been in politics for over 40 years. time changes, positions change. that's what he was articulating last night. stay stuck. if the will is turning clockwise, why go the other way? host: what do you mean by that? are you talking about joe biden?

caller: he evolved. what i mean is what he thought in 1994 about the crime bill, which was terrible, at the time, you've got to apply an ideal to see what it's going to do. a mistake. they made a mistake. let's move on. he moved on from it. said that wasn't a good idea. ok. now he's applying a better idea. that's what america needs to do. we need to it together and say enough is enough. i'm tired of america looking stupid on the world stage. from the debate last

night, one of those topics that joe biden engaged on with the host was this idea of fracking. extracting gases and things from the ground. this is some of the exchange from last night. it centers on his position on that. >> you said you don't want to ban it fracking. not everybody buys your denial. a member of the boilermakers was quoted saying you can't have it both ways. people who say to doubt your denial because you want to keep that promise. >> the boilermakers union has endorsed me because i sat down with him and great detail. stopi would do, i would giving tax breaks and subsidizing oil. we don't need to subsidize oil

any longer. we would save billions of dollars over time. with regard to -- the difference between me and the new green deal, they say by 2030 we will be carbon free. >> are you for it or against it? you call it a crucial framework. framedeal is a crucial work. the degree new deal calls for the elimination of all nonrenewable or energy by 23. you can't get there. you're going to be able to transition to get to the place where we invest in new technologies allows us to do things that get us to a place where we get to net zero emission, including in agriculture. host: that was from last night. you can go to the networks to watch those town halls. when it comes to fracking, the president on his twitter feed

jumped on a tweet that was sent by rand paul. she and the vice president are on record that they would ban fracking. october 7.nt out on you are next from bismarck, north dakota. good morning. caller: good morning. trump did a very good job with the fact that savannah guthrie was very rude. she was doing more talking than being a moderator. she had her own agenda. fewident trump had very questions from the audience. it seems she was trying to get her questions answered.

when people talk about the stimulus check, i'm sure he could executive order that. a lot of people would say he's trying to be a dictator and go over nancy pelosi. biden with fracking, they want to shut fracking down i honestly believe. north dakota has coal plants. hurt our economy very much in north dakota. host: talking about some of those topics. she mentioned the stimulus check. there's a story in the washington post that pelosi walks a tight rope in an election year. no onery goes on to say wants to undercut her bargaining hand.

it goes in the next column to quote some of those members. if you want to read more, that is in the washington post this morning. , louisiana, hello. caller: the debate was chaotic and the other was more calm. i want to talk about antifa.

antifa is not an organization. it's a belief against fascism. it seems like the president doesn't want to fight fascism. tea foottalking and bad. fighting fascism is bad? the whole thing about repealing the aca, he didn't offer anything to replace it with. he skipped over the question about roe v. wade. whether or not he was against a woman's right to choose. and the emigration. weak on that.is

i am going to vote for him. up andan that stood pointed out the problem with andking in her community destroyed the drinking water, it's a problem. host: go back to immigration. you said joe biden is weak on immigration. caller: i'm saying trump is weak on immigration. host: i misunderstood. touted his immigration policy. we've got children locked up. we've got parents separated from their families. that's not a good look for us for the whole world. let me go back. go to susanna in

orlando. go ahead. caller: good morning. she was pretty good. from north dakota? host: what did you think of last night? waser: i felt that trump being ran over. i watched both of them. if they are so worried about trump's taxes, why don't they look at bidens. where did those billions go? let's look at his. let's look at nancy's. host: what did president trump do well last night. his ground.tands if she would have gave him more leeway, let him answer. they do that. i've seen every one of his things.

why doesn't out republican get to narrate? out, newsweek has a story taking look at ratings on it comes to those who had eyeballs on the town halls. these are some of their assessments. on the evening the debate was slated to occur, joe biden appeared on abc. final viewership numbers have yet to be announced. newsweek reached out to both the youtube and the biden campaign for comment.

dale is in ohio. go ahead. caller: good morning to everybody. it's going to be strange. trump is something. had016, usa today said he over 3500 lawsuits. i have a lot of family members that have the same type of personality. one thing about donald trump, he will say i don't know if i'm going to change yet. now, joe biden is leading in the polls. host: how does that relate to last night? bounceshow donald trump around answering questions. i just want to say one thing. if he comes up and wins the electoral vote, he will win the election again. if joe biden wins the popular

college the electoral and goes across the board, donald trump will say something happened in parts of the united states. that's very sad. it's just mind blowing. talking about those issues of voting. topics thee president engaged in on nbc. it's a topic he has addressed over the last few weeks. >> a lot of people have asked you, will you accept a peaceful transfer of power. you said the only way we lose the election is if it's rigged. either candidate can lose fair and square without ballot fraud. >> when i see thousands of ballots unsolicited ballots and

given out by the millions and thousands of them dumped in dumpsters. when you see ballots and they are don't and garbage band. about 150talking million votes. your own fbi director said there's no evidence. >> pick up the papers every day. 50,000 in ohio. 50,000 in another location. 500,000 applications in virginia. there is a tremendous problem. they talk about the peaceful transfer. they spied on my campaign and got caught. they tried to take down the duly elected president. will you accept a peaceful

transfer? i will. i wanted to be an honest election. when i see thousands of ballots dumped in a garbage can and they have my name on it, i'm not happy about that. >> there is no evidence of widespread fraud. you are sowing doubt about our democracy. >> you do watch the news? day, they are talking about ballots that are corrupt, that are fraudulent. >> millions are being processed right now. >> you can win it race by 1%. >> why you wayne the groundwork? >> i don't want that to happen. i wanted to be clean. i really feel we are going to win. i want this to be clean. host: the new york times offers a snapshot in one of those races.

south carolina, the president 49-41.oe biden instagram is facing the most serious challenge of his career. the senate race may be more competitive because the survey that was done found 12% of black voters are undecided. that will likely favor mr. harrison. more of that break down in the new york times. jim is next in california. caller: good morning. this is jim from california. i've got three points. all of thisspent on bickering back and forth? united gothe word

from our united states? office, harrisn will take over. she is not qualified to take over as vice president. host: how does that relate to last night? night, biden looked like he was sick. trump was strong. is, whenever you are attacked, you have to defend yourself. that's ridiculous. civility.ld be some it doesn't seem like there is any with all of these adults. whether it be in the senate, and the congress.

it's our friends from the other side. fontana,t is jim in california. this is jim in missouri. go ahead. caller: good morning. i really appreciate the way you run the show and i appreciate c-span. i started watching the show because i couldn't take the morning shows. it was driving me nuts. last night is the same thing. just.c thing was guthrie reminded me what my dad used to say. i got nothing out of that. i probably lean toward trump. if you look at the obvious facts, the democrats are full of it. at least trump is honest. he tells you what he thinks.

he's done everything he has said he's going to do. tell me one thing he hasn't done. i would like to hear that. i do love your show. i'm going to keep watching. i'm disappointed with steve scully. you guys are usually top professionals. these guys areo for. that's disappointing. to angle limit, florida. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. i don't know where these people are getting, trump didn't do anything again. he has no agenda. he has no programs to get anything done. that's why he can't answer questions. he's always combative.

he talks over people. that's why he is talked to the way he is. that's why savannah had to be the way she was. biden has got so much class. he answers questions. he got hard think questions last night? caller: he did it. host: which ones? i can't remember. answers the questions very articulate. he knows what he's talking about. trump can't do that. he's not smart enough. people, theytrump are looking at the devil. florida finishing

off this first hour. we appreciate all the calls. join us through the morning, we will be joined by mike davis from the judicial group article three. he will talk about how they are mobilizing conservatives behind amy coney barrett and her supreme court nomination. on, protect our care will join us to talk about the role health care is plain in the campaign. both of those are joining us on washington journal. americans have some form of disability. we are in less than 3% of film and tv shows and a majority of those roles are portrayed by nondisabled actors. ultimately, as someone with a disability you want to see ourselves represented because not only are we seeing ourselves

not represented -- but seeing ourselves represented, but it will help destigmatize disability. representation get society used to everybody, and, ultimately it makes the world a more inclusive place. nic founded a disability challenge after seeing disabilities underrepresented in front of and behind a camera. sunday night he will talk about the entries in winning films. at 8:00 p.m. eastern on q&a. the presidents" available in paperback, hardcover, and e-book from public affairs presents biographies of every president inspired by conversations from noted historians about the leadership skills that make for a successful presidency. as americans go to the polls to decide who should lead our country, this offers perspective

into the lives and events that forged each leadership style. to learn more about our presidents and the book's featured historians visit c-span.org/thepresidents, and order your copy wherever books are sold. c-span, youring unfiltered view of government, created by america's table cut the ash cable television companies as a service and brought to you by your television provider. >> "washington journal" continues. host: this is mike davis, the founder and president of a organization known as the article iii project and served as the former chief counsel for nominations for the senate judiciary committee. thank you for joining us. can you talk about the article theory project, what does it do's -- article iii project, what it does and how are you

