Skip to main content

tv   Washington Journal 06222021  CSPAN  June 22, 2021 6:59am-10:00am EDT

6:59 am
c-span.org, the federal government looks at ways the government can support more reliable broadband infrastructure at 2:30. >> c-span his urine filtered view of government.we are funded by television companies and mor, including comcast. >> comcast is partnering with community centers so families can get the tools they need to be ready for everything. >> comcast supports c-span as a public service along with these other television providers, giving a front row seat to democracy. >> coming up in an hour, aei resident scholar john fortier on recent efforts to change voting laws in congress and in state legislatures. mark ginsberg at 8:45 on
7:00 am
instigating domestic extremism via social media and the biden administration strategy for countering domestic terrorism. washington journal is next. host: while there happen recent moments of high drama on the senate floor, such as john mccain's 2017 thumbs down vote, donald trump's impeachment trial, and speeches in january following attacks on the u.s. capitol, this is a more typical view of the senate on c-span 2, but this afternoon, the vote on the federal reform bill could be one of those key moments in history. it is june 22, 2021.
7:01 am
welcome to washington journal. we will start the first hour talking about that vote and in particular the type of reforms you would support. if you are a republican, the line to call is (202) 748-8001. for democrats, it is (202) 748-8000. for independents and others, it is (202) 748-8002. he considers a text. include your name and where you are texting from. it is (202) 748-8003. on facebook, on facebook.com/c-span, and you can tweet us @cspanwj. in terms of reforms, you are in -- reforms, if you are in one of the states that has passed voting reform legislation, we could hear about that the question for you is what reform would you support, but let's talk about a few
7:02 am
of the procedures in the senate this afternoon when the senate debates whether to take up the bill. they vote at 5:00 p.m. to end the filibuster with 60 votes needed. democrats may not be able to approve the voting rights bill, the touchstone of their legislative agenda, but can deployed republican opposition to the plan as a weapon next year, says a reporter. that's a congressional election year. a headline -- voting and ethics overhaul leads drive to end filibuster. the name of the bill is the for the people act and wrtie the only surprise would be if it were adopted.
7:03 am
republicans are expected to block the motion, stymieing the bill and infusing fresh urgency into the democrats internal debate over the filibuster, which requires 60 votes to pass most legislation. already, groups have lined up tv ads heading into the recess to push for the passage of the bell dubbed the for the people act and dubbed as s1 in the senate and hr1 in the house. we will tell you what is in that bill, some of the details, momentarily but, first, the majority leader chuck schumer yesterday. [video clip] >> the senate will take a vote on whether to start debate on legislation to protect americans voting rights. it is not a vote on any particular policy, on this or that bill. it is a vote on whether the senate should simply debate the
7:04 am
issue about voting rights, the crucial issue of voting race in this country -- voting rights in this country. we shouldn't have to debate the voting rights -- we shouldn't have to debate voting rights on the floor of the senate. these rates should be sacrosanct but the events of the past few months compel us to have this debate now. why is there such a urgency? because what has been happening in republican legislature after legislature in the next several months. voting rights, the most fundamental right of a democracy, the right men and women have died for in wartime and peacetime, the right by which all other rights are secured, are under assault from one end of the country to the other. in the wake of the 2020 elections, donald trump told a lie, a big lie, that the
7:05 am
election was stolen from him by voter fraud. there is no evidence for this. his own administration concluded that the 2020 election was one of the safest in history. his lawyers were laughed out of court, many by republican judges, judges he appointed, trump appointed, but kept saying it anyway. he lied over and over and over again. donald trump lied over and over and over again, poisoning our democracy, lighting a fire beneath republican state legislatures, who immediately launched the most sweeping voter suppression effort in at least 80 years. host: in the u.s. senate today at 10:00 a.m. eastern, discussion ahead of that vote on advancing the democrats for the people act. dr. frank: some highlights of that bill would it would provide for
7:06 am
automatic voter registration, strengthening absentee and early voting, create public financing of elections, overturn the citizens united -- call for an amendment to overturn the citizens united decision, prohibit coordination between super pac's and candidates. we will lead -- free jewish some of what the alternative joe manchin -- we will read you some of what the alternative joe manchin and kyrsten sinema proposed. the question is what election reforms would or do you support? (202) 748-8001 for republicans, (202) 748-8000 for democrats and for independents, (202) 748-8002 . on social media, joel olson says
7:07 am
i support the notion of writing ballots. if someone is running for office, you should at least be able to spell their name. this way every votes is an informed vote. making voting no more difficult than buying a gun, says tom. am i reading this right, says myron? the voter rates loving voted on the senate has an id requirement -- the voting rights law to be voted on in the senate has an id requirement? an independent caller, go ahead. caller: what i would like to see is a federal office, such as the president, even the senate and the house elections, be conducted from federal -- from a
7:08 am
federal hub, and i would like everyone in the u.s. with a social security number to receive a ballot through the federal government, and all you would have to do is fill it out and mail that back for federal elections and state elections could still take care of the state and local elections. host: in your scenario, nick, with the states also handle the congressional and senatorial elections -- nick, would the states also handle the congressional and senatorial elections? caller: yes. host: ok. on the democrats line, you are on. caller: i believe -- let's put it this way. mitch mcconnell was there four years before obama. he was then there at years
7:09 am
before obama. he was there before trump. he was there 16 years saying no to the democrats and that is a terrible thing for this country, set us black americans back 50 years. mitch mcconnell is like strom thurmond on steroids. jeff sessions is like george wallace on steroids. what trump is going to do, he will run for president, or governor abbott, so one of them can pardon him. someone will run for governor of new york so someone can pardon him. these are serious. these broadcasters, commentators, they's morning -- commentators, this morning, they were laughing, selling each other's books and not telling people what they need to know.
7:10 am
when you look at who comes on these shows, like on fox, they are not giving us the facts. they are just selling books. like joe scarborough. he wants everyone to come see his musicians. host: talking about senator mcconnell rejecting the mansion alternative -- the manchin alternative. a tweet that asked about voter id earlier, but let's look at mitch mcconnell earlier on the senate floor. [video clip] >> introduced this version back in 2019 with the same nakedly partisan motives, but ever since
7:11 am
democrats got the election outcome they wanted last fall, we have watched our colleagues actually update the rationale for their latest partisan power grab. states must be stopped from exercising control over their old election laws. the arguments here have one thing in common with the ones our colleagues have deployed against the filibuster, debunked claims of racism. the last presidential election saw the highest voter turnout in decades even amid a once in a century pandemic and african-american turnout was twice as high in mississippi as it was in massachusetts, but when georgia passed targeted updates to its election laws based on lessons learned during the pandemic elections, democrats trashed the bill as a redux of jim crow.
7:12 am
fact-checks repeatedly debunked these. host: republican leaders have also rejected a compromise from west virginia senator joe manchin. his bill calls for automatic voter registration, making election day holiday, mandating at least 15 days of early voting for federal elections, banning partisan gerrymandering, and his bill would support put variety restrictions -- would support voter id provisions, with a broader alternative of proof of identity, like utility bills. on twitter -- the only reason many more voters choose democrats is because republicans only offer bills that hamper the wealthy.
7:13 am
-- that pamper the wealthy. another -- what are they afraid of? and russ in california -- do away with mail in. too much fraud. military and overseas votes may be allowed, but one week before the election. people voting in person must prove identity and address. steve in san jose, california, republican line. caller: i have two points. the first is in this bill regarding those that vote, the word individual, which means everybody legal and illegal, should be removed and replaced with citizens, and the second point is that the question of constitutionality -- this needs to be done by an amendment to
7:14 am
the constitution, so please, will somebody called in and tell me and everybody else why this does not need to be done with a constitutional amendment? these rights are reserved for the states. this is an and -- an end run around our constitution. host: caller: good morning. i am a 74-year-old white man who grew up under jim crow and i am tired of everything now being characterized as jim crow or racist. most of the people calling him and talking about jim crow have
7:15 am
no idea. i worked at a restaurant where i could not eat or i would be arrested. and for years, the last 50 years, i watched the democrats lie to the blacks, try to make fools out of us. we are so stupid that we cannot get an id to vote, we need to make sure that they do this for us, you know, it is infuriating. it makes me angry, especially growing up in that era. i know jim crow when i see it. host: when you vote in washington, do you provide an id when you go to the polls? caller: no. it does -- it is the phone he -- it is the phoniest system there is.
7:16 am
the have automatic registration. you have to apply for a license and they automatically register you. anyone could fill out my voter registration for me right now and vote for me if they chose. host: thanks for that. we will go to anthony in arizona. caller: good morning, c-span. i spoke with greta and shared with her a quote. you do not see me until you need me. i was referencing how elected officials treated law enforcement. the other part of that quote is you don't see me until you need me, otherwise i don't exist, and that's where we are today when it comes to voting, because it is very applicable.
7:17 am
i am definitely for automatic registration just like the law that was changed that you had a social security number when a child was born. i am also for mail in voting. i believe that if we had 50,000 service members killed in the vietnam war and the government notified them by western union and, before the vietnam war, the government notified them by mail. if it is good enough to notify you by mail that you have lost a loved one, then why isn't it good enough to notify you that -- pay, i could mail in a vote. voting should start 30 days before presidential elections. it will still be 30 days before.
7:18 am
and you don't have to worry about counting votes after they come in, but for those veterans like myself who served overseas, there should be no time limit. if you put mail in the post office while overseas in the u.s., it should count. host: in arizona, do you have vote by mail? caller: we do. i am on a permanent mail voting system. the legislators here wanted to change it, where if you didn't vote in so many elections, then they could stop pulling you up, but i am on the permanent list. i am a disabled veteran. i do not sit on jury duty but i gave this country 30 years of my life and then 10 years of my life wearing a civilian army uniform. host: we appreciate you calling
7:19 am
in with your view this morning. the front page of the washington times. their headline -- voters not sold on new election laws. the senate prepares to vote on legislation. tuesday, americans are deeply conflicted. telling them the legislation is about voting access and being opportunities to cast ballots and they are enthused but talk about a financing system for federal campaigns and that enthusiasm falls away. the problem is the democrats and republicans aren't likely to get those, said patrick murray of the monmouth institute, which released data finding 50% of those surveyed rated barriers to voting as their top election worry, versus 50%, who said
7:20 am
fraud was their biggest concern. that pullover monmouth university. -- that whole from monmouth university -- that poll from monmouth university. available at monmouth.edu. there's an election in new york city today. we go to brooklyn next to hear from jared. good morning. caller: i do not support any of these bills that are being proposed in the house and senate. it is just the federal government trying to increase its power. the constitution is clear. elections are a state's right. the notion that african-americans cannot get id's is racist to them. they are smart enough to get id's. the democrats are trying to take more power and, by requiring id, it won't cause voter
7:21 am
suppression. host: have you voted in your city's mayoral election? caller: i plan on voting later today. guest: some of the candidates in that race for mayor -- eric adams, kathryn garcia, maya wiley, andrew yang, andrew prayer and scott stringer included. we will show you a bit later. let's hear from patty next in north branford, connecticut. go ahead. caller: you forgot to say that on the monmouth poll, 40% said we should have voter id. stacey abrams is back and forth. she moved a lot of things in georgia. she changed a lot of laws. she did harvesting votes, which
7:22 am
i think are legal. and i want to say one more thing, obama, butt out. your time is up. thank you. host: cliff is next in flint, michigan on the democrats line. go ahead. caller: for the last lady, to comment quickly, president obama is an american citizen and former president and has every right to speak about this just like any other american. i am 60, almost 64 years old, talking about voter id. this is not about voter id. i was born in a little town in arkansas and we moved to michigan in 1968 and my mother had not voted until the 1960 election not because she was too stupid or intelligent but because of jim crow.
