talks about the procedures used by house democrats during their impeachment investigations of former president donald trump. later, crime analyst jeff ascher on the rising homicide rate in the u.s.. >> >> 3/5 of the senators duly chosen and sworn, not having voted in the native, the motion is not agreed to. ♪ host: vice president kamala harris yesterday evening in her role as president of the u.s. senate announcing the 50-50 vote . democrats needed 60 to break the filibuster and move on to the voting reform legislation, adding further impetus to groups calling for an end to the use of the legislative filibuster in the senate. it is wednesday, june 20 third,

2021. good morning, welcome to " washington journal." we will ask you specifically if senate democrats should (202) 748-8000 eliminate the filibuster (202) 748-8000. if you say yes, the line is -- should eliminate the filibuster. if you say yes, (202) 748-8000. if you say no, (202) 748-8001. post your thoughts on facebook, facebook.com/c-span. you can always send us a tweet, @cspanwj. we will read much of the reporting this morning from capitol hill and elsewhere on this issue and others this morning. this is the politico report of that yesterday, democrats confronting failure on election strategy with election roof going down with oath democratic votes to change the filibuster and they say so far that hasn't happened. senator schumer yesterday with reporters was asked several times about his plans for the

filibuster. here you can see his quick response. [video clip] >> we are not going to put the cart before the horse. we will have this vote and then we will discuss the future. >> what do you think are the next best steps? >> i won't discuss those now until we have the vote and then we will discuss the future. go ahead, yes, next. host: that was just before the vote. joining us to help understand yesterday's vote and what may be ahead, zack owens. good morning. let me start with a tweet from a viewer who asks this about the vote yesterday, saying that it vented the limiting of debate, but was actually a vote on taking up the bill? guest: in a typical fashion the

senate set up a backwards way of getting into the bill because it didn't quite have the unanimous consent to bring it up. technically it was a vote to limit debate on the question of whether to start debate on a substitute amendment to what was formally known as s1 or the for the people act. essentially what folks need to know is that the vote that failed would have allowed senators to advance the measure and get to a place where they could start maybe amending it and formally debating it on the floor. debate is already happening obviously on the floor and in the halls of congress and out in the public square. but in order to formally start debate and take up a bill and begin to make changes to it, including with democrats would like to see before it goes back to the house. host: senator joe manchin came on board on the vote because his

alternative would have been considered but the outcome was the same? >> right, so up until a few hours before it wasn't clear that democrats would be able to get all 50 members of the senate democratic caucus to vote on the first procedural motion and joe manchin had had concerns about the bill that he cosponsored in the previous congress. which he wrote in the gazette mail, saying that he opposed it as too partisan and was able to reach an agreement with chuck schumer to basically say i will vote on this first procedural vote, but i will -- i will require a first vote once they get to that point in the substitute amendment, which would alter the provisions around voting by mail and potentially some voter registration details. i heard from one source that he wanted provisions related to

d.c. statehood and public campaign financing. voter id was a part of the major changes that he wanted to the original bill. of course, the amendment will come up as long as republicans are still filibustering the underlying bill with enough numbers to prevent a formal process. host: that's not just filibuster, that's a big hill to climb, the 10 votes the majority leader needs to get. guest: right, as long as there are not votes to cut off debate, as people talk about the elimination of the filibuster they are talking about lowering the threshold from 60 votes to 50 votes or a simple majority in order to advance a bill to the point where it can be voted on and passed. host: do you think that yesterday's vote indicates that the voting rights issue is dead in the senate for this year? guest: you could maybe see the

democrats bringing up provisions or parts of the act for separate votes over the course of the year. they want to keep the drumbeat going ahead of the election. they can try to hold a vote on whether to change the filibuster or put moderate democrats on record on exactly how they would vote if it came to that, but certainly it would be tricky to get any kind of election reform bill passed as long as republicans oppose the substance of the bill itself and democrats are ready to go ahead and change senate rules they could pass on a simple majority. host: even before this there is a multimillion dollar campaign out there to end the filibuster. that's not likely to let up, is that? -- is it? guest: moderate democrats have been reticent to do away with what is essentially the most powerful tool afforded to a senate minority. they were in the minority under leadership of chuck schumer for

the beginning of the trump administration and for the last couple of years of the obama administration and the big concern is that the filibuster sort of enforces bipartisan cooperation in order to if you raised the threshold to meeting republican buy-in on a legislation, it's a stable -- more stable structure. democrats have been arguing for months, years now, that the rule, the tradition prevents the passage of some key priorities for them. host: ahead in the senate, how does yesterday's vote t the scene for potential votes on infrastructure? even the infrastructure compromise bill that has been talked about? guest: they are operating on dual tracks right now. with plenty of other action where the senate is trying to