financially backed? in 2019.started it i was a top nominations counsel for the confirmation of justice brett kavanaugh along with several lower court judges. i looked for chairman chuck grassley from iowa, so when he left, i decided to start the article iii project fight for president trump's judicial nominees for the outside so we make the positive case for the judicial nominees like amy coney barrett. we fight back against the left's attacks and defend the confirmation process so that when the democrats are saying that the process is rigged or unfair, we can point to historical precedents to defend the process and we punch back on judicials assaults on independence, their radical plans like court packing, turn limits, and impeachment. our funding is from small dollar

donors across america, you can go to our website and there is a donation link. host: when you talk about amy coney barrett, did your article a did year -- did you have direct hand in your nomination? guest: meaning that we help a car? no. we are not in the judge picking business, we are in the judge confirming business. it is the arctic -- the president's job to take these nominee and we support president trump's nominees. host: talk about your previous career. when a candidate comes before the judiciary committee in this confirmation process there was a lot about how much she did not say on certain issues. given your direct experience, how much of that is a common feature when there -- when there are people in that chair? guest: it should be a uniform feature, because as a judicial

nominee, especially if you are a sitting judge, it is their ethical duty as a sitting judge or a judicial nominee not to answer these questions about how they will rule on future cases, and there is a reason. think about it as a litigant, and you are getting ready to go before a justice. barrett is on the supreme court and you found out later that she made some backroom deal with a senator and exchanged her vote on a future case for that senator's vote for a confirmation, it is not how our system works, it is unethical and unseemly. she has done what every supreme court nominee should do including what late justice ginsburg said that she did which was to provide no hints or forecasts. ofin, it is not the job supreme court nominees to assure senators how they will vote on future cases. host: is it fair to say, you

were directly involved in the confirmation process of brett kavanaugh and correct me if i am wrong, and gorsuch? guest: i was involved with the chief justice roberts' confirmation when i worked in the bush 43 white house along with justice alito. i was the outside leader of justice gorsuch's confirmation, i was his former law clerk and friend and i helped him get through the process in 2007 -- 2017 and i was the senate staff leader for justice kavanaugh's process. judge barretty answered these questions or did not answer the questions is how judicial nominees are supposed to handle the questions. host: would you say that those three did the exact same style or did they go further in explaining their reasonings behind -- behind certain decisions? didt: i think judge barrett

a fantastic job explaining her philosophy. she talked about how she would go about deciding cases, what she would look for, but she did not go over the ethical line of saying how she would rule on future cases. she did not go over the ethical line of saying what previous cases were rightly or wrongly decided, but then it tips her hand and shows litigants how she would rule on future cases, which is not her job as a nominee or sitting judge. host: would you say that the three previous dental men were more forthcoming? guest: i just think that judge barrett was better -- and i am friends with justice gorsuch and kavanaugh, they should watch her tape because they can learn a lot about how the model supreme court nominee should answer those questions and go through the process. they did fine, they were great. you noticed that judge barrett did not have notes when she was

going through her hearing process. both justice gorsuch and kavanaugh had a lot of notes. i do not know, those two ivy leaguers cannot keep up. host: our guest will be with us until 8:45. if you want to ask questions you can do so. you can call and post on our twitter feed. our facebook page is available as well if you want, and you can talk to mike davis of the article iii project. when you heard democratic senators particularly talk to judge barrett over concerns about the future of the affordable care act, the future of women's rights, what came across your mind when you saw that line of questioning? guest: i thought it was typical political nonsense that you hear at the supreme court hearings. these judges are going to do what judges do, which is to look at the facts and look at the law, and apply the law to the facts and let the chips fall

where they may. it is nonsense to think that judge amy coney barrett, a mother of seven kids including one with down syndrome is on some sort of mission from god to overturn obamacare or any other case. season at the senate judiciary committee, and it happens every time, but it is nonsense. host: we will show you a little bit of that questioning directly. this is senator klobuchar asking the judge when it comes to the future of the affordable care act and here's the exchange. [video clip] >> one of president trump's campaign promises in 2015 is that his judicial appointments will do the right thing on obamacare, you can see it right here. in fact, just one day after you were nominated, this was a few weeks ago, he said also on twitter that it would be a big

win if the supreme court strikes down the health law. question, dofirst you think we should take the president at his word and he says his nominee will do the right thing and overturn the affordable care act? , i cannot klobuchar really speak to what the president has said on twitter. he has not set any of that to me, and what i can tell you, as i have told your colleagues earlier is that no one has elicited from me any commitments or even brought up a commitment in a case. judicial committed to independence from political pressure. party platforms may be or campaign promises may be, the reason judges have life tenure is to insulate them from those pressures. i take my oath seriously to follow the law, and i have not

pre-committed, nor what i pre-commit to decide a case any particular way. [end video clip] host: as far as the response, how would you rate that? guest: i think it is a great response. she wrote in her questionnaire before her hearing that she had no conversations, zero conversations with anyone including the president, senator , or anyone else on how she would rule on any particular case. she testified clearly that she would -- did not have any conversation with anyone. it is just silly that these are the same democrats who have been arguing since roe v. wade was decided in 1970 three that republican appointed supreme court justices are going to overturn roe v. wade, and here we are 20 -- 47 years later. this is just trying to scare voters for the election. host: if you support the confirmation,1. -- 202-748-8000. if you oppose it, 202-748-8001.

if you are undecided, 202-748-8002. you can text us at 202-748-8003. leading up to the confirmation hearings this week, there were questions and concerns from some, expressed as if her faith was going to come into view. now that it is over, what did you think about those type of questions, did they exist in this couple of rounds? aest: the democrats have pattern and practice of scrutinizing republican judicial nominees about their catholic faith. we saw this in 2017 when dianne feinstein, the top democrat on the senate judiciary committee to judge barrett, and that was a concern. you had senator dick durbin, the number two stennett democrat -- senate democrat asking judge barrett whether she was orthodox

catholic, whatever the heck that means. senator from hawaii and senator kamala harris busher when he went through the nominations process in 2000 18 for his 2018 for his- membership in the knights of columbus. there is a clear practice of anti-catholic bigotry. 10 whoyou four of the demonstrated that over the last several years. this time i think they were more careful about their anti-catholic bigotry. i think they were leaving it to the outside groups to attack judge barrett as she went through this confirmation process. we saw the outside democrat operatives including those with blue checkmarks on twitter attacking judge barrett for her catholic faith, attacking her family through this process. there was a democrat operative barrett wast judge

racist because she adopted two children from haiti. there is plenty of hatred out there in the democratic party are on the left. the associated press highlighting a story saying that if judge merrick is confirmed a total of six catholics -- isriet is -- barrett confirmed, a total of six catholics. do you think that will have an impact? guest: i do not. i know when i am serving as a lawyer, i can separate personal views from my legal views. i do not recall these types of questions being asked of a muslim judicial nominee who has gone through the process or a jewish judicial nominee who is gone through the process, or an atheist. i find it very interesting that the left is particularly concerned about catholics and it goes to the fact that the left is beholden to planned parenthood in the abortion

industry and they are concerned that catholics who are pro-life are going to cut into their bottom line. host: this is mike davis, founder and president of the article iii project. articleiiiproject.org is their website. we have calls lined up for you. fromirst one is from ralph augusta, georgia who is opposed to judge barrett's confirmation. you are on, go ahead. ifler: my concern is that she does not answer any questions that the president said what he wanted in his next have all of the republicans caving out asking askingns -- coming out questions, but they had already made their mind up that she was going to be put into office. andhe did not talk to them give them some idea, but when a democrat asks a question, then we were wrong.

she says she is an originalist. leavesginal constitution people out like me as a black man, and i am concerned about that. about thisp talking is a practice. you muslim was put up there would ask out of concern. i will listen for your answer. host: go ahead. guest: number one i would not have any concern about a muslim or jewish nominee. we have article six in the u.s. constitution that says we cannot have a religious test for people who are going to serve as officers of the united states including judges. original is on is where -- original ism is where you look at the text of the constitution and what it it meant to the people. you talked about your race and

you would be left out. that is a complete misunderstanding. you have to look at the fact that the constitution was amended with the 13th through 15th amendments. the civil war allete -- amendments and in the 19th amendment with women. at originalist would look those same amendments in the 19th amendment just like any part of the constitution. host: from nebraska, we will hear from mark, a supporter. good morning. caller: good morning, thank you for having me. i was impressed with the nomination and process. i thought that barrett, i really watched these processes since clarence thomas, and i feel like she was the most smartest nominee we have ever had. she was so bright, but so gracious, because you could tell when these lawyers on the senate were questioning her, she was so

far superior, intellectually, that she would not show how smart she was. she was dumbing down her responses so they could understand. she was just brilliant. and, i am from nebraska and i do not always agree with sasse, but i thought he was one of the best people up there. who do you think was the best questioner and stuff like that of barrett? will berrett -- barrett a rock star and a lot of young girls -- she is the first person that someone will really look up to and stuff and admire being a mom and all of that. she is terrific. -- i thinke barrett she was the best nominee that i have ever seen and the best witness i have ever seen, let alone nominee or judicial nominee.