7:23 am
these laws are not about voter id. they are about removing nonpartisan voting boards and replacing them with republican partisan people who can overturn the results if they don't like it. if, for example, our area is heavily democratic. they can bring someone in from another town, and if we vote for a democrat, they can say we don't like that. we will give the vote to a republican. so all these callers need to be better informed about what you are calling in. nobody is saying we shouldn't have to produce id's. we are saying the election should not be raped by one side the election should not be rigged by one side or another. name one state where democrats are telling people or the country, where they are telling people, if you vote for
7:24 am
republicans you lose because we will overtone -- overturn the will of the voter. no state or government institution can abridge the right of american citizens to vote, and the republican party across the country are doing exactly that, overturning my rights as a black veteran of 10 years in the u.s. military to vote when someone from bangladesh can get a green card and i cannot? ridiculous. host: some of the things you are talking about, are these recent changes to the laws in michigan? caller: what they are trying to do in michigan, the republican party, if you remember, during the election, there was a state election board where there were
7:25 am
five members, two republicans and three -- my bad, three republicans and two democrats and they voted whether to certify the election. president trump contacted two of the republican board members. you recall this. he asked them to overturn the election even though in our state, our rolls say joe biden won by something like 70,000 votes. if any party can override the will of the voters, that's not a democracy. these voter laws, people, read what you are talking about. they are about suppressing the vote. not what is in congress, florida, texas, iowa, michigan. anywhere there are republican legislatures, except virginia and maryland, that two
7:26 am
republican led states that are not enacting laws based on a lie. host: cliff in michigan. the question this morning is what election voting reforms would you support as the senate prepares to take up and head to a key vote this afternoon on whether to begin debate on what they are calling the for the people act, the voting reform bill. jen psaki, white house press secretary, was asked yesterday about the potential of using the filibuster to pass voting rights legislation. here is what she said. host: it is a step -- [video clip] >> is a step forward. i am not expecting a magical 10 votes, but we did not know that democrats would be aligned even weeks ago. this has been a battle to make voting more accessible and
7:27 am
available and our president's effort to continue that fight doesn't stop tomorrow at all. in terms of the steps he is taking, he has had conversations with members about supporting this legislation, including senator manchin, and he will continue to advocate. he has also agreed with his vice president that she will be in charge of this effort moving forward. it doesn't stop. it is an important piece of it, but it doesn't stop. there is work to do in states, voting groups, work to empower and engage legislatures, and that will be part of her effort and as it relates to the filibuster, that would be congress moving forward or taking a decision. if the vote is unsuccessful tomorrow, we expect it will prompt a new conversation about the path forward. host: 50 democrats and the
7:28 am
senate -- 50 people in the democratic caucus in the senate, one of them kyrsten sinema, who writes in the washington post, we have more to lose thing again for ending the filibuster. saying my support for retaining the 60 volt threshold is not -- 60 vote threshold is not based on any policy but on what will protect our democracy. in her article, she says those who want to eliminate the filibuster to pass an act i support and have cosponsored, what good would it be for our country if we did if we saw it rescinded a few years from now
7:29 am
? would it be good for our country if we expanded health care access only to see that legislation replaced by legislation dividing medicaid into block grants, slashing social security? and she writes those who want to eliminate the filibuster to empower federal agencies to protect the environment, would it be good if we did only to see those agencies abolished a few years from now? you can read that at washingtonpost.com. a tweet that says i want dark money out of politics. along with that, i like that hr1 stops people from buying elections. jen says no dark money tied to candidates, id always, maybe
7:30 am
close the states down on election day, make it a holiday, early voting, no internet at polling places. go back to paper. and another -- the gerrymander is one of the most insidious forms of voter suppression and needs reform, but everyone that possibly can needs to vote. john is on our republican line in arlington, virginia. go ahead. caller: after 9/11, when they built the pentagon up again, what they did was they suspended a lot of construction rules so they could rebuild it in a hurry. when we voted last november, they suspended a lot of rules because of the special nature of covid-19. all of a sudden, that's supposed to be the new norm. unfortunately, a lot of those
7:31 am
expansion rules, to a lot of people, gives a feeling that, if it continues, it was open to possible fraud and manipulation. we have reached the point, especially after 2000, where they were moving towards getting voting machines that were, you know, done by computer, but you had to have a paper trail to it. that was a great move. there were other moves that could be taken, but to broaden things out to the point where it can lead to fraud is no good. i don't think it helps anything. and i certainly think you need voter id, but the last thing i would like to say to republicans, unless a republican candidate can answer the question was the election of donald trump stolen and did he win by millions of votes like he
7:32 am
says? if they cannot answer that question in a negative way i will not vote for them. host: let's go to frank in clarksburg, west virginia on the independent line. caller: good morning to you all. i am having trouble breathing. one second. you know, i feel everyone should vote. they should send the pallets out they should -- they should send ballots out. there's all kinds of different ways you can find out and it should last for a month to tell the truth. there are some countries where if you do not vote, you are fined. australia is one of them. that should happen here. as far as an audit goes, it really doesn't make any sense unless everyone in that state
7:33 am
agrees to it. why is it that audits are only conducted in states where president trump lost? why were they conducted -- if you are going to have an audit in one state, have it in all of them. voting should not be more difficult. it should be easier. it should last for a month. host: to your idea of finding people who don't vote, what is your reasoning? caller: well, to fine them. australia fines you. i could be wrong on that, but some countries hold their democracy to a higher standard than we hold hours now, and for what -- we hold ours now, and for what reason are we holding our democracy -- to a person
7:34 am
whims? host: how do you feel about your state senator, joe manchin, in this debate? caller: joe manchin is a little bit like my dog. some things he does i like and some things i don't. i have voiced my concerns to senator manchin and senator capito. this is about voting rights. this is about whether we keep a democracy or not, so therefore, everyone should -- if i vote, say, and you vote that your general is the first tuesday in november. let's say that. anyway, ok, if i vote a month
7:35 am
ahead of time and i die before that, does it count? that's crazy. we have a fraudulent vote here because this man is not alive anymore? why don't we want a democracy? why don't we want this country to be as great as it can be? host: here's a report this morning from politico. manchin holds out until last minute on elections vote. he declined monday to vote on advancing the democrats sweeping elections bill, saying he would need more assurances that his changes would be adopted. it seems like a picayune matter, but democrats want to send a political message and they need manchin's vote to paint a more vivid contrast with the
7:36 am
republicans blockade. all other democrats have cosponsored the legislation. that's the thing to keep in mind about the vote at 5:30 in the afternoon in the senate. it is a vote to start debate on the bill, not on the bill itself. john in new jersey, democrats line, go ahead. caller: i agree with a lot of what the previous joneses. -- the previous gentleman said. i will be quick. yesterday, i was reminded that it was the anniversary of the murder of putman and cheney, and that reminder, in the midst of what we are going through now, attacks on democracy, it is heartbreaking and thought-provoking. our democracy survives and i
7:37 am
hope that everybody will read jean mayer's book dark money. host: in virginia, ray on the republican line, good morning. you are on the line. go ahead. caller: really? host: yeah. mute your volume and go ahead. one more time. turn down your volume and go ahead with your comment. i am sorry, ray. you are listening to the tv or something. we will go to belmont, pennsylvania. this is dave. caller: good morning. how are you? host: fine. thank you. caller: i have been thinking about this a lot since the last election, claims of fraud and hacking and the uncertainty, and if it were my decision on how to proceed with this, i would go
7:38 am
ahead and get away with an open ballot system that cannot be hacked. how do you commit fraud or hack people when the question is show of hands? you cannot hack it, you cannot cheat, everyone is out there, tracked. we can have a system that is 100% secure, no chance of fraud or acting. we only have to get rid of that pesky part of the process that keeps it a secret. that is what i would do. host: david, thank you for that. next, jane on the republican line, brunswick, georgia. go ahead. caller: thank you for living the speak. -- thank you for letting me speak. i think that if democrats keep getting their way as far as the voting and anything else, we are
7:39 am
going to be stuck with them forever. i don't trust them anymore and i see what is happening to our country and i think if things keep going with -- going the way we are -- going the way they are we will end up like china, russia, other communist countries. look what they are doing to our speech, and especially our children in school. i just -- i don't know. all i know is, if these bills pass, i am taking my son and i am leaving my country. host: how old are -- how old is your son and where will you go? caller: he is 44 but totally disabled. host: where would you move? caller: ecuador, colombia. host: you would do that because
7:40 am
of things like the legislation being considered today, if that sort of legislation passes? caller: right. yes. because it will lead to communism. you can say it is marxist. you may as well say communist when you say marxist and socialist is right next to marxist, so -- my father fought in the army during world war ii. he was at pearl harbor when it was bombed. and i have four brothers who also five. -- who also fought. host: appreciate your call. we are asking you about voting reform. what sort of voting reforms do you support? the senate prepares to take a key vote this afternoon on advancing s1, they call it the
7:41 am
for the people act, passed under the house under hr1, and will come up today for a test vote, a procedural vote to move to advance it to debate. not expected to meet the 60 vote threshold. there's a lot of lobbying, money being spent on this, as there is with every congressional measure and policy change. one group spending money is a group called fix the senate, which wants to abolish the filibuster. here is their ad. [video clip] >> our democracy has been tested before but we have always come back stronger. with an unprecedented assault on the legitimacy of our elections, we need the senate to secure our democracy in this century. brave americans have always done their job to stand up for democracy.
7:42 am
now it is time for senators to do theirs. host: the senate itself gavels into session this morning at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span 2. on twitter, some commons from senators. senator mike crapo, republican, saying the democrats patently unconstitutional legislation would circumvent our entire elections process and stifle freedom of speech. gary peters of michigan says we need to take action to strengthen voting rights of michiganders and americans. i am proud to sponsor s1. that's why i will be voting to move this bill forward. rick scott from florida tweets this. the democrats s1, the corrupt politicians act, is a radical
7:43 am
power grab that makes elections less secure. it is insane and we cannot let it pass. and from georgia sender rafael warnock, this -- our democracy is stronger when every eligible voter's voice can be heard. we need to pass federal voting rights legislation. back to calls. in pennsylvania on our democrats line, larry. caller: thank you for taking my call. i was calling on the behalf of -- i don't understand. i spent time in the service and i have four grand kids in the service. my older brother died in the service. i don't understand why they keep spending all this money
7:44 am
continuing to address the voting. and the next thing is that it -- the american people, we are paying for this. it just keeps going on and on and on, and i would like to know, you know, when are they going to stop that? i mean, they are always talking about the money we spend here and the money we spend there. he is costing the united states a lot of money that's unnecessary, and i thank you for taking my call. the lady was talking about the democrats taking over. the republicans went down there and took over the capitol.
7:45 am
if that is not overthrowing the government, i don't know what you would call it. host: robber in lynchburg, virginia, independent line. caller: thank you for taking my call. what joe manchin is proposing -- but i would like to address that guy who called from chicago. i am 77. i did 20 years in the military. i will fight for our right to vote and for democracy and not for a communist state, and if you follow donald trump, everybody that follows him, you know the red tie he wears all the time? like the devil. you follow the devil and the devil is the father of the lie. thank you. host: new jersey, bernard, republican line. mute your volume.