continue to pass bills on a bipartisan basis. the biggest example of this is the current infrastructure negotiations between moderate members of the senate, democrats and republicans along with the white house in trying to find a multi-hundred billion dollars trillion dollar infrastructure agreement now that those talks have really gummed up on pay force, essentially, how to pay for the new spending, but they are able to overcome that hurdle and they told reporters yesterday that they planned to bring it up in july along with a first vote on a budget reconciliation package on a reconciliation that would be allowed to advance the rest of president biden's bill on a partyline vote. host: we look forward to your reporting on it, zack owens. you can follow his reporting at

zachary underscore cohen. thanks so much. the question for you this morning, should democrats eliminate the filibuster? if you say yes, (202) 748-8000. if you say no, (202) 748-8001. headline from "wall street journal," election bill blocked in the senate. willie says yes from indianapolis. caller: i think they should, because if anything everybody should have the right to vote and i'm also kind of very suspicious of these states rights going on. far as i'm concerned, big states like florida in texas, we got less money under the government and when i look at the republican party i have always known one thing about people, they like to tease when the joke is on them, they get very bitter. yes, i think it should be a limit -- eliminated and i think everybody should have the right to vote. whether it is a mailing or

whatever. this is constitutional rights, so yes i'm against it. host: bill is next in massachusetts. go ahead. caller: how you doing? host: fine, thanks. caller: i got a statement and a question. if you are an american and you are for right and wrong, there's good, there's bad, there's right and wrong, we need to have two theories of government. you can't just have one side only. if you eliminate the filibuster, then one side could rule for like 100, 200, 500 years, which means half, almost half the country wouldn't have the right to their opinion because the government, which is controlling all of the rules, if you eliminate the filibuster, tells you what you are supposed to say and do. my question, here's my question,

why is it all democrats seem to want to have a one party country ? are they communist? bye-bye. host: stephen, hello there. caller: yeah, so we should definitely get rid of the filibuster. riffing off the last person's comment, the democrats are in the majority. a majority of the people of the country voted for the democrats and for their policies. there's no one party state because this is what the people wanted, what the voters wanted. the voters wanted people to remove the filibuster. we should get rid of it because it's what the majority wants. we shouldn't let a minority rule the country. that's exactly what founders said would be a problem, the tierney of the middle -- tierney of the minority. not the majority. the majority rules the country. that's who elects the president, the majority.

the majority leads the government because that is who we wanted. not the minority. host: here some reporting from greg kaplan, right after the vote yesterday. 50-50, senate voted along party lines to take up -- not to take up the ethics reform legislation. 60 votes were needed to end the filibuster against the bill. here's mitch mcconnell talking about the difference between the legislative filibuster and the judicial filibuster. [video clip] >> there are two calendars in the senate, executive and legislative. until bush 43 was elected, even though it was possible to filibuster the executive calendar, it was never done. the tradition was up-or-down vote's for appointments. the best proof of how sacrosanct the practice was was the clarence thomas nomination in

1991, arguably the most controversial supreme court nomination ever. he was can -- confirmed 52 to 48. i don't have to remind all of you that it only takes one senator to make us get the vote. ted kennedy, who was v him at lee opposed to clarence thomas. joe biden, who was vehemently opposed to clarence thomas, no one said, out of 100 senators, that you have to get 60 votes. that was the tradition until chuck schumer, then a freshman senator from new york, decided to start filibustering the executive calendar. the answer is the executive calendar is one thing, the legislative calendar is another. the executive calendar is now 100% back where it was 20 years ago, simple majority. i'm comfortable with that. that used to be the tradition and it is where we are area the

legislative calendar is the very essence of the senate. change the legislative calendar and you have fundamentally turned to the senate into the house and completely destroy the institution. so, i admire the handful of democrats left who are in the same position they were in a couple of years ago when they were not only using the low buster but defending the filibuster repeatedly when they were not in the majority. so, i do think that it is extremely admirable that there are at least a handful of them are rats left who believe in the institution. -- democrats left to believe in the institution. host: from progressives in congress, including ed markey of massachusetts, saying the filibuster is a threat to democracy. from another representative, shocking news, republicans officially filibustered the most

sweeping anticorruption bill in a generation. why do we think they are so afraid of letting people vote? end of the filibuster and guarantee your voting rights. across the country, the right to vote is under attack and to protect democracy we must reform the filibuster and i don't understand why that is such a difficult choice. you shouldn't be able to filibuster american voting right . back to your calls, tom and fort lauderdale says no. , i'm sorry, tom and fort, let's see, sorry, i was wrong there, but tom, fort lauderdale, go ahead. caller: i would just like to comment, the person, democrats are in the majority, we've got to run over the republicans anytime we want. it was democrats who voted for moderation. they didn't vote for what's going on here and there is a lot of people who are very unhappy