she really demonstrated at her confirmation hearing this week that she is exceptionally well-qualified for the job, she is 48 years old and graduated number one in her class from notre dame law school. she served as executive editor of the law overview and served in two prestigious clerk shifts justiceship including scalia. she has been a notre dame lawful -- law professor for the last three years and she has participated in 600 opinions including writing about 100 of those. she was phenomenal. everyone got to see it at her liberal even the american bar association said she was well qualified to serve. and i thought that gorsuch and kavanaugh were great nominees, exceptional nominees, but i do not think that they

were able to keep up with judge barrett, who was just phenomenal. she was in a league of her own. host: let me follow up on the questioners themselves, who stood out on the republican and democratic side? guest: ben sasse is a good questioner. they all do a good job, i should not say they all do a good job. most of them do a good set -- a good job. on the democrat side, durbin is effective, he tries to come across as moderate and reasonable when he is not. does very partisan, but he and effective job at questioning. senator coons is like durbin lite, he tries to be effective and, of as reasonable and moderate, again, he is partisan. i think that there are questioners like mazie hirono where you want to turn the tv off, they are so bad. overall, i think that it was a

good hearing for judge barrett, and i think she handled the questions on both sides from the democrats and the republicans masterfully. host: what difference did it make, do you think, that she is a known commodity, because she had to appear for a judgeship, does not make any difference? guest: sure, i think the democrats change their tactics. last time the democrats realized they stepped into it by attacking her catholic faith, so this time i think they were a lot more careful about that. you are hearing groups like demand justice, led by brian fallon, they are very upset that dianne feinstein, the top democrat on the senate judiciary committee, they do not think that senator feinstein was tough enough on judge barrett. they do not think that she was tough enough during the process, and so they are calling for her to step down as top democrat on

the senate judiciary committee. i think that how she handled it was very smart. i think senator feinstein realized that last time the democrats with kavanaugh, they really stepped into it with how they handled the kavanaugh confirmation, where they were just screaming and yelling. he saw kamala harris screaming within eight seconds of the hearing starting. the first hearing, the paper cut hearing, not even the second one with dr. ford. i think dianne feinstein was the adult in the room this time and saw that last time the democrats made a spectacle of themselves and four senate democrats got sent into early retirement in part because of the way that the kavanaugh confirmation went. i think dianne feinstein was smarter ensuring that it was a dignified or a more dignified process, and that upsets people like brian fallon host: and

demand justice. person,m michigan, this opposes barrett. nikki, go ahead. caller: good morning. i do not have a problem with judge barrett, but i do think that it would be a lot at her and a lot of us would support it if she would step back and wait until after the elections. can you tell me why she would not do that and why the republicans will not wait until after the elections? i think it would be a calm or situation. thank you very much. guest: it is a fair point. if you look at historically how the senate has handled presidential -- the president's supreme court nominees during a presidential election year, i think there have been 29 during an election year, and 90% of the time when the president and the senate are of the same party the supreme court nominee is confirmed and 90% of the time when they are on different

parties they are not confirmed, you can call it the 90% rule. the present -- the president is a republican in the senate is a republican. this president serves four years in office, not just three or 3.5 , so they are expected to perform their duty. remember last time you had my like joe- democrats biden and chuck schumer saying that this is it for merit garland -- merit garland saying that republicans had a constitutional duty to consider his nomination, so if you have a constitutional duty when there is a democrat president you have the same when there is a republican president. host: do you think it was marked and senator graham himself when he said that this thing would not happen exactly did happen as far as nominating a person in this way and in this timeframe? guest: i do not recall what

chairman graham set at the time, but i think that the kavanaugh confirmation changed a lot of minds in the senate. there were a lot of senators like senator graham who were more institutionalists, the senator dianne feinstein's of the world who were concerned and iith the institution, think that when the democrats blew up the institution by accusing justice kavanaugh of counts ofg rape, six .buse i think that the democrats might not be on the highest moral grounds to talk about norms or, in their 2020 national committee platform, long before justice ginsburg died when they were calling for packing the supreme court, meeting adding new -- meaning adding new justices, something that has not been done

in 150 years. war, fdrfter the civil tried to pack the court during the back -- during the new deal era and it was too radical. the late justice ginsburg thently came out and made extraordinary public announcement of court packing, it was too radical for justice ginsburg because she sought as an assault on judicial independence, because it is. are falselyts accusing supreme court justices of serial gang rape and threatening to pack the supreme court, i do not think republicans will care much about their feelings this time. host: as far as the particulars, if there were expansions of the supreme court, how would that work? guest: it is in the democratic national committee platform. they do not call it court packing specifically, because that would be too honest. they talk about court reform.

what it would mean is expanding the number of justices. on the had nine justices supreme court since 1869. the democrats wants to add at least two seats to the supreme court, maybe more or maybe five, so you would go to nine or 11 or more and the democrats and they would be able to do this. if joe biden and kamala harris win, then the democrats would win the senate they would have full control the white house, senate, and house. ke theould nu legislative filibuster, so they would lower the vote threshold from 60 to 51, and then in their platform they are talking about adding d.c., puerto rico, and the virgin as states, maybe six new democratic senators, they would just pass legislation and expand the number of seats on the supreme court, and on the supreme court, and in the

president would nominate very little supreme court nominees as they would overturn precedent many of oures rights including our free-speech rights, association rights, rights to worship, rights to protect ourselves to the second amendment. florida,m port orange a supportive of -- a supporter of judge barrett. steve, go ahead. steve, go ahead, please. ok, we will move on to ramona from florida who opposes the nomination. go ahead. sham, and is a referring to the republican saying well because they treated brett kavanaugh so poorly, these women did not make these charges up. it was no fun to brought -- to bring them up.

now they have to deal with a smear campaign. these were not sham accusations. he is a chump that attacks women. but a white man like yourself would not understand it. if it was happening to you, i am sure it would on that she would understand much better. host: do you have your quest -- a question for your guest on that front. caller: he said republicans were mad of the way brett kavanaugh was treated that way after they thing, to the democrats because they did not change their mind because of kavanaugh. pick and theyour [ should've stuck with their president. they change the law at that point. there is a law that says they have to pick a judge, they set a precedent and they said they would not do it in an election year. host: we would let our guest respond. guest: there were six allegations of serial gang rape

kavanaughen judge during his process. i was the staff leader for the chairman, and we chased down every one of those leads. several of them, one of them at added that they were lying. catalan whojeffrey recanted his allegation of brett kavanaugh and a friend gang rape thing a woman on a boat in newport, rhode island. we saw michael avenatti with his client julie swetnick. chuck grassley made several criminal referrals last congress for people who made false statements to the judiciary committee related to kavanaugh's confirmation. host: randy, a supporter of judge barrett. hello. caller: good morning, thank you for the work that you do, and thank you c-span for giving the

shows so americans can get informed. i have a couple of questions. number one, i do not know if you saw vice president biden's town hall last night. do you know what he was talking about when he said that there were ways to adjust the life tenure of justices? and i have another question after that. guest: i did not watch the town hall, but i know that democrats are talking about this, which is again, part of the radical assaults on judicial independence that the democrats are pushing our court packing, which we discussed, and term limits, which could be what the former vice president is discussing and they are talking about impeaching justice kavanaugh, and all three of them are crazy, but the democrats are pushing all three. i think what they are talking about with term limits is that there are plans out there where they will let justices serve on the supreme court for 18 years and they rotate off the supreme court and go ride circuit on the

lower courts. i would remind people that lifetime tenure is guaranteed in the constitution, and the reason we have lifetime tenure along with pay protection, meaning that you cannot throw federal judges out of their job or lower their pay so long as they -- on -- in the constitution they say good behavior, but it is so long as they do their job. the reason they do that is to have judicial independence, and we have judges solely focused on the law and not worried about what their next job will be if they do not rule the right way. so, we insulate judges intentionally from the political process for that very reason. in rome,t was randy, new york. you probably saw during the confirmation process the questioning that democratic senator sheldon whitehouse brought when it comes to groups

behind the nomination process. i want to play a little bit of what he had to say. [video clip] , obamacare, roe cases and a marriage. the national organization for saysage, the group that that opposes same-sex marriage, it says all of the issues at stake. the republican platform wants to ll, and thergefe republican brief in the case said that same-sex relationships do not fall within any constitutional protection. so, when we say the stakes are high on this is -- it is because you have said the stakes are high on this because you have said that is what you want to do. so how are people going about doing it? what is the scheme? let me start with this one. cases there is big

anonymous money behind various lanes of activity. one lane of activity is through the conduit of the federalist society, it is managed or was managed by leonard leo and it has taken over the selection of judicial nominees. how do we know that to be the case, because trump has said so over and over again. ,is white house counsel said so so we have an anonymously funded group controlling judicial selection run by this guy, leonard leo. in another lane we have again, anonymous funders running through something through do do -- the judicial crisis network which is run by carrie severino doing pr and campaign ads for republican judicial nominees. -- single $17ion million donations in the garland-gorsuch contest and