7:46 am
can you turn down your volume and to go ahead please? caller: ok. your first name is john, great? host: go ahead with your comment if you will. caller: yes. i talked to a few people yesterday after watching your fantastic show about the absconding of the unemployment benefits by russia. china and romania, right? and i just want to know if some of these people can be -- can also be informed like we were yesterday because they don't believe me. host: all right, bernard. that was yesterday's topic. you can see that segment at c-span.org. appreciate you calling. we go to ottumwa, iowa, the democrats line.
7:47 am
what sort of reforms do you support? caller: i support that everyone has the right to vote. that shouldn't even be up for debate, people voting. with joe manchin, with purging the rolls, ok, i support that, i support voter id, but it is a shame that we have republicans, human beings, telling everyone they shouldn't vote because it would put them at a disadvantage. we are in a democracy. it is so sad that our country has turned into a communist country to sit there and tell people you don't have the right to vote because our guy didn't win. i didn't vote for trump.
7:48 am
i voted for hillary clinton, but i didn't really want to vote for her, but i chose her. i didn't get mad when she lost. we dealt with trump for four years, he lost. it is a done deal. you see people storming capitols. it is a shame they are throwing a tantrum like children. like, if i don't win, i will storm the capitol, with guns. we need to learn our history. trump is a cult leader and these people are following him like he is jesus and it seems like our country has steered away from jesus and his going for trump. host: election day in new york city today.
7:49 am
this is a headline -- to bring back new york city, vote for eric adams. the paper says today is the most important vote for new yorkers in a generation. who you vote for will determine whether three decades of prosperity will return or whether the failure of bill de blasio will continue. eric adams is that best candidate. that is the view of the new york post. you can read the entire editorial at nypost.com. from senator john cornyn yesterday, minority whip and the senate, speaking out against s1. [video clip] >> there is no widespread effort to stop voters from casting a ballot and no desire to hand states constitutional authorities to the federal government. my democratic colleagues are struggling to accept this reality.
7:50 am
they have been working behind the scenes to negotiate a compromise among themselves. there is no question of whether or not this would be a bipartisan bill because of the overreach that i have just talked about. the question was whether or not the bipartisan opposition seen in the house would continue in the senate, but even if democrats were to accept all the changes proposed by senator manchin, the senator from west virginia, and endorsed by stacey abrams, the rotten core of this bill remains the same. this is a politically motivated federal takeover of our election and it will not stand. the constitution doesn't have the democratic party or the republican party -- doesn't give their democratic party -- give the democratic party or the republican party how to run elections. i will oppose any effort to hand texas's constitutional right to
7:51 am
conduct elections over to the federal government. federal mandate will not improve public confidence in our elections. it will be seen for what it is in a transparent way, a partisan political takeover, a coup d'etat, really, in the way our elections ever run. -- elections are run. host: what voting reforms do you support? bob says this in illinois -- support voter id. makes it harder to cheat. make them fair. in michigan -- i like the idea of not having dark money. i know for a fact that where ipo they will not allow poll watchers at all or any kind of
7:52 am
intimidation that was happening up in lansing, michigan. intimidating because they were armed and in the capital there looking mean with their big guns . let's hear from emma in stockton, california. democrats line her good morning. -- democrats line. good morning. caller: hello. i am saying it is so stupid right now for people to be voting on should other people be able to vote, you know? because as long as you are here, as long as you are under the so-called governing power, you know, everybody has a right to have a say what happens to them and it is just amazing how stupid we have gotten in the
7:53 am
last five years, you know? trump, whatever, and i don't understand him because he came in lying and he has, you know, and i don't want to be racist, but it seems like they want to go to the plantation days, you know? i want to rule you and i want you to work for me. do you know what i am saying? but it is just amazing. people have to come to a conscious mind. everybody has a mind, everybody, and, for some reason, a lot of people have gotten stupid and, you know, come back.
7:54 am
host: the legislation the senate will consider today is s1, the for the people act, democrats colic. it would enact automatic registration, enable absentee voting, prohibit purges of voter rolls, create a public financing system for federal offices, and proposes a constitutional amendment to overturn citizens united, prohibit coordination between super backs and -- between super pac's and candidates, implement independent redistricting commissions, and enhance resources to stave off foreign threats on elections. caller: i don't think the problem is so much figuring out how to validate the voting system to include everybody, which it should.
7:55 am
the problem is the ignorance level of our society. you know, we have candidates who were propped up by the powers at be in this nation for us to vote on at this minute. we have a group of people to choose but they are picked for us. we don't really have a democracy in this country. we cannot vote each other in or joe down the street. i am being sarcastic, but we cannot get people outside of the ones that are chosen for us, to be elected, so the ignorance level is the problem. we have people on this show talking about communism. they don't know what communism is. they think it is just controlling, manipulating -- just a controlling, manipulating, cruel system. then we must be very communist in this country because we are controlled and manipulated.
7:56 am
senator bernie sanders said it in the senate -- we are not educated to become thinking individuals. we are only educated to filled jobs and make money for the people who hire us. this is the problem. the people of this country, they have the ability to vote properly or get a system working that actually works in democratic fashion to steer us in a direction that makes us better. host: with the turnout of the presidential election, do you think that reflects a system that has failed? caller: yes. it reflects a system that has failed because it is a manipulated system. you are given a choice of joe biden or donald trump or whoever, and i mean, it is even harder to get a third party, a
7:57 am
person like sanders in, because it is a control system. it is smoke and mirrors, but not much better than other systems. if we have one of two people to vote for, that's just one more than those nasty dictatorships. how democratic our week? what direction are we going and? host: the former president commented on the election yesterday. a headline -- the president stands firm on stolen election charge. i never used the word concede. the president said monday he never admitted defeat in the 2020 race. i have not conceded, mr. trump said in an interview. he reiterated his unproven allegations of voter fraud in the 2020 election and says he anticipates the controversial audit in arizona to show that. he protects more states will follow suit and more evidence will appear.
7:58 am
mr. mr. trump: democratic presidential nominee in 20 and georgia gubernatorial candidate stacey abrams in 2018 concerns about their elections, suggesting his claims are not out of the ordinary. "there's a tremendous percentage of people who think the election was rigged," mr. trump said. he has been teasing another presidential run in 2010 before. -- run in 2024. mike in indiana, go ahead. caller: the topic is vote reform. i think voter id is the best way to go. all these years, democrats did not want voter id. monmouth has a poll. 80% of americans want voter id. they cannot believe they are not being listened to.
7:59 am
if they can change on a hat like that, that is a scary party to believe in. all these years, no id. now they want it. when they passed this hr1, you have heard of amendments to a bill? the first thing they change will be voter id. villa anyone for you on the democratic side. -- don't let anyone fool you on the democratic side. that will be the first thing they amend. host: on the democratic line in tennessee, hello to bob. caller: you are talking about georgia. listen, yes, the reason we believe donald trump got cheated in georgia is because they ran
8:00 am
the poll watchers out and started jerking suitcases out underneath tables. we saw it on local news. if you are a real reporter, you should know this. and that they change the laws in law by allowing a judge to do it, that right there makes it illegal. host: more on this topic on washington journal, we continue the conversation on voting reforms with john fortier, with the aei and later marc ginsberg with coalition for a safer web will join us. ♪ announcer: today on the c-span
8:01 am
networks, a senate committee hears from the washington dc mayor muriel bowser, that is 10:00 on c-span. at noon, the house returns for general speeches, at 2:00 p.m., they take up 18 bills, including legislation aimed at protecting veterans from fraud. on c-span two, 10:00 a.m., the senate returns to work on the nomination of general counsel for the director of national intelligence. at 5:30 p.m., they vote whether to move forward on the democrat bill for reform. at 2 p.m., jerome powell testifies before the house oversight, coronavirus crisis subcommittee on the federal
8:02 am
reserve's response to the pandemic. on www.c-span.org, a senate subcommittee looks at ways government can support broadband infrastructure. that is at 2:30 p.m. announcer: washington journal continues. host: john fortier, president scholar at the american enter because -- resident scholar at the american enterprise institute. guest: good morning. host: we spent our first hour talking about the vote coming up in the senate today, procedural on s1, the for the people act, the democrats voting reform bill. in a recent opinion piece you said "the reforms are too broad." why do you think that? guest: our country is different than many in the world. we have a decentralized system
8:03 am
of elections. we allow states and localities different policies. we sometimes passed federal laws which supersede those. those of the smaller number of laws. it is usually with consensus. this bill goes back to democrats taking over the house in 2018 and they wanted their first bill out of the gate to show the american people what their priorities were on democracy reform. because of that, it is a large bill with lots of priorities, all of which would be controversial and hard to get through at a national level. some through more democratic states. this bill began broad, lots of things in it and now with the filibuster hurdle, democrats are trying to pass this. it will be a hurdle for the size
8:04 am
of it, we have not debated all the parts, and because even democratic states do things differently than other states. this would be a one-size-fits-all mandate. it will be a challenge. host: you mentioned the bill s1 started out in the house as hr1 and now under different circumstances in the postelection months, many legislators across the country have taken up or passed election reform bills in those states. does that provide a sense of urgency to getting national reform done? certainly the democrats feel that. tie that into what is being done in states across the country. guest: the action in the states are a combination of things going on for years. republicans and democrats having different priorities, different voting systems in different states and all the change we saw.
8:05 am
certainly, the pandemic. lots of states reacting to the pandemic with new procedures, especially democratic states moving to the increase in vote by mail, changes in their system. republican states reacting saying, in some ways we have gone too far. we want some regulation of the way in which we handle absentee ballots or dates in which you have them. democrats think this is a step backward. they would like to see national regulation of this. typically it has been the case we need both parties to have some buy-in of national legislation particularly with a filibuster. it is hard but there is urgency on the democratic side. some republican states are moving in a direction they do not like. blue states have made big changes too. if republicans were in charge, they would like national legislation in the other direction. that is the dynamic we have in
8:06 am
our decentralized system. host: a caller pointed out in the first hour that the changes in election boards -- how could that be an important issue going forward? guest: we are a decentralized country. states are important. often, county boards -- we have a variety of systems across the country. there is always a tension between -- should all the counties be uniform in states or should the state have more authority over keeping one set of voting procedures? in certain instances, i think of harris county where a democratic led county put some reforms in that the statewide republicans were not as excited about and are now cutting back on that saying -- look, we need a more
8:07 am
uniform system. that is a universal issue in our states. how much economy locals should have versus the state? in this case, democrats are pointing things they like in harris county but republicans are trying to cut back on. host: according to the brennan center, 48 states have proposed or passed legislation. which states are you paying attention to? guest: the georgia law, which has passed. texas, which was stopped for a while. i would note almost every state is making changes and also made changes in the lead up to the election. i point to some people are not paying attention to now. i'm looking at data from the last election. a state like new jersey, a blue state, really went from being a state that has voted mostly in person, overwhelmingly. they quickly last summer
8:08 am
switched their system of voting to nearly 100% by mail. there are dramatic changes out there, both directions. it is following the pattern of blue states generally having a set of issues, especially voting by mail, which has become more polarized, but also other issues where the parties disagree. host: john fortier with the american enterprise institute talking about election reforms proposed nationally and on state levels. we welcome your calls and comments. (202)-748-8000 for democrats, (202)-748-8001 for republicans, (202)-748-8002 for independents. i mentioned your opinion piece. you say s1 is broad. i want to read about the federal role versus the state will.