with what's going on with the democratic party. to my point, the choice is wrong. what we need is pressure on the politicians to compromise. there's been so much damage by uncompromising comfort -- politicians in the past. let me give you some examples. if 20 years ago we could have had comprehensive immigration reform, they could if the democrats had compromised on one thing, one thing. that was securing the border before the immigration statutes, the comprehensive reform took place. can you imagine that one thing? but that's really what happened, the mccain immigration reform would have passed if they had

relented on that one point. here's the thing, people say you're going to kick them out, kick them out. look, you could have loosened up the immigration requirements and gotten around anything that could have stopped these people from getting in. that was a tragic and damaging thing that happened. one other example, the daca people, we would have dr. reform , what, 6, 7, eight years ago if the democrats had just compromised on one thing. the one thing was the lottery system for immigration into the country that makes no sense, has no purpose and is just a political talking point. my point is this, ok, don't eliminate the filibuster. instead, make all politicians swear that they won't -- they will compromise on every single bill that comes before congress so we can get things done and

get this country going the way it should be going. there has been so much damage by no compromise politicians. thank you very much. host: you talked about compromise. they wrote about that yesterday in the washington post, how to tell it's time for reform. some of what they wrote, they say there is no shortage of ideas on how to adjust the cedro maneuver without abolishing it, talking about the filibuster, like demanding that minority senators show up to sustain filibusters, requiring 3/5 of senators to end filibuster, and out reducing the number of votes needed to overcome filibusters. these are just a few of the writ -- possibilities. host: jamaica, new york, saying yes, eliminate the filibuster. good morning. caller: it should be eliminated

because we are in trouble and we seem not to get anything done down there and the only way we need to do is eliminate this filibuster because, let people vote the way it should be done. it's so disgusting to see the senate and the congress not doing anything. it's just ridiculous. voting is a very important thing for people. my grandfather could never vote in this country. so this is horrible but they are doing down there. eliminate it and let the people decide. host: next is cindy in norwalk, connecticut, who says no. caller: thanks for taking my call. a couple of points. i don't think the filibuster is the problem. i think a should reform and have term limits.

that, to me, would break the gridlock and the compromising baloney, you know? the people, the people voted for the filibuster? no, did anybody care what the people voted for four years ago? the democrats didn't care who got voted in. they use the filibuster 300 times on donald trump. all of that is a bunch of who we are. -- hooey. election laws should go back to how they were pre-covid. no one is changing everything, everything was changed because of covid and that's a point, everybody knows it, but nobody wants to be honest. of course we want fair voting. that is not the issue. you know? and everybody lies about bills, voting rights bills and they

don't read the bills, they just pick up a talking point. georgia won't give out water? that's a falsehood. if your president cannot be honest, and i don't care if it's donald trump or joe biden, people need to be a bit more educated about voting rights bills. i live in connecticut, a very liberal state. there is no early voting and i'm not opposed to early voting, by the way, i think there should be, but it shouldn't be two months ahead of the election. there's just, everybody has lost their minds and everybody has to be extreme in their views. and that's basically my point. thank you so much. host: the headline this morning from huff po, joe biden chastising republicans for blocking debate on the for the people act, sweeping legislation aiming to improve voting access.

they wrote that it was suppression of a bill to end suppression, he said afterwards, with 50 democrats controlling the chamber and kamala harris being the tiebreaker, senate rules allow republicans to block any bill that cannot muster 60 votes. asking you this morning about that. should the senate democrats eliminate the filibuster? (202) 748-8000 is the line to call if you say yes. (202) 748-8002 if it --(202) 748-8001 if it is no. you can always send us a text that (202) 748-8003 -- at (202) 748-8003. linda says i do not support it, imagine the constant flip-flop every two years. laws passed by one party that could be easily undone two years later. all or nothing fields no compromise.

it might be one thing to filibuster, when one has to give an endless speech, but it's another when it has no costs and the senate shuts down on the issue. the tierney of one senate member over the other. a tweet saying that it should be modified, we are living in an era of minority rule and that's not how our government is supposed to work. senate is supposed to force debate and at the end they vote. the current filibuster rule prevents that. back to your calls, john and clifton park. go ahead with your comment. caller: first of all, thank you for what you are doing. i believe the filibuster should be eliminated primarily because of what was done yesterday. what it was essentially was a vote on debate. so that people could form, the majority of people could form and believe if they were behind the voting rights act taken yesterday. yesterday's action was just about debate.