another $17 million donation to support kavanaugh. somebody, perhaps the same person spent 35 million dollars to influence the makeup of the supreme court, tell me that is good. overhear what you have a whole array of legal groups, also funded by dark money with a different role. they bring cases to the court, they do not wind their way to the court, they get shelved by lose groups, many of which low to get quickly to the court to get their business done. and then they turn up in a chorus, and orchestrated chorus. [end video clip] host: what do you think about assessment? guest: i have listens to senator whitehouse when i was on the committee, and i listens to him from the outside, lots of conspiracy theories with senator whitehouse. these are good people who are involved in our democracy, and

the process. president trump in 2016 as a candidate let out a list of people who -- and from this list he would select the supreme court. he publicly campaigned on the fact that he would work with outside groups like the heritage withation and leonard leo the federal society. the american people liked what they saw, they liked what they saw with his have the -- his having this group involved which has been the most transparent process. president trump has updated the list three times now. i think there are 44 potential supreme court nominees on his last, and to say that this is nefarious is silly. there are groups on the left who are heavily involved in judicial selection, the abortion industry, planned parenthood, they spent tens of millions of

dollars on these judicial fights. thee are groups that american constitution society or acs, the liberal version of the federal society, and to suggest that there is corruption involved is -- i would expect senatorleft -- less of whitehouse who is been a blowhard. host: are you concerned about the dollar figures involved in these processes? and does it sway, eventually the effectiveness of a nominee once they get to the court? guest: it does not. i helped just as gorsuch from the outside and served as first -- one of his first law clerks -- clerks on the 10th circuit and then when he went on to the supreme court. i saw justice kavanaugh go through this process. it is the same person, the same judge whether they are before they are nominated and confirmed as they are after. i think judge barrett and her

questionnaire testified that she had no discussions with anyone, i do not think she has at a -- has had a discussion with leonard leo and clearly she has not had a discussion about how she will rule on cases. you know, this is just senator whitehouse trying to demonize the process and the people who were involved. person --ence, this lawrence, kansas is next. jeremy opposes. go ahead. caller: we should be talking about article three section three in relationship with what sheldon whitehouse laid out, and i would like to point to three moments in the hearings that tell us exactly about it. first, what white house is actually pointing out, and to call it is a conspiracy theory in a court full of the theory of conspiracy, such things as racketeering, conspiracy, corruption, this is exactly what

senator whitehouse laid out is who big, dark money powers led the way on the citizens united corporate personhood thing, justice kennedy who kavanaugh replaced, the question that was never asked kavanaugh was who paid off his $1 million debt. host: because we are running out of time, make those points so our guest can address them. ok, the senator sheldon whitehouse watched that, and in the softball question by senator sasse on the first amendment andhe textual list originalist about the first amendment and she could not name the fundamental core of personally held rights, and she had no judicial philosophy about why it was so important, finally, the closing of senator feinstein and senator graham financed by the ukrainian oligarch hogging at the end of

this --hugging at the end. host: we will leave it there. you can respond as you wish. do not thinks i that anyone thought that judge merrick failed any tet -- barrett failed any test. most people including dianne , was impressed with judge merrick and how she answered the questions. as for the chairman of the judiciary committee and the ranking member acting like adults and getting along, that is a good thing for our country. host: judge merrick was asked about -- barrett was asking about recusing herself to some cases. do you think she took the appropriate stance? guest: judges are not going to precommit whether they will recuse or not rick cruz -- were not recuse. people need to remember that it is different from the lower

courts and there is a reason why it is different. there is a presumption that supreme court justices do not recuse from cases, and the reason is that there are only nine and they are not interchangeable. you cannot substitute and due justices from other courts like you can from court of appeals. on the lower courts there is a different standard because of that reason. the reason they have a presumption that you do not recuse on the supreme court is that you do not want litigants or outside parties playing games and trying to sway the vote of the supreme court based upon these bogus ethical charges and recusal charges we are seeing during the confirmation hearing. thate even raised the idea justice kagan or sotomayor or breyer or the other democratic judges had to recuse on any case involving the president who appointed them. from west is sonia

virginia, a supporter of, you are on. caller: hello. host: go ahead. caller: ok, i wanted to make a comment and i have been watching the hearings whenever i can, and my 16-year-old daughter comes home from school and came in the room and she was watching a little bit with me, and it was just amazing, she was amazed at how amy barrett did not take notes and how she kept her composure, and speaking of our young generation and hopefully they will watch this in school, but to see people be able to talk keeping their composure and it was just amazing to have an example of what we should be doing. we should be able to talk and discuss things, and that is what amy barrett will bring to the court, and hopefully give some examples to our younger generation who need desperate good role models. have a tweetis, we

from jim who writes this to you specifically, "do you think ruth bader ginsburg would view justice barrett as a success and elevating potentials for all women?" guest: the late justice ginsburg was a wonderful person. i clerked for justice gorsuch, there is a tradition that the justices meet with each set of law clerks, there are four for each, and they meet with the clerks. it is a great place. -- was ainsburg is a very principled person, and i think if she was still on the were and justice barrett replacing a different justice, justice ginsburg would welcome her just like she welcomed justice gorsuch, and just like she welcomed justice kavanaugh very warmly. host: since you are familiar

with the experience, if judge barrett is confirmed, what is the process of getting her ready to go, and what is happening now, or as some of that happening behind the scenes? guest: like moving across the country? host: like her office and the clerks, does that start now or after she is confirmed? guest: it really starts after she is confirmed. i know with prior confirmations the justices have to be ready to go the second they are confirmed. gorsuch wasustice confirmed, and we went from the senate to the supreme court that day and started working immediately. have -- ill have to imagine that she will have her four law clerks lined up and ready to go for the second she is confirmed, because she will be working right away. host: this is mike davis from the article iii project. articleiiiproject.org is the

website if you want to check out their work. we thank you for talking to us and our viewers. coming up, we will change topics to the topic of health care. leslie dach is joining us with the group protect our care to talk about the role that health care is playing in the campaign. we will take those calls when " washington journal" continues. american history tv on c-span3, exploring the people and events that tell the american story every weekend. coming up, saturday at 5:00 p.m. eastern, and author talks about on book "hunting eichmann" the capture of adolf eichmann. on "the civil war," a look at black -- prisoners in the confederacy. eastern,, at 9:00 a.m. the final debate between ronald reagan and walter mondale.

the0:30 a.m. eastern, second debate between george h w bush and michael dukakis. america," john f. kennedy's speech on church and state and then ronald reagan's the myth of the great society speech. watch american history tv on c-span3. >> the competition is on, be a part of the c-span's studentcam video competition. ofdle students be the start a national conversation by making a five to six minute documentary exploring the issues that you once congress and the president to express. be bold, show supporting and opposing points of view. there is 100,000 dollars in total cash prizes including a --nd prize of 5000 dot

$500,000. you can submit videos through january 20, 2021. you can find rules, tips, and how to get started. studentcam.org. ♪ washington journal" continues. host: joining us now is leslie group knownair of a as protect our care talking about issues concerning the affordable care act in this campaign. thanks you for joining as. guest: it is a pleasure. host: can you clarify what your group does in the health care space? guest: we started protect our care right after the 2016 election. departmentleft the of hhs where i served as senior counselor to the secretary and we were formed to protect the affordable care act from an attempt to overturn it. we organized that -- around that

in the states and washington, d.c. and continued since then to try and stop this administration from its agenda of sabotage and repeal and try to pass legend station -- legislation. host: how is your organization funded? guest: c3 and c4 contributions. host: what does your messaging look like? is it adds or other efforts? guest: it is all of the above. we are not a cash heavy organization, so we do not see millions of dollars from advertising on a regular basis, but we are educating the public. we have folks working in 16 or 17 states building coalitions, talking to the media. we work closely with folks on capitol hill on the policy aspects of this as well as with the media both here in washington and around the country. caller: i suspect that -- host: i suspect that you and your organization looked closely at health care.

what was your take away from what you heard with the confirmation? guest: health care is the number one issue for americans, particularly in the time of this pandemic. so, we were fully supportive and worked with the committee to make sure that all of the aspects of what were at risk in this lawsuit, which comes before the court one week after election day, and we feel it is a primary reason why justice -- judge barrett has been rushed through this process, because so much is at stake in the president's goals are clear. host: since you brought up the lawsuit, can you talk about what the lawsuit deals with, and what positioning judge barrett expressed about it and what your concerns are? thet: for sure, this is third supreme court case brought by opponents of the affordable care act to overturn the law. the first two did not succeed. justice roberts and four others

voted and decided against them. foes are relentless. this is a lawsuit begun by the attorney general and the state of texas, and joined by another -- a number of other republican attorney general's and then ultimately joined by president trump and his administration in the summer of 2018. what was very unusual that we already knew that the president had repeatedly said that he wanted to terminate the affordable care act, but it is exceedingly rare, it never happens really that the attorney the united states refuses to defend the sitting bull of america, and he did in this case. -- the sitting law of america but he did in this case. what the lawsuit does is declare the entire affordable care -- affordable care act unconstitutional and i can get into the details of why.