8:09 am
"some republicans incorrectly claim voting laws are the provinces of states alone. the constitution allows states to craft laws but congress can overrule state laws. in practice, states have had the preeminent role in elections and only in specific instances has congress stepped in, the result being american elections are extremely decentralized." when was the last time there was a major federal intervention in national elections? guest: i could point to a few. we had voting rights legislation in the 1960's, which has been renewed several times. we had a major look at motor voter registration, registration at the dmv's. after the 2000 election, there
8:10 am
was a bipartisan effort, not everyone was happy with it, but really made her change to the voting machines, voting -- major change to the voting machines. we get agreements on military voting. we have had several packages like that. recently, in the last few years, we have had more federal money. rarely has federal money gone to the states. in the last for years, we had money for election security coming out of the 2016 worries about that. a little more money went to states for being able to deal with issues with the pandemic. we have done some things at national level. there are national institutions that are related to elections. the key institutions that run elections are secretaries of state, state election board and local groups doing the actual administration. most of it still is decentralized. we certainly had times where we
8:11 am
made uniform national laws. host: can i get your reaction? monmouth rights "requiring photo ids both have bipartisan majority support. approval of making early voting easier stands at 89% among democrats, 68% at independents, and 56% among republicans. support for requiring photo id stands at 87% among independents and 91% among republicans." does it seem like there is a disconnect between that and what some congress members are trying to get done? guest: i think that is consistent with other polling, even what our organization has put out in the field. in general, if u.s. people --
8:12 am
what are you most concerned about? -- if you ask people -- what are you most concerned about? republicans line up on the integrity side. democrats line up on the access side. there are specific reforms which i would say the activists are more divided than the people and voter id gets a good amount of support from the democratic side and of voter id. on the early voting side, republicans not being as against it as some legislators are. in the big philosophical picture, there are some issues but some don't cut quite the way activists portray them. host: we have calls waiting but i will start with the question via text from paul in missouri. have any state legislators given
8:13 am
themselves the power to overturn the vote of the people in favor? guest: good question. it came up as an issue in the last election. we go back to our constitution, early days. state legislatures are given the power to appoint presidential electors. many of them in the early days, south carolina, all the way up to the civil war, did not have elections for president. they had elections for state legislatures and those legislatures directly appointed electors. we moved away from that. all states now have elections where the people get away in. the question remains in some extreme circumstances -- i think no one would want to see this in a regular basis -- could state legislatures reinsert their power to appoint electors directly? the times we talk about that
8:14 am
happening or perhaps the state legislature see some great failure in the election. other actors changing the laws or doing something that disrupts the election or some sort of emergency where we could not have the election. we have not tested this other than we did early early on in the republic where it was a clear feature in the constitution. here, where states have implemented laws, circumstances under which a state could exercise this seem more limited. we have not tested it. the courts have not weighed in. we do not know how it would go. host: john fortier talking about election reform proposals nationally and in the states. we welcome your calls at (202)-748-8000 for democrats, (202)-748-8001 for republicans, (202)-748-8002 for independents. michael, wheeling, west virginia, democrat.
8:15 am
caller: yes. i'm 75. i served my country. i am a vietnam vet. in 1960's, i graduated from school in 1963. the military draft was in. when you turned 18, you had to sign up at the post office. that is where i went anyway. four weeks later you got your draft card that said 1a,2s. four weeks later, you got a letter that said, congratulations and salutations. you have been drafted. the selective service board has been around over 70 years. it is probably the most accurate form of registration we have in the entire country. currently it is for men only. why couldn't we put all
8:16 am
people sign up for selective service board, then use the board. it is the most accurate form we have had over the years. why couldn't we just use the selective service board for all young people? guest: important question. we have challenges in keeping good voter lists. there are more challenges than other countries which are much more centralized. a lot of countries you have a national election board. they will find you and so you are eligible to vote. you are responsible for registering to vote. sometimes people do not know this. if you move or change status, you might have to reregister to vote in another state.
8:17 am
we have problems keeping up with this. we have made great improvements since 2000, when we have a lot of local lists. it is a system that is hard to keep accurate in many ways. we have made some changes. there are states sharing data across state lines to find voters who have moved, who have died. we have done a pretty good job but because it is so decentralized, it is hard to do. the selective service, i know they run a good system. i don't know the details. like any list, they will find challenges in a mobile society. that is one of the great challenges we have trying to keep our lists accurate. some controversies in s1 are how you take voters off the roll. what is the appropriate way?
8:18 am
host: sue in maine. in michigan, i'm sorry. go ahead. independent. caller: i think joe's bill is pretty fair. i believe voter id is very important. also, states should have some kind of independence. beyond the voting itself, what needs to be addressed and is not is gerrymandering and dark money. before you get into the voting booth, that is part of the equation. host: have you had a chance to look at joe manchin's alternative? guest: some of the provisions. we have been talking more about
8:19 am
election administration procedure. the bill includes campaign-finance aspects and a move toward independent commissions. joe manchin is in favor with a different twist on the original. also is in favor of a kind of voter id. not clear what kind of compromise the democrats might have with him. maybe it is to watered -- too watered-down. is he going to support a compromised bill? even more than that is the filibuster. many democracy reformers on the left see this as a package. get rid of the filibuster, pass this reform. a lot of that depends on joe manchin who would have to be both supportive of the compromise and agree to do what he said he would not do to get rid of the filibuster, in this
8:20 am
case without republican support. host: virginia, republican line. ray in virginia? are you there? we will go to kathleen, dayton, ohio, democrat. caller: mr. fortier, i don't understand and i would love to hear your argument against how anyone can credibly credibly argue against a uniform voting system when it comes to our federal elections? i'm not talking about state elections. we are watching republicans do everything they can nationwide to shut down people's ability to get to the polls or to send absentee ballots in and it really seems like they feel like that is a way they can win, by
8:21 am
manipulating states voting access. how can you credibly argue against a consistent, uniform voting system for the president of the u.s.? i don't understand how anyone can credibly argue against that. guest: first, there are big differences. you have strongly held views. there are some in other states that feel that there are different systems, may be more republican, that they are in favor of. aside from the left and right differences, there are differences among states, historical differences. states that have adopted early voting in person but don't do a lot vote by mail. some of our northeast states, lots of small locations for the local precincts. big rural states, like alaska, which have challenges which others don't in the way they vote.
8:22 am
there are republican and democratic differences, which are sometimes hard to bridge, and that is why it is hard to pass legislation. there are things you find state election administrators who say we like the way we do it here. washington state, which votes 100% by mail, would have to do something different if it were mandated at the federal level. states have come up the way they did and have systems in place. it is hard. host: republicans push more partisan election audits, from nbc, election officials worn the proliferation amounts to a great threat to u.s. democracy. what is your take on what is going on in arizona and that
8:23 am
audit? guest: i am not an expert in all the details. broadly speaking the audit does not seem like it is going well. this is a difficult thing to do. counting, recounting all the ballots, doing so, looking at the ballots for all sorts of irregularities, which they are trying to do. not using election officials. that was probably a mistake. election officials are experts at this. they know their ballots, locations and having their expertise would have been helpful. on the other side, i don't think we should say we really don't need audits or postelection looks at what happened. a well-done audit, certainly we have audits in laws in a number of states but looks at the election are very valuable. i am not sure the arizona audit is going well.
8:24 am
we will see the final result. we shouldn't dismiss the idea. let's take a look at elections after we have them even if it does not change the results. just to see what the problems were. those things are necessary for improving elections. host: carrie, durham, north carolina, democrat. caller: good morning. couple questions regarding elections. america has a history of denying some people access to voting. we know that because we have an amendment regarding poll taxes in the 14th amendment came out of a time of trying to deny people their newly enacted rights. i understand why we need to have some form of voter id. i work with a disadvantaged population. there are people that struggle to get forms of id. i'm concerned about leaving people out, people that are not
8:25 am
trying to cheat or mess around -- there is truly hardship in life. i want to encourage everyone to vote. it is something we should all be doing regardless of our lot in life. we should all be exercising her civic duty. my first question is, if we do pass requirements friday, how do we work with the fact -- for id, how do we work with the fact of money? requiring people to have a drivers license, that means someone has to pay for the id and going get it. i am concerned about that. the other question i have is in regards to the state legislature being able to overturn the outcome of an election. i have taught the history of this country for 20 years. there was an old way of doing things early on in the republic. i don't necessarily want to go back to that. what are the safeguards that we have in place that a state
8:26 am
legislature, such as the one we have in many republican states right now who just want to overturn the outcome of an election because their guy did not win? what do we do to protect against that? host: couple good questions, carrie. guest: on the question of voter id, obviously there is a difference between the parties on whether we should be implementing photo id laws. there have been court decisions that say that photo id laws are going to have to have some way of providing free identification. most of the states, as far as i know, all of the states that have photo id laws have some provision, whether it is more generally at the dmv. any of them allow you to come to the polling place, sometimes they will make you an id right there. maybe that is not enough lowering of the barrier for some
8:27 am
people but that is some of it. there are reasonable administrative things you can do to make sure it is not a barrier but what it is is a helpful way of identifying voters, making sure they are who they are and therefore increasing the integrity of the elections. there are many small questions. the question of free id has been taking care of. we are not allowed to not have that option whether it is through an extension. i touched on the earlier question of the state legislatures. we had a lot of talk about it but we did not have them go forward and do this. ultimately, you have congress counting those votes. people are worried about that aspect of the process as well. there are places in which the states would have some -- challenges as well. we have not done this in many years. it will be difficult.
8:28 am
stay to be unwilling to do it perhaps except in an extreme case. there are checks to stop it going there. host: a couple questions texted. (202)-748-8003 is our text. how can laws handle voters who have two residences in a different state? is there support for a national federal election holiday? guest: two addresses. this is one of the challenges we face with not having national law. we have pretty good state laws. if you live in different places, potentially, you could try to register in both places. there are checks on that, both beforehand but there are also new programs where states are coming together and sharing data and saying look, here is
8:29 am
this voter. we think they moved. there are ways. there are a handful of people we found in the selection who end up voting in two states. it is not against the law to be registered in two but you should cancel your prior registration. we have an imperfect system that is not as good as it might be in terms of routing people out and forcing them to say, this is the one place you are going to vote, which is the ideal. host: second question on making a national holiday? guest: i don't think we are near that. that is something people have talked about. joe manchin has talked about it. with that really help with turnout? i am a skeptic. we have other ways. we have early voting in many states in person. there may not be a national holiday on tuesday but we have
8:30 am
weekend voting, other days, earlier weeks. we often have an option to vote by mail. evidence is not clear that would increase turnout. some people think it would be a good idea to turn tuesday into a day off work for people. i don't think it is happening soon. host: record numbers of voters in the 2020 election. were you surprised? guest: in a way, yes and no. even before the pandemic, we saw levels of enthusiasm that were the highest we have seen. people really wanted to vote. frankly, that was people who strongly believed in donald trump and were strongly against donald trump. all of these problems with the pandemic and how we would vote, is that going to stop people from voting? turns out, a combination of changes that were made at state level, people having time and still being enthusiastic in finding a way to vote -- we saw
8:31 am
the highest turnout in modern history. not just a small jump. a very large jump. it was a testament to voters and people who ran the election. host: david, middletown, new jersey, independent. caller: good morning c-span, the best channel on television! good morning, gentlemen. this is my 45th time on c-span. i am a 97 year young world war ii vet. i have lived throughout most of what many people will never live through. i lived through the depression, world war ii, the cold war, korea, vietnam, the war on terror.