the previous woman said there should be debate and everything. she's absolutely correct. the thing is, if the republicans had voted to have debate on it, people conform better opinions on why they are opposed to these things. this was not a vote on the bill itself. it was a vote on the debate and even with what mitch mcconnell had said a short while ago in your program, you can't believe, you can believe mitch mcconnell as far as you can throw him. the thing is, he's always coming up about things on the constitution and every thing else. what did they do with the merrick garland situation as opposed to the recent supreme court placement? you know, it's ridiculous. people, the woman before me, she called about compromise. a gentleman a few calls ago talked about compromise. one of the things in these voting bills, these voting rights act, the fact that it was

gerrymandered to the extent that it is, becoming a janitor -- a danger to not only whatchamacallit, democrats, but republicans themselves. people like mitt romney, liz cheney out in wyoming. essentially they have created a situation where people are not concerned, even republicans are not concerned about losing elections in areas of this country and essentially what it amounts to is they know that the way the districts are constructed now that they cannot lose a district unless someone is completely off-the-wall and essentially it's going to go to republicans, so they can go further and further to the right, which they have done. host: thanks for that, john. dan is next, he says no i'm a don't illuminate the filibuster. good morning, dan. caller: how are you? host: fine, thanks.

caller: i want to point out that trump asked mcconnell to get rid of the filibuster and he said no because of how undemocratic it was. shooting themselves in the foot. i wanted to point out that. i also wanted to point out that, you know, when democrats explain and now that aren't the way they want to be, they want to get rid of the filibuster to get what they want passed through? unfairly? i find that to be ridiculous and there should be no way you can get rid of the filibuster. host: here's the headline from "the washington times." partisan it -- partisan

initiative meets demise through filibuster. [video clip] quick, are planning to block legislation to restore voting rights and bring much-needed transparency and ethics into our elections. the refusal to even allow debate on the for the people act should be seen for what it is. a ringing endorsement of former president trump's conspiracy theories and his attacks on our election and on reality itself. refusing to take up the for the people act will prop up the campaigns we are seeing in states across the country that strip americans of our hard-won right to vote. mr. president, i want to be clear.

if senate republicans are successful later today in the filibuster to block the senate from even debating the for the people act, this cannot be the end of the story. we simply cannot give up on passing voting rights legislation in this congress. not when our democracy is what's on the line. we should all remember that the filibuster is a rule, a rule that cannot even be found in the constitution, but voting, voting is an american right. host: our opening question for you, should senate democrats aluminate the filibuster? here's the reporting from roll call, democrats united in vote. picture of joe manchin, voting with his party on tuesday in favor of debating the signature

overhaul of elections, campaign finance and ethics laws, but the measure's passage remains improbable with republicans opposing the vote that would have let them begin debate. earlier this month he said he would vote against it. senators voted 50-50 on party lines, leaving the motion short of what was needed for adoption. they called the bill a power grab by the other side of the aisle, arguing it would give too much control to the federal government. democrats said they planned to press ahead and ordered a fresh round of pressure campaigns, including one to end of the legislative filibuster, saying that this is the beginning and not the end, according to amy klobuchar, the chairwoman of the rules and administration panel that has jurisdiction over campaign issues. thoughts by text, ike in buffalo says that the 50 senators who represent 41 million more americans than the republicans, with the gop making it tougher

to vote, including overriding results in places like georgia and texas and the filibuster should go back to a talking filibuster, let them stand to show americans what they believe in and as long as the filibuster exists we will have nonfunctioning federal government, they should not get rid of it but go back to the old way where a senator has to be there in person, speaking, according to tim in ohio. david in orlando says don't do away with the filibuster because republicans when they want to walk everything, it may be needed. bill, maryland, go ahead. caller: hello. my opinion of this, am i on? host: you are, go ahead, bill. bill, are you in your car, there? turn down your radio? you are with us, are you there? caller: yes, i am there. host: go ahead. caller: sorry i turned the radio down. all right.

yes, i absolutely believe that the filibuster at least temporarily should be put down. i would like to say in response to a previous caller that the prospect of term limitations is while a good idea will never happen in my opinion because you are not going to get all these politicians to vote for that. they want to stay hidden. on the other thing, given the extraction -- obstruction of liz him by mitch mcconnell and his crew, nothing is going to get done by the democrats of any value. this is the time to go big. of any time in recent history, we could go big. the republicans just do not want to see a successful president and democrats run legislature.