the case was sent to a handpicked judge in texas where it succeeded and then was set to one of the most conservative jurisdictions of the court of appeals in the united states, and it succeeded there. and that will be considered by the supreme court the week after election day, and just to be brief about it and the implications, by destroying the entire affordable care act without any replacement it means things like 135 million americans losing protections for pre-existing conditions during this pandemic and 23 million americans losing their insurance coverage, tens of millions of americans paying more for their health care. becausee up, of course, the president has been clear that he would only appoint justices to the supreme court who agreed with his position

that the law is unconstitutional and should be terminated. he tweeted that repeatedly. barrettbarrett -- judge has opined and read -- written repeatedly that she disagreed with previous decisions of the supreme court that said that the law was constitutional, and should continue, and show -- and so her record and the president's litmus could -- test were clear. host: we will take on a conversation with our guest until 9:00. we will pause briefly because the house will come into pro forma session. we will take it and as soon as they gavel out, we will resume our conversation. if you want to ask him question and you support president trump and mike pence, 202-748-8000. if you support joe biden and kamala harris, 202-748-8001. if you are undecided or support another candidate you can call

at 202-748-8002. texting is available as well as tweeting, and you can post on our facebook. back to the aca before the court, there was this topic during the week of the confirmation process about the idea of separability, and if it can exist. i want to play you a little bit of that exchange especially us -- as it was posted judge barrett. [video clip] separabilityne of -- severaability means that if you have a statute and the affordable care act is a long statute, if there is one provision that is unconstitutional question is if whether that one section can be rendered null and excised, severed, so that the rest of the law stands, or rubber -- whether that precision -- that is so essential that its

unconstitutionality, once it is pulled out the whole house of cards collapses. the presumption is always in , it is theverability question of your intent. go ahead. >> the main thing is the doctrine of severability has a presumption to save the's -- the statute is -- if possible. >> i want every conservative in the nation to listen to what she just said. the doctrine of severability presumes and its goal is to preserve the statute if that is possible. so, from a conservative point of wew, generally speaking, want legislative bodies to make laws, not judges, >> >> is that correct? that is correct. would it be further true that if you preserved a statute you would try to to the extent possible? >> that is true. [end video clip] host: it is technical, but what

did you think about the argument? guest: it is disingenuous from the chairman, but lindsey graham who is up for reelection in a tight race where his anti-health care record is very much in front of the voters. numerousen on record times in support of this lawsuit, yet there have been provisions and resolutions in the senate where senators have had a chance to oppose the lawsuit and he has always supported the lawsuit. this trail,ay out track, or set of excuses, they need to understand it is completely disingenuous and he has voted to appeal the multiple times and members of the senate judiciary on the republican side have voted 48 times between them to a overturn the. we know what the president's litmus test was. we are hopeful that the court

will do the right thing. but i think to suggest that the fix if it is in here is reckless disregard for american's health. host: we will take questions until 9:00. paul, a supporter of joe biden, go ahead. listen,good morning, first of all the american people know why the president wants to win the affordable health care act. veterans, a lot of us have pre-existing conditions. in order to receive health care from the administration you must first be a disabled veteran and or be in poverty. there are people with pre-existing conditions that he is booting off, so we would be without health care, it has nothing to do with the constitution. he's is just to jealous of the previous president. guest: let me just react to that

because i think we spent some time on process but we should talk about what is at stake. particularly in this lawsuit. if it is successful, 23 million americans will lose their health care coverage during this pandemic at a time when millions of americans have already lost coverage through their employer. americans 35 million will lose protections for pre-existing conditions including the 8 million people who have coronavirus. women can be charge more for health care simple because they are women. seniors can be charge, people over 50 can be charged five times more than anybody else simply because of their age. and, 17 million people who are on medicaid who are beneficiaries of medicaid expansion will lose coverage. the uninsurance rate is expected to go up 65% across this country, all at a time when health care is more on the minds

and affects the lives of americans than ever before. your caller was right, veterans are at risk, medicaid coverage, -- medicaid covers a huge number of veterans, and seniors. as i mentioned, more than 13 million americans covered would be gone. , a supporter of president trump. good morning. caller: first off, i just want to say this and i think your channel is a little biased towards the democrats. but this thing about the health care act, there are a lot of people that should not be on it. let them go out and get a job, there is plenty of work, let us get busy and do your job. guest: what do you think about that assessment. the fact is that there are a lot of americans who are disabled who cannot work. people who have to take care of elderly parents, people who are sick and cannot be at work, and millions of americans who do

work, but cannot afford their health care because it is so expensive. so, it is simply not true that this law is addressing individuals who for some reason our caller thinks should be at work. the affordable care act has meant that millions of seniors have saved over $22 billion on their drug costs, because they no longer have something called the doughnut hole, which under medicare meant that seniors would have to spend a fortune on their own drugs. these are people who work, these are people who cannot find a job in this economy. 64 million americans filed for unemployment because of this pandemic. i think it is just wrong to suggest that this law should be looked at in the way that the caller suggested. host: to the caller's point, that is platform offers an opportunity to hear from a wide

platform of topics. i invite you to go to c-span.org to look at several segments that we have had on a lot of different aspects and viewpoints on the topic of health, including our current debt -- guest, leslie dach. he serves as the chair and protectourcare.org. when we come back we will talk about the state of the aca, particularly where you see of things need to be corrected or adjusted, and what a biden administration might do on that front. we go now to the house of representatives. remember a pro forma session means that there is no voting actively done, but they come in and do a series of swearing in and saying the pledge of allegiance and things like that. they gamble in and out. when they decide to gavel out, that is when we resume our topic. in the meantime, you can still call and ask questions. 202-748-8000 for those of you who support president trump. 202-748-8001 for those who

support joe biden, and if you are undecided support another candidate, 202-748-8002. we will resume our conversation on the house gavels out. reins -- raines, there is discord. we invoke your holy spirit and pray this sacred light might

cast out the darkness from this chamber, from this country, and from your world. that the days ahead, especially be ones of charity and love for all. mindful of those who are in most need. we make this prayer in your holy name, amen. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to section 4-a of house resolution 967, the journal of the last day's proceedings is approved. the chair will lead the house in the pledge of allegiance. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the chair lays before the house the following enrolled bill. the clerk: senate 3051, an act to improve protections for wildlife, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to section 4-b of house resolution 967, the house stands adjourned until 9:00

a.m. on tuesday, october 20, 2020. session, as far as the biden administration is concerned, what you project them doing to the aca? guest: vice president has been quite clear about his plan that so that more people

could afford their health care under the aca and that medicare could be strengthened. yes propose a public option which means the u.s. government use bargaining power to create a health care insurance policy that americans could bite into at far less cost than what they currently have to pay so that insurance companies would not profit as much from people's illness and need for health care as they do to gain -- new today. it would be a cheaper option than the current insurance. talking about -- in america we have the possibility for medicaid expansion. 90% of the cost for states to enroll millions of americans. there are over a dozen states, all republican led that have

refused to expand that coverage. he would work to expand that coverage. there are also a number of the -- provisions to reduce the cost of health care, including drugs. they have passed district legislation that would have used the negotiating power of the u.s. government, partition -- particularly medicare, to reduce the price of drugs for americans, not only on medicare but any sort of insurance, that would have saved tens and tens of millions of dollars in prescription drug bills. under president biden we would see more people covered, we would see costs go down and we would see prescription drug costs down. if you expand those roles howget people in, explain that would be fiscally responsible. guest: we would have far fewer

americans going bankrupt because of health care. we would have people leading longer, healthier lives. we would have hospitals in better shape. rual hospitals are at risk. they would be able to come in and get treatment and have to delay treatment because they can't afford it hospitals that receive payment for the treatment. the economics of this law are clear. host: so elaine dunlap offers this tweet. she adds this or makes this case, if you had a 16,000 of deductible, you want it repealed. the aca did not help everyone. she knows there are 8.5 million receiving aca not 15 million.