8:32 am
my generation, as you well know, was known as the greatest generation. three words describe the greatest generation. the first three words that are the preamble to the constitution. "we the people." that is what makes us the greatest nation in the world. we the people. unfortunately, our great nation is polarized. each person, in most cases, is looking out to themselves instead of looking out to each other and the voting, as far as i am concerned, every eligible voter should have the right to vote. what is happening today, unfortunately, is disgraceful.
8:33 am
people are being held back from voting because of their color, whatever it happens to be. this is not what our great country is all about. we have to have every eligible voter go to the polls and vote whoever they want to vote for. host: david, thank you for your long-time support of c-span and for calling in. guest: i don't want to speak for everybody. there is a universal feeling across the aisle that eligible voters should be able to vote. there are some on the right that want to make it hard to cheat. democrats have made an issue of the number of access issues really pushing for the right to vote and ease of voting. the questions we have are more technical.
8:34 am
they are more on how to have a system that gets to the eligible voters and has integrity and therefore some of the reforms republicans are advocating for, whether you think they go too far or not, and are not overly difficult and does not put unnecessary obstacles in people's way. we have different states coming to different answers. today, at least, the broad consensus is, yes, eligible voters should be able to vote. the question is how? host: this comment from billy and brooklyn, if you have seen evidence from this, voter id laws in southern states, like texas, except nra id but never public housing id. laws are designed with surgical precision to disenfranchise poor voters. guest: the id laws across the country are very different.
8:35 am
we have some form of identification at every polling place, whether it is just stating your name or signing something. some think the laws are too strict. there are often options. those can be a variety of government ids. the student id issue has come up as a controversy. the tricky point is, sometimes, the way colleges house them, students don't have permanent addresses. they have the id where they are going to school, or where they live at another location. though students are eligible to vote where they go to college but they are setting themselves up to do that, you often get logistical issues. there are questions we could ask about what types of id you could have and how you ask people who they are when they show up at the polling place or send in a ballot. there are free ids and often
8:36 am
multiple avenues for getting identified, whether it is different kinds of photo id or perhaps signing a statement that you are eligible, if you do not have your id with you. host: andy, princeton junction, new jersey. caller: thank you for taking my call. john, thank you for your service and comments. i have a few questions. trump yesterday said he never conceived and it is going to turn out he actually won. we have someone in arizona called ninjas doing something. do you really feel it was widespread voter fraud? do you think this is helping our country to tell all these people
8:37 am
especially on some news channels that there was a big lie? don't you think this is really hurting us? everything that comes from trump and that side is parroted by putin? don't you think we are better than that? don't you think my father fought for us to be free and for this craziness to go on? it is hurting my family even. this dissension. so and then also the fact that the republicans wouldn't ask for an investigation on january 6. isn't that unfortunate? i would like your comments. host: thank you. guest: i don't think our postelection look, in arizona or other states will show a dramatic shift in boats that the
8:38 am
result would have been different. the reason i say that -- in votes that the result would have been different. the reason i say that is because once we get past the first few days where we are making sure we counted all the polling places, that we have all the numbers correct, these recounts tend not to change the bow very much. we have had recounts in georgia and arizona. there was a look at the ballot. in this case today, we have most eight having paper ballots, which you can go back to. -- we have most states having paper ballots. i don't think the results will change very much. i am not sure what we would do about a dramatic change because the election has been declared. joe biden is president. congress is sitting. it is not something you can remedy after the fact.
8:39 am
to look at those things is worthwhile doing, also, just thinking about ways in which we can improve elections going forward. both sides complain about things that do not go their way in an election. administrative decisions, court decisions, states. thinking about these kinds of things going forward. i don't think they will overturn in people's minds, that the votes will flip in the other direction. host: you wrote a 2004 book. i will bring in a comment from gary from tennessee. it seems doing something about the electoral college would be the best thing. it is the biggest thief of presidential votes. the president represents all the voters. it isn't a segment about the electoral college but briefly, what are your thoughts 17 years after that 2004 book?
8:40 am
guest: i have a new edition. the thinking back in 2004 was that it was pretty rare for us to have the popular boko in one direction and the electoral -- the popular election go in one direction and the electoral college go in another. we saw it in 2016 and people were worried it would happen again in 2020. that pushes people to want to reform it. it is difficult to reform. it usually requires a constitutional mandate. you would have to reform each state and the way they select electors. over time, sometimes those demographic changes shift in a way that it might not favor republicans in the future or
8:41 am
might favor democrats or we won't know who it favors. i think the electoral college could serve us well because states are still important. going to states in campaigns and winning swing states is not a bad way of running the election. it is true to our sense of states, not just one national election but the voting goes on within state ballots. host: mark, hempstead, maryland, republican. caller: good morning. there was a caller a few minutes ago. this is a frustration i have as a republican. they started talking about poll taxes. a lot of talk this morning about jim crow, you know, asking, ideas, targeting minorities.
8:42 am
john, as a republican, i really wished you would have pushed back harder on that and reminded some of these people that when they start talking about jim crow and poll taxes, it was the democratic party that did this. it was not republicans that did this. yet, the democrats are always pointing at the right implying. republicans -- there was no republican in history that ever voted for a jim crow law. they were voted in by republicans -- democrats, who used a filibuster to block a voting rights act put forward by president johnson. i would like your comments on that. host: john fortier?
8:43 am
guest: i absolutely agree that the rhetoric about poll taxes and jim crow is very overblown. we have debates about integrity and access. democrats are not always happy with republican proposals for voter id or regulating who gets to handle absentee ballots. that is a very different thing than poll taxes and jim crow. broadly speaking, people are looking to pass laws with good intent. again, those who are much more in favor of access might believe they see some bad things in republican proposals but these are relatively around the margin regulation of certain areas, some democrats might think our hurdles to voting but they are certainly not animated to dramatically change the percentage of people who vote. the percentage is up. before this last one, and this
8:44 am
last one was even higher. we can have a reasonable debate. you can argue about these restrictions. it is more about the management of elections than they are affecting the percentage of people who are going to vote. host: carol, tyler, texas, democrat. caller: good morning. i just wanted to point out, i wonder if nobody else sees this, all these years we have at elections, maybe they were not perfect but they were more from the bottom up. no one was attacking our press. we were living a fairly peaceful and normal life until one man came in and planted the seed, donald trump. i'm not blaming donald trump for all that happened after. he was the instigator that unleashed all this ugliness in
8:45 am
our country. here in texas they are working overtime to gerrymander and change voting laws, to cut out whoever the people are they don't want to vote. all trump needed was to find one dishonest person in pennsylvania or florida or somewhere else where it was contested. my guess is his henchmen are working overtime now to make sure they find that one person somehow in 2022 and 2024. there is a commonality. it is people following donald trump. host: we will let you go as we wrap up this segment. final thoughts? guest: it is hard to weigh in on the role of donald trump other than to say that many of these debates we are having predate donald trump. questions about voter id, about
8:46 am
whether we should have more voting by mail, should we clean up the lists? those are more traditional issues we have been arguing about in states for a long time. there may be a new energy there. these are differences between the parties which are long-held and which exist in states that have not changed fundamentally. host: john fortier, american enterprise institute, part of a discussion recovered yesterday on the issue. great to have you with us is always. guest: thank you. host: coming up on washington journal, we will be joined next by marc ginsberg, president of the group of coalition for a safer web, talking tracking extremist activity online and the administration's plan to counter domestic terrorism. ♪
8:47 am
announcer: journal@c-span.org browse to see what is new on our c-span shop. go tocspanshop.org. announcer: c-span landmark cases explores the stories and constitutional drama between significant court decisions. sunday, watch where laron searle gideon was denied a court-appointed lawyer. the supreme court ruled that under the sixth amendment, they must be afforded the opportunity to defend themselves. watch on c-span, online at
8:48 am
www.c-span.org or listen on the c-span radio app. ♪ announcer: washington journal continues. host: former ambassador marc ginsberg, who served in morocco under the carter administration, now serving as the president for
8:49 am
the coalition for a safer web talking about efforts combating domestic extremism. welcome. guest: pleasure to be with you. host: tell us about the coalition for a safer web. what is your goal and mission? guest: the coalition is a nonprofit. to accelerate the purging of extremist consignment from social media platforms and to promote new policy proposals to enable social media companies to fulfill their mission and pledges to prevent extremist incitement from promoting terrorism in the u.s. host: when was your group founded? what was the impetus? guest: i spent a lot of years fighting al qaeda and isis on social media platforms. when i returned from the middle east, the magnitude of extremist
8:50 am
assignment in the u.s. compelled me to focus more energy on the threat of extremist incitement on both sides of the political divide. the organization was started in 2019 with the goal and objective of providing a forensic capability to the u.s. government, private-sector sector and social media companies to support their efforts to fight extremism on social media. host: with the data your group gets, what do you do with that? guest: first of all we issue a lot of reports and press releases. secondly, we do advise social media companies when they are falling down on the job and missing extremist content. third, we provide congress with a daily dose of identification of extremist incitement to enable them to more effectively determine what proposals are necessary to fight the scourge.
8:51 am
host: the rise of domestic terrorism, extremism in the u.s., a headline from back in april on that saying that the data shows a surge in homegrown incidents not seen in a quarter-century. from your observation and analysis, what sorts of events are you seeing and monitoring? guest: based on our work, as well as the work of many others, as well as what reports have been issued by the anti-defamation league and the fbi, there is an enormous escalation since the charlottesville unite the right rally in extremist organization and the development of malicious. -- militias. all of this came together on january 6.
8:52 am
what we are seeing is individual efforts of prejudice, attacks against religious and racial minorities across the country, attacks against asians, against jews, against minority businesses by white coalition groups, retaliation by fringe extremist groups on the left or anarchists. the city of portland has been turned into a haven of what essentially is insurrection by extremist on both sides. we have seen this time and again where individuals have either acted on their own using social media to plan and plot as well as to demonstrate their attacks. what happened in the tree of life synagogue in pittsburgh is a perfect example of that. we saw that at the pulse nightclub attack and the attack against hispanics in texas. the list goes on and on. that is one of the reasons
8:53 am
president biden ran for president. he felt the country, he stated this when he first declared, that the country was in the throes of a type of extremist incitement which was dangerous to the core of our democracy. host: you wrote an opinion piece earlier this year in "the hill" that says "we need a social media early warning center." it sounds a lot like what you're doing but what would this proposed group do? how would it function? guest: i will give you an example of the reasoning. we issued press releases prior to the violence on january 6 warning that there was a day lose of social media content inciting attacks at the capital and unrest in washington. it fell on deaf ears. there were similar organizations issuing comparable reports. i tried to call the capitol police and warned them.