they just don't want to see success on that because it's going to make them look red. so, i believe that now of all times is the time to go big on these issues. because it's not going to get done any other way. so, get rid of that filibuster. thank you very much. host: laura is next out of spokane, washington. go ahead. caller: hi, the reason i objected to the bill is i find it to be unconstitutional when you read the bill. i read parts of it, studied other parts. that bill was only to give the states rights to the federal government and then to let anybody who wanted to vote vote wherever they wanted to vote when they wanted to vote. so, that was my issue with that. there are so many bills coming out of the democratic already

that are so anti-constitutional, so un-american. they hate people, you know? they are not doing for the american people. they are not doing for this country. they are doing for whatever agenda they have going. the same is true for the media. the bill was not constitutional. it shouldn't have even been on the floor. it does not fall within the boundaries of the u.s. constitution. host: and you think that by debating that, in your view by bringing the bill to the floor, including the compromise legislation that had been proposed, that would have been exposed, senators could have pointed out the unconstitutionality of it? caller: you know, when you read the bill you see it, there just isn't, there just isn't enough there. i mean there are so many things

that go directly against the constitution and against the integrity of our elections. they say it's for the people? they are not talking about the american people, you know? seems to me that you are letting 2 million people come in here, 20,000 kids in cages and the cartels run the borders. tell me how good that is. host: thanks for your call this morning. news this morning about steve scully, over 30 years at this network and countless interviews , some 8000 hours of interviews. this is from "the philadelphia inquirer," steve scully leaving after three decades. he has been one of the faces of the network -- network for three decades, leaving next month. here is part of the statement, saying that for 30 years c-span has given me a front row seat to history, allowing me to explain politics and public policy to our loyal audience. he will be moving on to the

bipartisan policy center here in the nations capital and i think speaking for a number of my colleagues here, we thank him for his service to this network and wish him the best of luck in his endeavor at the bipartisan policy center. back to our questions, do you think senate democrats should eliminate the filibuster? (202) 748-8000 if you say yes, (202) 748-8001 if you say no. atlanta, doris says yes, 11 eight the filibuster. caller: good morning. until recently republicans have been in charge and all this time , nothing has been done. they can't improve health care, infrastructure. they don't, i really don't think republicans respect the average american voter. like trump, they believe, they lean towards dictatorship. they believe that most, most americans are not competent to

really know what is going on and to rule the country. i think in this instance there are too many things going on in the country right now with the covid, the health, the infrastructure, we are falling behind the rest of the world. something needs to be done. if only they would reform the filibuster. if there was some way to get rid of joe manchin so that we could get things done, you know? i'm so disappointed that the country is turning into a dictatorship. and maybe ok, if that's what people want? but the republicans back in and get your dictatorship and then c. if trump had gotten back into office, what do you think the country would be doing now? host: ralph is next to new york,

he says no, don't illuminate the filibuster. good morning. caller: i'm a uaw worker and it took seven -- 67 votes for cloture and lyndon johnson was able to overcome the southern segregationists to invoke cloture 71 to 29 to vote on the landmark 1964 civil rights act. republicans are on the record, they don't support workers rights. they are blocking the right to organize act in the senate. they are blocking voting rights. taking on the role of the southern segregationists. lower the threshold for the filibuster to 55 votes, that's my take. it's pretty much a divided country, i don't think you are going to see super majorities in the senate for a while. that would invoke cloture i think. thank you.

host: tom harkin has a similar piece this morning. from chairman cinema, about the filibuster, we have more to lose than gain by ending the filibuster and in the piece she says that her support for retaining the threshold is not based on the importance of any particular policies, it's based on what's best for the democracy. it compels moderation and protects the country from wild swings between opposing policies that stand the test of time and could help heal divisions in the country and strengthen the confidence that the country is working for all of us and is for all of us in if we lose the threshold we lose more than we gain. missouri, good morning, jim.

caller: it's going to be so important to revise the filibuster rule so that we force these naysayers, that's what i call them, onto the floor to make their case about exactly why they are against a given issue. so, that's very important. the other thing that i think bears mentioning here is that what we are based with now, more so than ever before, is the real chance of minority arion rule over the majority. i don't see, in this day and age, how we are going to address the divisiveness by approaching the problem the way that senator sinema suggests. that's all i have. thank you. host: jacksonville, illinois. dan, welcome. caller: calling and against the filibuster, i'm strongly against it and rid of it.