millions lost their insurance when the aca was passed. guest: let me respond to that and i want to make a few other points. arefact is that the numbers cleared. if the aca goes away, 23 million people would lose their insurance. that's a combination of folks directly ensured on the exchanges set up by the affordable care act but also over 12 million american covered under medicaid expansion. 23 million would lose their insurance. 135 million would lose protections for existing conditions. millions of young adults on parents insurance would no longer be covered. americans,illions of rates would go up 65%. law that benefits millions and millions of americans and we should be clear about that. we should also be clear that

there is no replacement. that has been basically a lie out of this administration. it has been a lie out of republican members of congress who have voted repeatedly. we see now in the election where health care is also the number one issue. --s is a health care delish election on steroids because of the pandemic. aftere in a senate race senate race that republican and public -- incumbents have voted to get rid of existing conditions are not trained to mislead the public about their position. it is important to understand the debate is ongoing and the threat is a real. next.terry is caller: if we want to talk about lies about if you want to keep your doctor you can, costs will

go down. medicare is going broke and this is helping them spend quicker. 200% increase in costs to the average citizen. this is a horrible law. if joe was so smart, why didn't he get it right at the start. this clearly is a bad law and you are a zealot, but i have to ask this, with all due respect, "washington journal should be addressing what is happening. be moderators should removed. each candidate should ask question of the other candidate and then they answer back. we don't have to have this messiness with bias. anybody who watched that debate and watched savannah guthrie attack trump and how george stephanopoulos asked whiting what his favorite color was. host: i will say that you may

have missed the initial part of our program of our program where we addressed the issues concerning steve scully. you can watch that online. we would invite you to go to the responses. that is on websense bashar website at c-span.org. you can answer the other issue that he -- that is on our website at c-span.org. you can answer the issue that he addressed. guest: over the last 10 years, they have done nothing but trying within 70 times to repeal it. republican party and representatives on capitol hill have made no effort to move forward. democrats have made many efforts to move forward. some of the approaches joe biden would take would improve health care in america. my argument is not that the job is done, my argument is that we

have a very strong foundation in the affordable care act. it is working for millions of americans. we need to do more to reduce costs and premiums. the president of the united states has zero plan to do that. there is no republican plan in congress. joe biden has a plan. folks just need to get their ideology out of this and focus on the fact. factse fact are clear -- are clear. 90% of republicans don't want to lose their protections for pre-existing conditions. 90% of republicans don't want to lose the other protections of the affordable care act. health care is a bipartisan issue, and that is why it wins elections. the partisanship remains with republicans in washington who for some reason just can't move

forward. undecided voter from georgia, sherry, good morning. person i am an actual who has had obamacare since 2013, and it started out at $49 a month. as my health declined because of , you come inase with a life change and they reduce it and reduce it and then at my disability it was that $1769 a month. when i called in with my life change of can't work anymore, it -- $1083.64.$83.64

they sent me to clinics and sat me in an empty room and someone would come in and type in a bunch of stuff and get my information. to make a long story short, my identity was stolen and it's been a terrible ordeal with obamacare, and i actually wrote and i finallytter got some good health care theygh a charity that don't pay for surgeries or the things that you really need, i had to turn them into the insurance fraud place because they never did anything, they just cap charging stuff and charging stuff. ust: thank you for telling

your experience. go ahead. i appreciate hearing that story. health care is too expensive in america. the question here is what's the alternative for your caller: and others -- and your caller and for others. many people didn't have coverage and would have died and who have found coverage. but the job is not done. we need to continue to improve upon it. quality health care is available under the affordable care act. biden and those of us who work on this issue have ideas and we do think health care needs to be even more assessable to people at more affordable prices. the problem is there is no alternative from the other side. the president has no plan.

the reality is the aca has a strong foundation and has worked for millions of americans and we need to build on it. host: the president laid out in america first health care plan. when would it kick and presumably if the aca does go away? guest: we may have to have one of your colors into that, because i think the president is all words on this and no plan. he says repeatedly or repeat the lie that heat 100% is for pre-existing conditions, but in fact he is in court trying to take them all away. beyond his words, he has no plan at all to do that. onre is no alternative plan capitol hill or from this administration. this is from a woman who tweets us a u.s. woman who says rural hospitals are at risk

because they are closed based on profit models and refused to allow the nurses to form a union to protest ppe. talk about rule hospitals -- rural hospitals. are there changes needed? guest: it is a great question. our rural hospitals are in trouble. many have been saved by the fact that the affordable care act means now that people who come to the emergency rooms have insurance and therefore the hospitals get payment for what they do. the affordable care act has been a lifeline, but we have far too many hospitals in jeopardy. hospitals in america have too much power. they have consolidated. one of the things they have done recently is they buy up and onan practices monday when it is owned by the

additions, the mark -- might charge to hundred dollars. on tuesday when it is owned by the hospital, they charge two or three times that much. fossils are consolidating and to profitable and it's something does need to be done about that. host: this is from bill in chicago, a supporter of joe biden. understand -- we give healthefuse to care to all of our citizens. we should be able to afford health care from the cradle to the grave for every american. system but we have a that it really doesn't matter. so many other countries are able to do it.

.t is ridiculous it doesn't make sense. america can afford health care for every american. and we need to do that now. host: that is built in chicago. guest: the color makes a great point and represents i think the views of the vast majority of americans. we are the only major country that doesn't provide affordable health care to all of its people and that is why we are in this debate and in this mess. that is what we are trying to move towards. host: from north carolina, david, a supporter of president trump. good morning. o'rourke had a great line about health care and it

basically, if you think health care should get more expensive, then wait until it's free. my main question would be to your guest -- argue for single-payer? guest: i think right now what we are looking at is moving forward to building on the aca, to adding a public option to the aca so that we can get more and more people insured and bring prices further down. that seems to be the alternatives that are available to us as we move forward to this next congress. host: as far as the idea of single-payer, are you saying it wouldn't work and if that is the case, why? guest: i think it would work, but one of the things i have always tried to look forward to what we can do and looking at where we are in the climate in washington and around the

country. i think the steps that vice president biden laid out are the right steps for us to take in the next several years. host: chat is in california, a supporter of president trump. -- chad is in california, is supporter of president trump. one of the things i would like to just point out is, i hate dealing with hypotheticals and more on facts and numbers and statistics. acas known that the provides immediate care for a lot of people. it has done its job, but at the same time, it has had its flaws and that is white republicans are doing what they're trying to do to fight against it and put forth their plan and proposal. myself,o a veteran disabled.

under the obama and biden administration, there were huge backlogs of patients who could not get the care that they need that was outsourced and not seen by ava dr. because the -- not v.a. dr.. the top administration cleared that up. no matter whose insurance you are under, the coverage you receive dictates the amount of gets.at the provider pair for the is coverage and procedures. for what is fair for the coverage and procedures. cover if it is session on ugly hire.

i don't understand why if you are an individual cash pair or if you are under a certain type of insurance from them, no matter what it is, that those are not the same. take a lowervider number for an insured person versus a very much higher number for an uninsured person. host: we will let our guest respond. guest: i think the caller raises a number of good points. he made an argument for single-payer, because then you would have a single reimbursement rate, and that is one of the reasons why that approach has made sense to so many people. he is also right that basically the aca does need to be built on. i don't think any of us who support the aca inc. we should stop with the aca. it has done incredibly important things for people, but health care is too expensive for far too many people.

we need to do something about prescription drug prices. that is why the the democrats and they also passed it twice and the publicans have refused it. i am in support of the sentiment of the callers whether they be in support of president trump or joe biden that we need to do ofe to reign in the cost health care to get people covered. my point is the aca has done a very good job about that and it is time we build on it, not try and rip it apart through lawsuits. host: when it comes to states themselves, how many providers are they on average for a state to give to those who want the changedhow has that over the years that the aca has been in existence? guest: the question is, if you go and try and buy insurance,

how many insurance needs do you get to choose from? what is important to note is that this is not government insurance. what it is his private insurance through insurance companies where those who are eligible for financial assistance because of their income and needs get financial assistance through the aca. is other thing the aca does put rules on top of the insurance companies it says things like, they have to spend 85% of premiums on medical care. he puts a lid on their profits. when they make too much money, they have to refund the money. it basically puts a lot of requirements on insurance, like protecting with pre-existing conditions, no lifetime caps. that is what the aca does, but you are shall -- still eyeing your insurance from a private you are still buying your insurance from a private

company. when people have multiple options buying through exchanges to get coverts, it is one of the arguments for a public option, so that there would be a plan everywhere in america that the government negotiated that had powerful health care and low prices. that is the region -- reason for a public option. the: leslie dach with protect our care organization joining us and serves as the chair of this organization. helen in pennsylvania, a supporter of joe biden, you are our next guest. caller: my family has been democrat. i have a cousin who went on obamacare. and her deductible was $6,000 a month. then she needed to get hot water tank, so she had to borrow money. she had to pay that back,

because it showed as income to her. after seeing all this, believe me her family is not democrat anymore. obamacare, you can't afford it. people who are not working cannot afford it. we are going to vote for trump. are: i stop you because you calling on the support biden. guest: the aca is affordable for millions of americans. all of the consumer surveys of people on the act are satisfied with their insurance. 87% of them are receiving subsidies that make their coverage less than $100 a month. deductibles are far too high.