8:54 am
somehow the report must of gotten lost up the chain of command. we decided mid-january, after what happened, that what is necessary is to get all the social media organizations together to try to create an early warning center so that when we were able to detect threats of incitement and attacks on religious minorities and other incitement, that we would be able to create a fusion center that would enable all the data we are able to see from here and abroad and share it with social media companies and government and civil society and police authorities around the country. host: what are your concerns now post january, impeachment, inauguration, attack? what are your concerns going forward in terms of political domestic extremism? guest: quick question. for example, the qanon
8:55 am
conspiracy phenomenon of crackpots around the country who continue to try to find ways to reorganize initiatives to support the reinstatement of donald trump, for example. the fact that qanon conspiracy's still run rampant on social media, platforms that helped to facilitate extremist attacks. despite efforts by the fbi and other police authorities to crack down on militia groups, we still see a huge deluge originating from state actors like russia and iran exporting incitement into the united states, as well as groups from europe, particularly from germany using telegram to organize and make connections
8:56 am
with american counterparts to create further incitement in the u.s. host: you served in the middle east. you have been on these issues. from what you hear from president biden meeting with president putin last week, do you think he raised these issues forcefully enough with the russian president? guest: i'm confident that the president did raise them forcefully. the problem is, we saw from 2016 all the way through today, the kremlin, through its infrastructure, whether it is the incitement it uses by individual groups, by the kremlin's own internet research agency, is continuing to push out incitement and vindictive efforts to promote dissension within the u.s. that is continuing and it is dangerous. it winds up interacting with
8:57 am
other content, making it even more lethal than it ordinarily would be. host: marc ginsberg is our guest. we welcome your calls and questions. (202)-748-8000 for democrats, (202)-748-8001 for republicans, (202)-748-8002 for independents. eastern and central time zones, (202)-748-8000. should the fbi have caught the chatter on twitter and facebook? what could the fbi do about this "free speech?" guest: the work we do is really not protected by free speech. we are a private organization. we see a lot of content issued by individuals. when we provide it back to the fbi and law enforcement authorities, we don't use names. we are providing them reports on
8:58 am
data we are able to intercept. there is no doubt from the biden administration's own new initiative, the national strategy for countering terrorism and the privacy laws of the u.s., we have to be careful about protecting the rights and privacy of individuals but let's be clear, there is a big difference between protecting free speech and protecting incitement against terror groups and violence in the u.s.. from our perspective, it is very easy to determine one from the other. host: let's get to calls. dem, olympia, washington. caller: thank you. i don't hear a lot of pushback against groups like antifa, who for six months burned down portland. there is a lot of insurrection there. i don't see the caller speaking about that.
8:59 am
another question. the data he is collecting, right now you have people, their rights are being violated, who are in federal prison. is he contributing to that kind of abuse of power? that is my question. i am really a very straight-line guy on this kind of stuff. it seems to be a double standard. it makes me upset. i hope he speaks to that. thank you very much. guest: during part of my conversation i said there has been violence from both fringes of the political spectrum. our organization has issued a bunch of reports around the violence in portland calling out the fact there were leftist organizations, antifa, even those who have hijacked the moniker "black lives matter" for
9:00 am
provoking attacks on police and looking for violence with white militia groups. no doubt about it, we called both sides out. secondly, so far as you are asserting thereindividuals who d in prison, i am not sure what you mean. is it because they were arrested for committing violence and causing insurrection at the capital? they deserve to be thrown in prison. host: last week, the administration released their national strategy for countering domestic terrorism. the attorney general spoke about that. [video clip] >> according to an unclassified summary, the two most lethal elements of the domestic violence extremist threats are racially motivated extremists and militia extremists. the top domestic violence
9:01 am
extremist threat comes from racially or ethnically motivated violent extremists, specifically those who advocate for the superiority of the white race. the militia violent extremist threat, described as those who take over at steps to violently resist or facilitate the overthrow of the united states government, in support of their belief that the united states government is reportedly exceeding his constitutional authority, also increased last year and will almost certainly continue to be elevated throughout 2021. particularly concerning is the observation that the threat from lone offenders or small cells poses significant detection and disruption challenges because of those actors' capacity for independent radicalization,
9:02 am
ability to mobilize discreetly, and access to firearms. the domestic violent extremists threat is also rapidly evolving. as the fbi director has noted, we continue to observe actors driven by a diverse set of violent motivations, sometimes personalized, and develop from a mix of violent ideologies. developments in technology exacerbate the overall threat. today, people may be drawn to social media and then to encrypted munication channels. there they may interact with like-minded people across the country in the world. host: your thoughts on what you heard? caller: it is best to put this into several examples to prove the point of the attorney general. there are thousands of videos on youtube promoting how to make pipe bomb's, how to train for
9:03 am
incitement. i ask this question time and again. why should youtube be permitted to put on their platform these types of videos that have helped train domestic terrorists with the know-how to develop pipe bomb's that were instrumental several years ago. why should social media organizations be permitted to enable terrorists to operate on their platforms? most americans are not aware of the telephone mobile app called telegram, and encrypted -- encrypted app developed by russia to permit people to engage in conversations that are encrypted. it has become the principal supermarket for terrorist incitement in the united states.
9:04 am
there has been no effort in the united states to regulate it. it has become of the meeting ground for individuals to incite violence in the united states. the attorney general has a lot of work cut out for him here. host: as we continue our conversation with marc ginsberg, a question on twitter. please define domestic extremism. guest: domestic extremism is violence committed in the homeland of the united states by individuals who either incited it from abroad or in the united states. for example, he may have individuals funding domestic militia groups and committing atrocities against racial and religious minorities.
9:05 am
you have groups that have been declared illegal, for example proud boys in canada as a domestic terrorist organization. in the united states, it is on the fbi watchlist. so individuals in the united states committing acts against americans in the united states. host: from the administration's counterterrorist strategy, number one is understanding and sharing domestic terrorism related information. they say the u.s. government will enhance domestic terrorism analysis and improve information sharing throughout law enforcement at the federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial levels. in florida, this is chris. caller: good morning. i tell you what, i am anti-violence. i am becoming concerned about the government's bias against
9:06 am
conservative views. i am an independent who voted for obama. i have been watching reports that the fbi was involved in the january 6 marches. i do not called in insurrection. i call it a protest. i do not think there was a single shot fired by anyone in that crowd. i think they were just really angry people about what went on during the election. from what i have seen from things put in the windows to prevent people from seeing what was going on, people who were poll watchers being thrown out, pallets being harvested from underneath tables more than once , etc.. host: any credibility to her charge that the fbi was somehow
9:07 am
involved in the venue or six attack -- january 6 attack? guest: our organization is nonpartisan and we are careful in assessing what we are able to do. one thing we focus on is what is originating on social media that could create incitement and promote terrorist attacks in the united states. a lot of conjecture issued by french organizations and others. for example, the origination of the fact that the fbi was somehow involved in the january 6 insurrection originates with a bunch of qanon believers who issued this on social media. you have to take it for where it comes from. we saw this originating from qanon crackpots, so why should anyone give it credibility? host: next up is carol in
9:08 am
massachusetts. go ahead. caller: i was -- ok. my left-wing credentials are in place. what i have been seeing is there is no french. there is no extreme french on the left. there were some local things going on in portland, in one city, where the city was carrying on some sort of experiment. i am not familiar with it very much. they were trying out something.
9:09 am
some element sort of leapt into the gap, but outside of portland i have never heard of any left-wing extremism. you need not have any fear of the left. i go back to the 1960's. in the 1960's, there were elements that favored self-defense. we were mostly nonviolent. host: marc ginsberg come a focus on her comment about portland and reporting about groups there. guest: there has been an enormous amount over the last year of french anarchist and leftist fringe organizations,
9:10 am
whether they call themselves this loose organization called antifa or anarchists in the underground of communists in the united states that have engaged in violence. on social media platforms, which is one of the reasons we called for the creation of east social media standards board -- of a social media standards board to provide independent oversight of social media. we issued several press releases proving there had been significant french anarchist violence in major cities across the united states these past two years. do not take it from us. this is one of the reasons we believe there needs to be some independent regulatory oversight by which people judge the origination and ability to
9:11 am
engage in constant moderation. they are failing to not only provide information to the american people where violence is originating but not doing enough to deplatform this content. host: you talked about the proud boys and mentioned the group is on the fbi watchlist and they are on the front page of usa today this morning. the headline, one man's journey in the world of proud boys. they join for brotherhood. they found racism. where does that group stand today? is your group seeing malevolent activity online from that group, the proud boys? guest: we believe that president trump helped insight the proud boys to come out of the closet across the united states when he commended them in a speech about a year ago. while proud boys is nothing new,
9:12 am
it was eventually -- initially viewed as a macho white group of young men who wanted to band together. they started engaging in plotting and planning of extremist violence, so many in their chapters began to incite attacks against jewish synagogues. they do not have any clean hands. because of the fbi crackdown, they are clearly in disarray. when the fbi finishes with them, this undercurrent of extremist white incitement in the united states, whether the oath keepers or any french organizations that are white supremacist or acceleration is groups -- one of the most important acceleration asked terrorist groups, is
9:13 am
leader is based in russia. the russians gave him refuge from where he is operating. host: let me read you a little from the article. in the article in usa today, they say proud boys leaders such as the national chairman who self identifies as afro-cuban insists it is not a whites a premises group. they point to nonwhite members as evidence. we are a little rough around the edges but now they make us out to be -- not what they make is out to be. at least 25 people associated with the proud boys are among those arrested in connection with the insurrection of the u.s. capitol. proud boys have been charged with felonies stemming from street fights with anti-fascist protesters. i would not call them terrorists. they are street fighters.
9:14 am
that is from gerald johnston, formerly with homeland security. would you call them street fighters? >> if they were street fighters, why was terrio arrested the day he arrived in washington for carrying concealed weapons into washington in the run-up to january 6? i think that says it all. host: let's go to dana in california. good morning. caller: i am just curious. you can tell you are biased against trump voters. you blame everything on trump voters and things like that. there was no insurrection at the capital. there was only a riot. there were no guns, no weapons of any kind of guns found. you guys do not talk about antifa come up black lives matter. if anybody says they are proud to be white, they are a white
9:15 am
supremacist. you can raise your fist and say i am proud to be black and you are not a racist person or anything like that. host: marc ginsberg, any reaction? guest: there is a lot of challenges in this country, it a lot of good people who voted for the president. the fact of the matter is there are people who were arrested for committing violence, for carrying weapons, for injuring police, for trying to stop the constitutional order of this country. you can defend it all you want and claim this is all part of an attack on president trump. for those of us who work in this world, the fact of the matter is the overwhelming amount of evidence points to mr. trump and his supporters, mr. giuliani and others, inciting that crowd to march to the capitol to engage
9:16 am
in the violence they engaged in. those are the facts, whether you like them or not. host: north carolina. we will hear from mike. caller: like the gentleman just said, your complete lead biased. you used to work for the carter administration. when the guy in atlanta shot and killed the people at the massage parlors, everybody jumped on white supremacist. look at all these asians getting beat up and stabbed and killed by blacks, a majority of them. you are jewish and you are not condemning no muslim extremist against the jews. you will not say nothing about hamas. you are strictly antiwhite. you are the racist. host: do you care to respond to that at all? guest: this type of condemnation comes with the territory.
9:17 am
i have spent almost my entire career fighting isis and al qaeda. we explained so much of these attacks originate from the french left as well as from the right here the fact of the matter is that this gentleman has no evidence that the majority of attacks that were committed against asians across this country were committed by blacks. it is the type of prejudice that is disturbing and shows people are not prepared to take evidence at face value because they have their own views. i refused to accept the fact that i am prejudiced because i'm a democrat. i'm prejudiced because i am an american who wants to see extremist violence ended, weather by people who call in and say it is justified or by people who call in and say it should be condemned. we need to stop it. this country depends on putting these groups out of business and decapitating them. there is a french on the left or
9:18 am
french on the right. host: there is a piece in the washington post about oklahoma city and the bombing in 1995. the 1995 bombing offers lessons and warnings for today against terrorism. looking back on that particular incident and incidents like that am a what lessons do you think we learned as a country from them? guest: that the fbi and local authorities need better support to be able to determine the whereabouts and plotting and planning of individuals as well as small cells prepared to commit violence in the name of overthrowing this country or attacking it because it does not abide by its constitutional order and framework of government. we were helping a florida police department the other day
9:19 am
arrested a group of neo-nazis that were slashing swastikas all over synagogues. the police department there said, we need help. we do not understand how social media operates. we need more money to provide support that the biden administration is going to be increasing, funding local authorities and helping track down these people. every day we hear about domestic violence committed by extremist groups on the left or right, there are still people supporting isis in this country plotting and planning attacks in the united states, constantly interrupted. the fbi has its hands full. and now has to transition and focus on domestic extremism.