do the democrats calling in no how many times the democrats used it last year? they used it 270 seven times last year for donald trump. i'm pretty sure that's how many times they used the filibuster. host: you are the second one. somebody said 300, you say 277. you mean during the 100 and 16th congress, or you mean during the four years? caller: i believe it was the last year. host: we are going to try to track down that number. we will find out. caller: one thing for sure, they used filibuster last year for sure. as far as steve scully leaving and you saying him going to some partisan thing? that's like saying louis farrakhan is partisan. come on, steve scully is a hack. you guys had to suspend him. host: i said he's going to the

bipartisan policy center in washington, a bipartisan think tank. gladys is in san antonio, texas, welcome. gladys, make sure that you mute your volume and go ahead with your comment. caller: ok, let me mute. let me mute. alright, i'm ready now. the reason i'm calling, the lady from washington, i don't know how she can come up with that theory about having more to lose by getting rid of the filibuster then we have to gain. what everyone needs to look at is this planned that they have two over, to overthrow and obstruct every voter in the usa of america. doesn't matter if you are black, white, or green. they are playing, the laws they are enacting are designed to stop people if they vote and if they don't like the outcome, the

laws are devout -- designed to overthrow the will of the people. how can that be constitutional? the statement she is making his ridiculous. what we have got to do is find a middle ground and come together so that everybody has a chance to participate in this democracy . it is not democracy when all these different states are allowed to invent their own rules and then we are subjected to them. we have no other recourse than to make, make some kind of amendment or some kind of change to the filibuster law. should millions of people have their vote thrown out? not the allowed debate? i don't like the outcome of this election, so i'm just going to overthrow the will of the people? how can that be constitutional? mitch mcconnell has lost his mind. he's a dictator and all he cares about his power. our government is based on by the people, for the people. all these people out there, they

are against the people in this country and i don't see why anyone cannot see that. i am praying because -- praying until we are fully healed. host: some folks have asked about the number of times there was a filibuster or a cloture vote in the previous congress. our viewers were pretty much right, 298 votes on cloture in the previous congress. so far in the 117th, 54. on the senate floor yesterday, senator john soon of south dakota talked about the filibuster. [video clip] >> allegedly the reason to bring it to the floor was to provide pressures on certain democratic members that this is the reason we need to vote to do away with the legislative filibuster, something that has been a part of the senate going back to our founding fathers.

the very reason the founding fathers created the senate was to check and balance against majoritarian rule, running roughshod over the rights of the minority in the senate. the legislative filibuster has insured that it was used extensively over the last six years, when republicans were in control of the senate, by the democrats. to filibuster legislation. in fact, it was used too filibuster coronavirus relief bills. used to filibuster police reform . used over and over to block the former president's nominees. and yet now, mr. president, we are being told that the senate needs to get rid of the legislative filibuster and that all the democrats on the others of the aisle who use it extensively to block republican

legislation over the past six years now believe that we need to get rid of the legislative filibuster and that this bill is example number one for why that is necessary. well, it's really ironic and interesting to hear members on the others make the argument, given where they were a couple of years ago. host: more of your calls, 15 more minutes on the morning topic of the alabaster, should senate democrats eliminate it? (202) 748-8000 for those who say yes, (202) 748-8001 for those who say no. no is winning by a large margin on the twitter poll. 65% say no, don't eliminate the legislative filibuster. from the front page of "the new york times," on their website, adams leads, eric adams, with

32% in the new york city mayoral race with ranked choice voting, the democratic primary. declaration of winner may take in new york city. in the republican party the founder of the guardian angels has won the primary. here's what else people are saying about the topic this morning. ronald in covington, tennessee said that democrats should break the filibuster or they won't be able to get anything accomplished. republicans blocking the investigation of the riots to protect themselves and the few that planned and conspired. julie says she will miss steve, who did a great job, and the filibuster should be done away with. sports change rules to better accommodate for changing landscapes. the u.s. has changed for the better and is heading in a new direction and the government needs to follow the same trend into stephen in lexington,

kentucky. illinois, democrats did not receive a mandate and they will but where -- will regret shoving this far left agenda nonsense down the throats of americans. they should chalk up victories for the usa. albany, new york, this is fred, go ahead. fred, mute your volume and go ahead with your comment. caller: i definitely believe the filibuster should be eliminated. all of the assaults on the voting rights and states led by republicans making it were difficult for people of color to vote. you know? one of the callers was on earlier, calling it an assault on white people, but really it's an assault on african-americans,

people that republicans know are not going to vote for them. right now republicans are just obstructionists, you know? anything that biden is for, they are against. they would not even vote to have a commission to talk about, you know, to investigate the assault on our democracy, you know? january 6 in the capital. so, so without a filibuster, there would be nothing, nothing would get done. and they have taken us back in time with the policy they are trying to put in place. host: virginia, eric. caller: the audio that you played a couple of minutes ago by that senator relief -- really sums it up perfectly. i don't understand why the democrats feel that they could

use what has been used by the founding fathers and process to push their agenda and represent the can's issuance but when it is on the others, they just want to reverse it. 20 minutes ago someone said yeah, go ahead and use the filibuster, get rid of the filibuster and push everything they want but when the republicans are in charge, they will flip-flop again. it's not doing anything good. you can't change the rules just because you are now in the majority. it just doesn't work that way. another caller said something about the republicans not representing the people. well, they are. possibly half the country. that's what it's for. the caller that talked about race? about voting rights against black african-americans, i'm black, tell me how any law specifically makes it harder for a person with a dark skin tone to vote. when?

it's a talking point. they need to just stop. it's a time in the country where we are so divided and now even more, we need 10 more people on the other sides saying you know, this is a law that we need to pass. so, this time that we are divided, we don't need a narrow margin. we will be flip-flopping on the other side for four years. you can't just do that when you are power now. i mean, it's rude. host: another story this morning, on the response to covid-19, the headline from the bike industry should knitting they want reach july 4 vaccination goal. the change in the goal was talked about yesterday in the covid-19 response briefing.