people are creating in a sense a false alternative. we all agree that health care is too expensive. adoptable's are too expensive. the cost of drugs -- deductibles are to experience and the cost of drugs is to expensive. the aca is the only thing we have that guarantees the insurance you by actually covers you when you are sick. it eliminates discrimination for people with pre-existing conditions, but we need to do better. what are callers also need to look at and i am sure many of them do, is if they went outside of the and tried to buy coverage on the open market, it would be worse and just as expensive. that we have not done enough to reduce the cost of health care. the solution isn't to get rid of the aca and go back to a time where insurance companies would charge what they want and provide you coverage that doesn't take care of you when

you are sick. way to lowere a costs but not sacrifice quality? guest: yes, there is it i think there are many ways to do that. one is simply to negotiate for lower prices in insurance. another is to look at the way we reimburse. we have far too much fee for service medicine that rewards procedures instead of outcomes. we should really be paying doctors for whether they achieve positive results. if you get something like a knee replacement. you should get paid a little more if the new group placement works well and less if the knee replacement doesn't work well. we could be paying by outcomes. we can be looking at drugs and being sure we are paying a fair price for drugs, not with the drug companies want to charge us and we should not be paying thousands of dollars for insulin when there has been no change in

that drug ears except the pricing. there are a number of steps we can take to reduce the cost of health care, and we should be doing that. we don't see that coming out of this administration. arlington, texas, a supporter of joe biden. caller: i would like to say i disagree with the callers talking about the high deductibles for obamacare. they provide no proof. introduced, was they were limiting high-risk policies as a way to increase competition. people town several purchase policies of the aca. they are all satisfied with it. by a policytractor come his was $500. he was paying $372 a month to

pay for it. -- i have a contractor who bought a policy. his was $500. he was paying $372 a month to pay for it. our son stayed on our policy during college. a lot of the calls with the high deductibles and people not being able to afford it where they were subsidies, it is all based on propaganda to demonize the affordable care act. host: why are they convinced that your stories are not legitimate with the ones you tell us are legitimate? caller: at work i had a guy saying his deductibles had gone out, yet he was in the same open enrollment as me and he enrolled in the same insurance that i did at work and it was only five dollars more, but we had a co-pay and not a deductible. no one ever gives truth of the

so-called high deductibles that they've received and they never speak of the subsidies involved in the aca in any detail. they all just put out this generality that it is not affordable and the deductibles are too high without providing specific proof, yet the examples i just named can be easily proven, because you can keep your son or child on your health care if they are in college up until i believe they are 25. also a small business without employees who cannot for health care could also buy into the affordable care act and do the subsidies to decrease the cost of the premiums and i have high deductibles. host: we will leave it there. guest: i know we are going to run out of time, so i wanted to summarize for a minute or so. i think all of the colors have said this, health care is on the line in this election -- i think all of the callers have said

this, health care is on the line in this election. 20 million people have gained coverage. 135,000 people -- 135 million people cannot be charge more because they have a pre-existing condition. they will get the care they need and get cancer treatment and mental health treatment. women can no longer be charged more simply because of their gender. over 2.3 million young adults are on their parents insurance. millions of americans longer face lifetime caps where if there lifetime health care exceeded $1 million, they could no longer be insured, which is true for so many parents with severely disabled children. there are 50 million americans on medicare expansion -- medicaid expansion. 9 million people receiving assistance to poor insurance. millions of seniors paying less for drugs. the republicans and donald

trump's platform is let's write all that out. you have a promissory note and a promise and it will all be ok. aey want to wipe this out at time when millions of americans need health insurance today, where people are unemployed and have lost their health insurance and people are battling this virus. but everything i said is the reality of what the aca has done. also, the republicans have no plan to replace it are just the issues that callers have raised, where vice president biden does. through a public option and expanding medicaid and stopping drug companies from ripping everybody off on their drugs, by expanding the number of people who have coverage. i want to be clear what's at stake in this election and make it clear that those of us who support and believe, the numbers show the aca's helping mind of americans still want to help

more and reduce the cost for many more. unfortunately, this administration's health-care plan is go to court and get rid of it all and do nothing. is --leslie dach this this is leslie dach, the chair of protect our care. we will spend the rest of our program looking at what we started with, to town halls yesterday, one featuring the president, the other featuring joe biden. we will give you a chance to call and talk about what you heard from those debates and what you think. you can call us at (202) 748-8001 if you support president trump and mike pence, (202) 748-8000 if you survive -- support joe biden or kamala harris, if you are undecided, call us at (202) 748-8002. we will take those calls when "washington journal" continues. c-span two has top

nonfiction books and authors every weekend. saturday at five clock p.m. eastern, a law professor on her book, big, dirty money, which looks at the repercussions when the rich break the law in order to accumulate more wealth. p.m., chris5 whipple talks to former cia directors and provides an inside look at the intelligence organizations operations. -- organization's operations. and candace owens on why black americans should vote republican in her book, blackout. she is interviewed by the chairman of the american conservative union. watch book tv this weekend on c-span two. ♪ >> who will control congress in january? stay informed on all the

competitive races leading up to election day with c-span's campaign 2020 coverage. watch the candidates debate and election results on c-span, watch online at c-span.org or listen on the free c-span radio app. c-span, your unfiltered view of politics. ♪ contenders, about the men who ran for the presidency and lost but changed political history. tonight, the arizona senator and pave the way for younger conservatives, barry goldwater. the contenders, tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on american history tv on c-span-3. journal" continues. -- "washington journal" continues. host: again, what you thought about the town halls classmate.

on can call in and also social media. a poll about a potential vaccine and how people would respond. the question is -- when a vaccine for the coronavirus is available, what best describes what you do? 50% said it would wait until it's been available, 20% said get it as soon as possible. 17% not willing to get it. 10% only willing to get if required, 3% saying they were unsure what they would do. the topics of vaccines came up in the back and forth featuring joe biden. here is a bit of that. [video clip] biden: the answer is depending on how the vaccines have a very positive impact and will positively impact 85% of the public. others say this is really the key. it depends on the state and the

nature of the vaccine when it comes out and how it is being distributed. that would depend. i would think we should be talking about, depending on the continuation of the spread of the virus, thinking about making it mandatory. >> how would you enforce that? mr. biden: you can't, that is the problem. you can't say everyone has to do this. , just like you can't mandate a mask, but you can say you can go to every governor and get them all in a room as president and say, ask people to wear the mask. everybody knows. >> and if they don't? mr. biden: that i would go to every mayor and every council and every local official and say mandate the mask. make sure you encourage it is being done. you and i know, and i think you do, the words of a president

matter, know their -- no matter whether they are good, bad or whatever. when a president makes fun of folks like me who was wearing a mask for a lot of the times, then people say it must be -- must not be that important. but when a president says it is important, like me who walked maskthis place wearing a but i left it in the room i was before i got here. i think it matters what we say. host: that was joe biden from the abc town hall he was featured on. we will hear from the president on that. he was on an nbc news program talking about issues related to the campaign. we want to hear from you about what you got from the town halls. , a supporterus off of joe biden. caller: i support joe biden,

because he wants to expand the affordable health care act and keep it in place. they are trying to disarm it now in the courts under the trump administration. the reason i am supporting joe biden is because i have a neighbor down here, and i'm from here in the coalfield and we theiroal mining jobs, will be so many coalminer jobs you won't be able to stand it. i have yet to see those jobs being developed. and hadbor got laid off no income coming in. his wife was laid off and had no income. she worked for the postal service. up had a goiter that came and i think it was cancerous in her neck, and they just did not have any insurance whatsoever.

they went to the health and human services department and he filed for a disability and he was able to get his disability social security, but he still didn't have insurance to cover his wife. they told him, don't worry about orhe applied for obamacare, people know it as the affordable health care act, they immediately did a test on her and she went to the cleveland clinic. did surgery and everything and it didn't cost him a dime it was totally covered. host: that was bobby from west virginia. let's hear from a supporter of president trump. they were talking about the affordable care act. majorityow that the want to take all the benefits of the american people. host: how does that relate to

the town hall last night? caller: because the affordable care act, you are talking about the masts. we all know that. it is common sense. we know that you don't make big mistakes, what can you say. the point is here -- host: you're going to have two stop ssent to the television. go ahead and finish her thought. caller: -- finish your thought. caller: the affordable health care, many illegals are taken the american citizens' money. you don't say anything about that. host: that is richard and albuquerque, new mexico. the top of masks coming up in the nbc townhouse with president trump being asked his positioning on masks if it has changed since he contracted covid-19. [video clip]

pres. trump: i was good with it, but i have heard many stories on masks. being president you have people who bring meals and this and i had an instance recently where a very wonderful person is bringing me a meal and playing with his mask and touching his mask and then bringing a plate in an i'm saying, i don't know if that is so good. the good news, i decided not to eat it. but look, on the masks you have two stories, a story where they want in a story where they don't want it. >> i don't get that, because all of your health public officials are in unison about this. they are all in unison about it. hasuniversity of washington a model the air task force relies on says that if everyone wore a mask, you could cut expected depth in half. at dr.rump: if you look scott, great-stanford, you will

tell you -- disease not infectious specialist. pres. trump: he is known all over the world. >> everyone found a mask right now and it saves lives. pres. trump: many of other places say different things. dr. fauci said don't wear a mask. >> at first, but then everybody agreed. pres. trump: you had a report coming out that 85% of the people wearing masks catch it. >> it was not about mask wearing. pres. trump: we are on the same side. host: ron is in ohio, is a private -- a supporter of president trump. caller: i understand everything you just said about trump. he says if you want to wear a mask on the wear our mask. if you don't want to wear a mask, then don't. i understand that. biden wants to make it mandatory that you have to do this and you

have to do that. the guy can't remember his last name. host: he didn't say that about masks according to the clip we just saw. caller: he did, he set i want to make it mandatory but if i can't make it mandatory i will make the mayors do it. he wants to work it down the chain where he wants to make it mandatory that's exactly what he said. think abouto you the president thinks now since getting covid? caller: he said the same thing. if you want to wear a mask, where one. there are times when you are outside, you don't have to wear it. i see people in their cars all by themselves and that is their option and you ought to leave it up to their option. this is a bad disease that came from china, but we are all suffering for it and everybody trumpto drain -- to blame