9:20 am
that is testament to the danger we face. host: in terms of efforts by the biden administration, they say the government has revamped support with immunity partners to prevent individuals from ever reaching the point of committing terrorist violence. the government will strengthen domestic terrorism prevention resources and services. dhs has designated domestic violent extremism as a national priority area in the department of homeland secured grant program. that means over 77 million dollars will be allocated to state, local tribal, and territorial partners to respond to domestic violent extremism. let's hear from peter in florida. go ahead with your comment. caller: good morning. marc m a i have to disagree. you're talking about is something i expect the chinese government to do with their people so they do not get access to the internet.
9:21 am
i want to give you two examples of what will happen. example one, i remember with the kuwaiti ambassador's daughter was testifying that iraqi soldiers were throwing babies on the floor out of incubators. i remember cnn, the new york times, and the washington post all caps their mouths shut so we would go into war. now let's take it present day. we have a fantastic journalist out of d.c., totally fantastic. he proves in syria it was a lie that the syrian government used gas on its people. the opcw is now embarrassed around the world, but under your legislation you would keep that information away from the american people, even though cnn
9:22 am
and the new york times are all playing ball with government. host: we will get a response. guest: social media needs to be publicly transparent. social media companies -- i would like to use this technology. they are a sewer treatment plant to protect americans from malicious contamination through the internet, enabling it to happen. at times, we have seen social media companies have censored independently organizations and individuals on the right or left because of different standards that many have. facebook has one standard. youtube is another. there is no harmonization by which individuals know what is permissible and not appearing i am not even calling for
9:23 am
legislation such as the decency act, which granted social media platforms immunity from content liability. there needs to be an independent, private sector, independent oversight board, able to help the american people understand what is permissible and what social media companies are doing to abide by the rules. host: trent in the nation's capital. caller: i would like to thank mr. ginsberg from what he is saying and i would like to use a word, whitehead jiminy -- white head jiminy -- hegemony. i hearing a lot of people calling in, blinking -- blaming this gentleman. a lot of injustices happening in this country are because of systematic racism.
9:24 am
host: to charlotte and houston, texas. make sure you mute your volume and go ahead with your comment or question for mark ginsberg. getting some feedback there. we will go to jane in illinois. caller: i want to commend your organization for the work you are doing. you obviously know and are researching these dangerous websites. how can you alert the public to avoid these websites? perhaps tv spots saying don't be fooled into reading these sites. are you related to the great rbd -- rbg? guest: i like to think she will be proud to have me as a son, but we are not related at all.
9:25 am
part of the problem here is the mainstream social media companies are by and large excellent places for americans to communicate a lot. what happens is during periods of incitement, of increased tension in the united states, all the crazies come out to put conspiracy theories on the internet. then it is replicated and amplified by algorithms inside these organizations that enable eyeballs to watch and read the stuff. why facebook is permitting qanon content to remain on its platform even though we know it is camouflaged, even though facebook pledged almost eight months ago to eliminate all cueing on content from his platform, is really unacceptable.
9:26 am
why the united states has not done more to fight to the use of telegram the mobile app as a one-stop shop for extremist incitement, largely white extremist incitement in the united states, is beyond me. the list goes on and on. why does youtube permit it to have videos that train people how to build guns and pipe bombs? the key here is to make sure we understand there is no such thing as free speech in this country. speech is inhibited by those who engage in incitement and violence. that is not protected. it is important for americans to understand that people who engage in incitement and violence, whether in the public or private domain, they have no right to place malicious
9:27 am
content, whether black lives matter, fringe organizations, or anarchists, who are engaged in the violence they have engaged in our unacceptable and should not be permitted to have that content there. host: let me ask me -- you about a political story. naaman bundy, the antigovernment militant who led an armed takeover of a u.s. government building is running for office. guest: look at marjorie taylor greene, probably the most prejudiced, anti-semitic, anti-minority congresswoman in the united states and she was elected by the people of georgia. she has turned out to be someone who facilitates conspiracies. there are other members of congress who support the qanon conspiracy crackpot theories
9:28 am
that are rampant on the web. these people are somehow permitted to come to congress and engage in counter constitutional behavior. someone who comes from an organization and supports the constitution i have no problem with. when they are elected to carry out the vicious extremism they believe in and undermine the constitutional framework of this country and be prejudice against jews, blacks, or even whites is unacceptable. it would be unacceptable that he would be elected even if from a black constituency. host: let's go to wisconsin. good morning.
9:29 am
caller: i have a couple comments. one of my biggest is the fact that we do not ever get to the head of these organizations. if you want to talk about the insurrection on january 6, we still have never held anyone responsible outside of the few people we have arrested that actually were doing the act. we do not follow through. same with the politicians. when they make statements that are not factual and no one ever really calls them on it unless you do your own fact checking. caller: --guest: one of the things we could have done to their coalition is provide a new, bipartisan commission to explore what happened. the republican senate refused to permit the creation of this bipartisan commission. a bipartisan commission would have been very helpful in
9:30 am
helping to identify where the money came from, who provided the organizational support, what other individuals were involved in facilitating the violence, we for example no -- i will give you an example. about a year and a half ago, there is a storming of the german parliament by followers of q and neo-nazi groups. many of the people involved with organizing that were inciting people in the united states to do the same, but that never came out because we did not have a bipartisan commission telling to stem the transnational threat and how an organization like the proud boys and the one presenters and three presenters, -- the one percenters, the three presenters. host: former ambassador, now president of the coalition for a safer web, thank you for being on with us this morning. guest: thank you for having me. host: plenty more program ahead
9:31 am
on washington journal. we will talk about the supreme court next. a case yesterday involving ncaa student athletes and our question based on that decision from the supreme court is my should student athletes be compensated. we will read about the case until you more about it in a moment, here are the lines you can call in. if you support that, student athletes being compensated, be paid, (202) 748-8000. if you oppose that, (202) 748-8001. if you are a student athlete, a college student athlete of any sport, (202) 748-8002. we will get your calls and comments in a moment. >> today on the c-span networks. a senate committee hears from washington, d.c. mayor muriel bowser as it considers legislation that would make the district the 51st states.
9:32 am
that is 10:00 a.m. on c-span. at noon, the house returned for general speeches. they take up 18 bells, including legislation aimed at protecting veterans from fraud and a consumer product safety study on covid related deaths and injuries. at 10:00 a.m., the senate returns over on the nomination of christopher to be general counsel for the director of national intelligence. at 5:30, they vote on whether to move forward on the democrat's election reform bill. at 10:00 a.m. on c-span3, disparities in federal sentencing for crack cocaine. at 2:00 p.m., federal reserve chair jerome powell testifies before the house oversight coronavirus subcommittee on the federal reserve's response to the pandemic. and on our website, c-span.org, the senate subcommittee looks at ways the federal government can support secure and more reliable broadband infrastructure.
9:33 am
that is at 2:30 p.m. >> washington journal continues. host: we do not often start a segment with the sports page on washington journal, but we will on this one and this is usa today and above the headline, supreme court rules against ncaa. they write this. the supreme court ruled monday against the ncaa get a landmark trust case that challenged the association's ability to have national benefits for athletes related to education but more broadly, raised doubts about his ability to limited -- to limit benefits at all. the ruling will limit education related benefits they can receive for playing college sports. the justices affirmed an injunction that fundamentally altered the ncaa's system of amateurism, athletes playing division i men's basketball or football will receive benefits
9:34 am
from their schools that include cash or cash equivalent for awards based on academic or graduation. the ruling was unanimous in that case. that opens up our question for you this last half hour, should student athletes be compensated? if you say yes, if you support that, (202) 748-8000. if you say no, (202) 748-8001. if you are a student athlete, a college student athlete, that line (202) 748-8002. we will get to your calls momentarily. this is the washington post headline, the supreme court rules against ncaa restrictions on colleges offering education perks to compensate athletes and hears that reporting on that by the supreme court. in the 9-0 vote, the court rejected the argument that is rules limiting such benefits were necessary to preserve the image of amateurism in college sports.
9:35 am
the organization was contesting a lower court ruling that would allow colleges to offer greater academic perks to division i football and men's and women's basketball players, benefits such as scholarships for graduate degrees, paid postgraduate internships and providing computers, musical instruments, and other types of instruments for education free of charge. it is not directly related to debate of image and likeness compensation taking place in congress in state capitals across the country, nor does it address uncapped payments -- an analysis from the washington post on the decision by the supreme court yesterday. let's hear your calls, supporting that is anita in chapel hill, north carolina. good morning. caller: hi. i think i got this right. they are saying they will not restrict them or they are going to keep it to a minimum, is that what they are saying?
9:36 am
or, they can be compensated academically, is that what they are saying? host: that appears to be what they are saying, yes. caller: yes, i am in the chapel hill area and i was in chicago and i have been in chapel hill for 10 years in this town is very heavily supportive of the athletes. all the businesses did not perk up until the students came back and sports times comes around and michael jordan was here in chicago. so, they are generating revenue for the community because it is like it here. -- it is like dead. i think people like michael jordan -- should take place are the corruption of the situation will not happen. their ability to play and reward
9:37 am
for your talent is there, but not overdoing it where people just do all kinds of things to have this benefit, we want to keep it clean. competitive and athletic. and physically healthy. and things like that. that is my comment. host: this was an antitrust case, a 9-0 decision, part of the decision, the writing of brett kavanaugh who said in his decision, nowhere else in america can businesses get away with agreeing not to pay their workers a fair market rate on the theory that their product is defined by not paying their workers a bar market rate. under ordinary principles, it is not evident why college sports should be any different. the ncaa is not above the law. in montana, we hear from helen, hello there. caller: hi, thank you for taking my call. no. students who are athletes should not, not be paid.