[video clip] >> based on today's estimates, we are on track to hit the target for 27 and over once the data for the july 4 holiday weekend is in. after a goal of 70% for all adult, we will hit it for adults 27 and older. this is amazing progress with our country returning to normal much sooner than anyone could have predicted. particularly with 18 to 26-year-olds. the reality is many americans have felt that covid-19 is not something that impacts them and they have been less eager to get the shot. with the delta variant across the country, it's more important than ever that they get vaccinated. host: from the hill this morning

and the vote yesterday, angst grows as filibuster threatens agenda, quoting elizabeth moran, saying democrats will have to talk about the next path and senator chris mers -- chris murphy of connecticut added that democrats needed open debate, stop shadowboxing and have an open debate about what it means to keep the rules in place. we will hear from joey, next, in oklahoma city. go ahead, joey. caller: yes, i believe we have to get rid of the filibuster and i think it comes down to ownership. if you get rid of that, the party in power gets to have their agenda. then the american people get to see is that agenda representing the majority of the people or just a minority of the people?

then we can vote them in or out based on that. now it's like the democrats put up all the bills, but they need that mitch mcconnell, mansion and cinema, to kill the things best for the people, but if you pull the people on key issues, on what they want to see happen, the filibuster has to go before what the people want gets done. for example, is there idea about having to get some weak compromise, if they could even get one, more important than climate change? a stun bogus fraud claims? all the studies, including the trunk commission on voter fraud, turned out nothing. all the laws they are passing are just meant to disenfranchise . so, yes, get rid of your excuse,

nancy pelosi, for not passing this stuff. do what the american people say they want and then let them vote about it. you will be voted out if you don't do what you claimed you would do when you were voted in. host: that voting rights legislation passed in the house and had moved on to the senate. jerry in carrollton, ohio, saying no. go ahead, jerry. caller: this is the first time i've been on, i appreciate this. i say no. i say no and i listen to your program. i see so much people hating each other and i can't believe this. i think myself, the government does this to us. the senate and stuff. they talk about this guy, this guy, this guy.

but listen to what nancy pelosi and chuck schumer say. it's embarrassing that they are part of our government. i think we should literally get rid of all of them and have the american people vote ourselves. because this is getting us nowhere. we go this way, we go that way, whoever's in charge and it's pitiful. nothing ever gets done. i see so much hatred now because of our government putting us against one another. heck, sometimes i think i'm beginning to be prejudice and i'm really not. but you know? it's a shame. thank you, that's what i had to say. host: molly robbins published this piece a number of months ago, what's the filibuster and what would it take to eliminate

it? the basics to keep in mind, further legislation is coming in the senate, saying the senate has some options to curtail the use of the filibuster, ring setting the precedent, setting restrictions on use. president biden has expressed openness to the idea depending on how obstructive republicans become but ultimately it's up to the senate to set the process in motion and says the use of the senate has become far more common in the 21st century when the cloture motions were filed over the last two decades than in the 80 years prior. john, hillsboro, new jersey, go ahead. guest: caller: good morning, thank you for having me. i think it needs a modified. for something to come to the senate for discussion, you should need 30% of the senate. if 30% say they want to discuss something, it should be

discussed. i have yet to see or hear policies from the republicans, who want to do this, take away the aca and the voter right, but i don't hear anything from them on what the real policy is on matters. that's my view on that. host: here's the opinion of tom harkin today in "the washington post," reform that could achieve compromise. part of what he writes in this is that the proposal from 26 years ago was after getting the signatures needed to file cloture on a measure, 60 votes would be needed to bring the measure to a vote, the same hurdle that must be cleared today but if it wasn't obtained, a new cloture could be filed and after a certain number of days it would require 57 votes. going on further to say to reduce the number of vote over a number of days.