. i understand people are trump haters, but we are doing the best we can and he did a lot of stuff to actually help people, to stop people coming from china. host: let's go to buffalo, new york, a supporter of joe biden. i am supporting joe biden. i am 18 years old. was embarrassing last night on donald trump's behalf. say.d nothing valid to andy question went his way he had to say he doesn't know about it or has no idea about it, but he does note one thing about them, which is it is a --ophilia ring where i guess he knows about them to say the least. as far as joe biden, what

things of substance did he talk about? caller: he focused on his policy and focused on things that people had to say. host: such as what? caller: he focused on the health care, which donald trump is planning on dismantling the aca, leading to many people are more in the dust with no plan to back it. ?t's like, what are you doing it makes no sense. host: let's go to brad in kentucky. a supporter of president trump. caller: good morning. your, i guess she would call them journalists, in the town with the president and presidential candidates really do the american people a great disservice in the poor questions that they ask and they are just so off-topic. they are either dumb questions

are lousy questions. host: such as what? what questions do you think were lousy? caller: i think all of the questions were lousy. they didn't get to areas that hit home with the american people. host: such as what? what areas do you think they didn't hit? caller: i think they should have in we are still engaged massive foreign wars and escalations all over the globe. there are several journalists and whistleblowers under prosecution right now, including julian assange, who is dying a slow death. several issues and the american people know what they are and they realize the journalists that so far have engaged in these debates have not done a good job of getting at those issues.

i was so looking forward to steve scully hosting the debate, because i watched space it -- i watch c-span i know he does a really good job. all of you are good, but i think steve scully is the best. and as a trump supporter it came out that he was afforded biden staffer. i said -- host: i don't mean to interrupt you, but he was an intern. caller: right. i said, it is ok because i've watched steve scully on the program i know he will still do a good job and i still think he would have done a better job than anyone we've had yet to do it. so steve scully has made this mistake and i want him to know that it is ok and he has owned up to it. i am sure he has owned up to it and it is all ok we all do

things. it is ok to do dumb things, but he needs to come back. i listen to him on c-span and i recognize when he recognizes a armer caller's voice are veteran calling and who is 100 years old. he recognizes people who talk with him. you are all good, but i think he is the best and the most thoughtful. i want him to return as soon as he can and continue to ask the important questions. like i said, i think he would have asked the better questions than anyone has done so far. so steve scully on leave right now, hold your head up. you are alright. come back and do the important work. you are fair and do a good job. i am sorry you are going through a rough time. host: thank you for the words. we will go to bloomington, indiana, a supporter of joe biden. caller: thank you c-span.

i watched biden last night, pieces ofd i did see trump, but i think the people are really frustrated and have trump error, the because i think it is an error. we need to fix our country. we can't let him -- he said he $400,000, and he only plays $750 in taxes. what is going on? and then we have all of the republicans, mainly, there are some democrats i question, supporting him and supporting too., in pennsylvania, a

supporter of president trump. first of all, i would like to say that i have did my best to flip back and forth between both townhouse last night. way thereelieve the was such a difference between both of them. here you have biden sitting there all nice and cozy and having softball questions thrown at him. no real questions whatsoever. withas he not addressed antifa, why does he say that is an ideology. are you kidding me? why was that not addressed? why was it not addressed to biden about this thing with his son going on now? this is something i don't

understand. then you go with the trump town hall. that was more of a debate in questions. him.as so combative with that's the way all reporters are with him. and that is ridiculous. reporting is supposed to be fair and everything else, and it's not. taxesmmered him about his and about the $750 that he supposedly paid that one year. come on. what is going on here? where is the fairness. stories -- host: other stories coming out and highlighted under a headline hunter biden email shows billions -- billionaire paid him a $10 million fee. again the washington times picking up that story from the new york post. dallas, texas, richard, a

supporter of joe biden. go ahead. caller: my question is that why andthe republicans whining trump --when president he doesn't answer no questions from the media. so why when he has been confronted to answer for the --.h, he is acting as a why is that? trump doesn't go to know outlets because hefox, canceled the debate and said he is not going to any virtual debates with biden because that's stupid. and when biden goes on and makes a date for his townhall, he did

it too, just to show this man is confrontational. and theent on nbc journalists give him good questions, the republican said, she was this and she was that, all because trump is getting only friendly fire from fox. host: that is richard in dallas, texas. a couple events we want to point you to 10:00 today on c-span2, a form at brookings institution on covid-19 and the intelligence community taking a look at the communities and predicting the coronavirus pandemic. the discussion includes the author of the spymaster's, a cia director and a future with chris whipple. at 2:00 today, the patriotic millionaires as they describe themselves, host a discussion this afternoon on taxing the

wealthy. representatives from washington state delivers the keynote. see that on c-span. then joe biden in southfield, michigan, a suburb of detroit. he will continue on as kamala harris has to get off throughout the weekend because of her exposure to someone with covid. joe biden will be there at 2:30. you can see it at c-span, c-span.org, and the radio app could you can find these all on our website at c-span.org. then from hudson, florida, a supporter of president trump. go ahead. caller: good morning. i just want to say the two debates last night, i watched through both of them. what a contrast. townhall was athin a minute, there was

person asking questions of him. versus the vinyl -- versus the donald trump, there was over 20 minutes before a person. and -- before a person got to ask their question. i see a sharp contrast and how the media is treating both candidates. there is a lot of controversy about the affordable care act and this court battle going on. if people would just read and understand what they are trying to remove is what congress zero ,ut, the individual mandate where it has been labeled as a tax so the people aren't being taxed for the affordable care act. that's what that is about. they are trying to see if they can remove that without

dismantling the whole affordable care act. from virginia,r a supporter of joe biden. caller: i am glad for the opportunity to be able to commend joe biden for making that step back for giving us another opportunity to have him sit in the presidency. he will be successful in getting the country back to where it should be in we need that change, especially with the pandemic and the racism activists out there and we need to get some changes into this country. i understand donald has done his job, but it is time for a change. there are so many things that have not been covered and are still uncovered. if we go back another four years, it is not going to be

happy. thank you so much. a supporter ofr president trump, dan. caller: thanks for the opportunity. i want to contrast on the two debates. president trump, he really got hammered. watching joe's debate writing me of watching and old episode of the merv griffin show that is my comment. host: for those of you who may not understand the reference, why do you say that? caller: because it was so laid-back. he is talking about capping wells. what are they going to do with them? -- living in new york, a supporter of joe biden.

hello. caller: good morning. said -- aolors ago couple of callers ago said the .edia was confrontational that is because everything he was saying was lies so she kept hammering him for the truth. had 12 years to come up with a plan. every time they came up to the , they hadthe podium no plan. they still have no plan. there are so many people sick. every day in more people. this is why when you listen to what, you you know can fact check. fact-check trump. it people who wear masks covid, nuts.

host: there are many fact-check sites if you want to check it out. as for this program, it is finished. another one comes your way at 7:00 [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2020] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> joint us in about one hour for remarks from dr. anthony fauci. he is expected to discuss the coronavirus pandemic and public health policy at a johns hopkins virtual event that starts at 11:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. later this afternoon, joe biden discusses health care at any event in southfield, michigan.

watch live at 2:30 eastern on c-span, online at c-span.org or listen with the free c-span radio app. >> today, president trump holds a campaign rally in georgia. live coverage begins at 7:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. americans have some form of disability. of tv shows than 3% and the majority of those roles are portrayed by non-disabled actors. we want to see ourselves represented. not only are we seeing ourselves represented, but it will help destigmatize disability. representation in general gets society used to everybody. ultimately, it makes the world a

more inclusive place. >> and actor founded a film challenge after seeing disabilities underrepresented in front of and behind the camera. on q&a, he will talk about entries and winning films. ♪ >> the competition is on. c-spanrt of this year's studentcam competition. make a five to six minute documentary exploring the issues you want the president to address in 2021. be bold with your documentary. show supporting and opposing points of view and include c-span videos. there is a hundred thousand dollars in total cash prices, including a grand prize of $5,000. you will find competition rules and more