9:38 am
if they are, then let them pay for their education. most student athletes get their -- good scholarships, in fact, total scholarships. they get separate tables for eating, their food is wonderful, it is five-star. they get served their males and they also usually -- their meals and they usually get a better dorm choice. if they are employees, let them pay for their education. if they are good enough to be paid as a -- at the college level, why are they in college? isn't the purpose of college to get an education? that is my comment. host: student athletes be compensated because of the ruling yesterday by the supreme court, the case heard earlier this term, this is the front page of the washington knives and their headline, ruling puts
9:39 am
college athletes on the root to payment. the monday supreme court decision backing athletes looking to loosen ncaa's iron grip on a multibillion dollar industry will not change the college sports business model overnight. but the ruling is expected to pave the way for more consequential legal challenges, including the right of players to get paid. in upper marlboro, maryland, we hear from ew. caller: thank you for taking my call and thank you for c-span. at a time when college sports was not where it is today, the old argument which today is antiquated, these colleges and athletic directors, institutions, and marketing, making billions of dollars and so, it goes without saying that you have to spread that wealth around. you cannot claim that this is an amateur sport while meanwhile,
9:40 am
these individuals are making billions of dollars. the other point i would make is that these young men are able to go fight in war for us, so why would we not be able to compensate that at an age of 18, which is the legal age of compensation. i think it is time for the young men to seek compensation for what they bring to the schools and that is my comment. host: the ncaa reacted, the president of the ncaa, but of a statement released by the president's office after the supreme court decision yesterday, so it says, even though the decision is not directly address name, image, and likeness, the ncaa remains committed to supporting and il benefits of student benefits. we remain committed to working with congress to chart a path forward, which is the point the supreme court stated in its ruling. also, for your information, the ncaa, they do this annually in terms of the graduation rate
9:41 am
among ncaa athletes. division i, college athletes reached 90% graduation rate, the rate of men's and women's basketball student athletes climbs four percentage points in 2020, of the ncaa. the question for you this morning, do you support or oppose student athletes being compensated? (202) 748-8000 if you support that. (202) 748-8001 if you say no. we will hear from marshville -- marshall in brooksville, florida. go ahead. caller: good morning. i am definitely against them being compensated. they are already compensated when they go play football. my son played football and he had a scholarship. he walked on, got a full scholarship, he has already been compensated, they paid for his books, college, and everything else, so they are being compensated, so why should they
9:42 am
got more than that? should every kid that walks in the college become -- be compensated? they are all going there to learn. that is the basic thing of college. you want to better yourself. i do not think you should have to be paid to go to college. host: an earlier color pointed out she was calling from chapel hill and she pointed out the business model, the role that college sports in that area play in driving businesses in the area. is that a factor to be considered in whether a college waives to pay at least division i athletes and the larger sports circle? caller: no, i do not think so. i think that everybody has their right to choose what they want to do. if you want to go to college, go to college, that is your choice. they should not have to pay you to come to college. that is my whole argument.
9:43 am
no one paid me to do -- to go there and when i went in my own business, i did not get compensated for that, but i had to work hard to get what i got. host: this is the reporting of wall street journal this morning, charting a new path, the national collegiate athletic association once had the tightest of clamps on college athlete compensation, maintaining a strict stance that any form of benefits that rewarded players for their participation would wreck an amateur model that it relied on for decades. when the ncaa meets tuesday to determine a new vision for college sports, its iron hold on the division will be broken and has little leverage to retake control. they write the supreme court definition issued yesterday marked an historic loss of control for an organization for decades has retained a narrow view of how athletes are compensated for playing college sports. and wielded and enforcement club of those who violated it. they held the power to vacate
9:44 am
titles and remove wins. on it some, the decision will not stop the ncaa from continuing to make rules, which make -- which of the association noted in the association already lost control of the debate going forward. it also faces a wave of state laws that addresses a sweeping compensation for college athletes than what is yet -- what is addressed in the supreme court ruling, writes that her name, image, and lightness & endorsement deals. we will show you a map of the states who passed those laws in loosening the restriction by state. this is a tweet looking at the bills passed and the bills pending across the country. and the ones that have passed are in dark red. we will go to massachusetts and hear from carol, welcome. caller: hello. i wanted to say that i do support the student athletes. host: getting compensated? caller: yes, getting
9:45 am
compensated. host: what is your biggest reason for that? caller: well, i wanted to make that comment that i do support the student athletes and then i would like to talk about a certain thing that happened to me. host: we are staying on topic here, thank you, we go to alan in florida. who opposes compensating student athletes. caller: yes, i oppose it. they are already getting paid with a free ride to college. and you start paying them now, half of them do not even graduate. host: we showed you the graduation rates have risen moments ago. so, they are graduating. caller: i mean i do not think they should be getting paid, if they want to get paid, stay in
9:46 am
school and they should have to finish school, no dropping out early. host: it was one of those rare 9-0 decisions. here's the graphic from the new york times showing all of the justices in the liberal bloc and conservative bloc, but pulling lima -- polling -- the question asking if the ncaa should restrict -- restrict compensation. it is a 50/50 split. democrats are in general, 58% say the ncaa should not be able to strictly limit compensation, independents 49% and republicans 49% of the polls say so. we will hear from pat. hello there. caller: hello, good morning c-span. host: good morning. caller: i qualified this by saying, yes, i belonged -- i am
9:47 am
for people getting paid for their work. i do have a question. how much work are they going to expect out of these kids now if they start paying them? right now, there's a limit on the number of hours that they are required to be in the gym, that is one question i have got about it. secondly, my daughter, who is 39, just return to college last year. she had completed two years, and then she left to raise a family. now, she is going back. a great deal of the money that she pays to go to school is called an activities fee, which basically covers tickets to ball games and stuff. if they are paying these athletes, the cost of people, she does not have any interest in sports, her cost should be lowered. she should not be subsidizing a salary for a person that is working to play sports in
9:48 am
college. i have a problem with that particular thing right there, their fee should be lowered if they are not taking advantage of it. it is not fair for students involved in sports having to compensate those that are. and lastly, this is going to make it so that all of the major colleges that have -- that are well-funded are going to be in a separate bracket completely than those like my little college, marshall university, the thundering herd. host: i will let you go there. we will go to paula in washington, d.c., go ahead. caller: yes, good morning. i have listened and i really appreciate some of the responses, especially the last gentleman. and there was another person who talked about the fact that the
9:49 am
athletes were getting an education, but if you look at the millions of dollars that the larger programs do receive from their athletics, then it is really a false equivalency if we are looking for a four year education and if that athlete is injured, then there is a possibility -- they are losing their scholarship probably because they cannot pay. and it really is an interesting process, i have been through it with a couple of friends of mine where it is marketed like it is a scholarship program, but it is almost like you are applying for a job as an athlete. and the last thing i wanted to say, i do not know -- i know it is more involved of course, but also the piece where athletes cannot make their own money
9:50 am
based on the fact that they are a popular entity within a school. there was one young man who was on a program recently who had to give up his ticker scholarship -- his ticker to cap, i do not remember the school, he had to choose between making money on branding and social media, which is what you can do, especially the younger generation, and kick for a university and he chose the branding on instagram, etc. i think it is absurd to make someone happy to make a decision like that when it does not impact the school directly. host: thank you, but 10 more minutes on this topic and i want to mention, we do have a line for student athletes, we have not heard from any yet. (202) 748-8002. if you're calling in the next 10 minutes, we will get you ahead of the line. we have a hearing, -- hearing
9:51 am
coming up at 10:00. the story is from -- head heart appeal. the independent senator will be in his old stomping grounds tuesday, today, and former senator lieberman is among the witnesses at the hearing coming up at 10:00, we will have live coverage on c-span, also on that panel of witnesses is the mayor of washington, d.c., muriel bowser. in new york, janet, opposes compensating student athletes, go ahead. turn down your volume and go ahead with your comment. caller: i am so sorry. host: do not worry about it. caller: i am here. i am going to start up, i was -- i have called in, but never got through. i am going to start with one comment that came to my mind. all americans starring burt
9:52 am
lancaster, and oldie from the 50's where jim thorpe was an athlete. he collected pay doing some summer work, i do not remember all of the details. but, when it came to the olympics, he won multiple medals, but they took them away because they said he was not an amateur. they said he was a professional. therefore, all of his gold medals were limited. part two of my comment, i attended between 1963 and 67 a very prestigious college, fantastic basketball team, i will not mention it. these young men, basketball, were phenomenal. they were lovely men, they were athletes, they were fantastic. i sat in class with many of them through my four years. and i'm going to mention, you
9:53 am
brought up those academic statistics about how well these athletes are doing. while, i am going to go back. i pandered it in my paper to a professor, i got a c plus. a basketball player walked in, he did not do the work, ripsaw the front of my cover page, attaches it to his own and he gets an a plus. -- plus, they never got cut. in my day, three cuts and he would drop from class. they did not show up ever. they were on the basketball court practicing. host: thank you for your comments. a couple of comments on social media before we wrap up. this is from ohio, compensation for college athletes, hell no, most do not graduate anyways, they take advantage of the
9:54 am
system and they get a lot of tampering. joe in north carolina, in our current legal system, corporations have more rights than individual citizens, college athletes cannot control their own likenesses or biographies. he says they have specific signing dates and it is a big deal and many schools have representatives for sunny days. it looks like signing on -- four -- for sign -- signing days. many athletes will never make pro and should financially benefit along with respective colleges. in florida, we hear from linda, next up. go ahead. i am sorry, going to linda, in florida. i pushed the wrong button. caller: thank you for c-span. i wanted to make a couple of comments.
9:55 am
i think the lady was disingenuous saying the athlete walks in, cares off my paper and uses it and the professor does not know anything about that. i wanted to say this, trump has a brand that he uses and people pay to use his name and he has to do nothing other than put his name out there. these young, most minority kids, they struggle in school, the scholarship money, the food that they have to eat, they have to call home. i have children that have been in college and they do not serve you know top-of-the-line food and all of this. these people just see these minority kids that may be getting a breakthrough, you use my name and we are always talking about how china steals our names, steals our trademarks, if you are using these athletes, you should be paying them, you are parading them all around the country and out of the country, you are putting jerseys with their names on the back of them and people are buying them. why should they not have buy in into it.
9:56 am
if trump can have buy in into it with his name and he is -- and coaches make more than some of the governors make these kids are working their tails off, they must get what they deserve. you need to stop thinking about how it was back in the day when you had to walk five miles in the snow. things have changed. you cannot take advantage of these kids and now that minorities are a majority part of it, you want to see it a bit different. if people what they deserve no matter what they do -- no matter what their race. compensate them. you would want the same thing for yourself. host: this is the lead in the sports page on the washington post from the colonist sally jenkins, the headline on her piece is, soon the ncaa will no longer exist. a cornerstone has been yanked from the ncaa by the supreme court and note will lead to the total collapse of that crude, shanty house. just you watch.
9:57 am
soon there will be nothing left under the president of the ncaa, but a few rotten boards. the ncaa should put out a sign, this property is condemned, right sally. this was an inevitable moment and has lieutenant spent billions in legal fees trying to forestall it. fighting athletes in the courts over what was their stolen property, the ncaa is not above the law, brett kavanaugh wrote an concurrence of that unanimous 9-0 decision. we covered that, that was one of many oral arguments you can find at c-span.org, we re-aired it again overnight. you can find it easily on our website at c-span.org. the case is, ncaa, it was argued back in march, late march, of this year. california, and benjamin is next. who supports the compensation of athletes, tell us about that. caller: yes, i support.
9:58 am
i think only -- it is right to pay them, but if you do not want to pay them, at least you should make them -- college -- i supported. i definitely do. thank you. host: to bill in florida, hello there. caller: yeah, hi. i am not necessarily for or against, but how do you pay them? how do you classify their pay? if you have a superstar and you have just a walk on that is trying to do things, how do they figure that out and how will they be able to rate these athletes and pay them certain whatever? host: a couple of quick related stories for you, this was on the washington post, biden to address high crime rates, the
9:59 am
prop -- the president said to talk tomorrow about the rising crime rate in the country. i will show you the other stories, this is an opinion piece in the new york times this morning with that city mayoral election underway, the city election could set an agenda on policing. one more comment on our topic this half hour, in texas, go ahead. caller: -- host: are you there? we will let you go there and call it a morning anyway. at least for this program, back tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span, thank you for being a part of the program this morning. we will take you live next to capitol hill, a hearing about to get underway, a senate hearing looking at adc statehood bill that has passed in the house already, which will include the mayor of washington, muriel bowser and former senator joe lieberman.

90 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on