why, he says? for the senate majority leader, the most important thing is the time they have to get bills to the floor in order to bring fellow senator bills to the floor for package and for the minority leader the most important thing is to protect minority member right -- rights to offer amendments in the amendment tree with conclusion saying that in his 40 years he chaired two major committees and spent much time ranking minority members and that compromise is the result of negotiations which happen when there is mutuality of interest, not absolute yes or no on a more nuanced maybe. west virginia, morgantown, sally is up next. go ahead. caller: good morning, thank you for having me on. i'm absolutely clear, democracy

is more important than the filibuster. the filibuster is not, has not been here since the beginning of the nation. it's a vestige of jim crow. it has been used to stop voting rights in the past. the use of it now is also to stop voting rights for many americans in this country. we have the right to vote. it's a fundamental american value in this country. also i just wanted to say that the filibuster actually prevents debate. we have this idea from the movies that the filibuster causes this great debate in the senate.

but what it does is cut it off entirely and prevents any discussion of -- in my opinion, and my hope is , for the good of our nation, for the health of our democracy, that we end the filibuster. thank you. host: the last comment on this. virginia. go ahead. caller: i think we need to keep the filibuster intact. it helps protect the minority if the majority becomes overbearing and goes with the focus of the senate. host: i appreciate that. there is more ahead on washington journal. we will be joined by gregory meeks. he will talk about the foreign

policy challenges facing the biden a ministration. later, tom fitton, of judicial watch will be here to talk about his group's efforts to get to the bottom of congressional surveillance during the trump years. ♪ >> coming up today on c-span, the house is back at 10:00 eastern for speeches. at noon, -- at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span2, the house armed services committee has lloyd austin testifying on the president's 2022 budget request. the senate returns at 2:00 to consider judicial nominations. on c-span three, a house oversight subcommittee meets at 10:00. at 2:00, another budget hearing

with fbi director christopher wray. >> book tv on c-span2 has nonfiction books and authors every weekend. saturday at 10:00 p.m. eastern, an author looks at the u.s. response to the covid-19 pandemic. sunday at 10:00 p.m. eastern, a critical look at the 1619 project with matthew spalding. and peter would, author of 1620, a critical response to the 6019 project. sunday at 10:00 p.m. eastern, a former chief of staff recalls his 25 years after leaving the

oval office. watch book tv this weekend on c-span2. >> "washington journal" continues. host: representative gregory meeks represents new york's fifth district in the queens area. he joins us talk about u.s. foreign policy issues. chairman meeks, good morning. guest: good morning. host: the headline in the "washington times" about the authorization of military force -- this is the measure that passed the house last week, a debate you led on the house floor. why do you think this is an important measure? guest: the responsibility is of congress to make the

determination of whether or not we should go to war. when you look back in 2002, the mission has been accomplished. saddam hussein is gone in iraq, what took place on 9/11. that has long been gone. they were put forward and voted on some 20 years ago and are no longer necessary today. as our president wants to go back to war somewhere, they should come to congress and we should vote on it and make that determination. its lifespan has expired. we still have the 2001, which we hope to vote on and repeal and

replace. that deals with protecting the united states from t errorist groups and organizations. host: as i recall from that debate, dan crenshaw of texas and others said they would rather have the committee work on retooling the aumfs and not completely ending them. guest: the 2002 was simply for iraq. the 2001 aumf needs to be retooled. as i said on the floor that day, i am willing to work with my republican colleagues to retool, repeal and replace the 2001. we have had some aumfs that we

need to repeal and not replace. there is one from the 1950's, we need to repeal that. some are no longer needed because the missions have been accomplished. in 2002, it was utilized by democratic and republican presidents. as a secondary utilization to avoid coming to congress. i think it is important for congress to take its jurisdiction and have our voice and mecca determination of whether we should go to -- and make a determination of whether we should go to war. whether or not we should send people into battle is the hardest decision. we do not need to skirt that

responsibility. we need to listen and make our determination based upon facts presented to us by the executive branch. host: what is at the top of your list that you see as foreign policy challenges to the u.s. and an issue that will come before the purview of your committee? guest: we are working on a bill that deals with china in a competitive spirit. china is a big issue. we saw what took place, the president made his first stop in europe, visiting the g7 and eu. we have issues in the middle east. you have issues in central and south america. you are still dealing with the pandemic around the world.

climate is important. i can go on and on and on. dealing with the confident of africa and what is going on with ethiopia. there is a lot that is going on, there is a lot for our committee . i am happy to say that on this committee, it seems for the most part, democrats and republicans are working together. the ranking member and i have a relationship where we are talking back and forth. we are making sure a united voice is dealing with the many issues we have that affects us internationally. host: the president returned from the g7 summit, the nato meeting with president putin a week ago today.

chairman meeks, will your committee get a brief from the administration on that meeting, and more broadly some of the takeaways from the trip from the president? guest: it might happen tomorrow. we will be briefed in a bipartisan way in that regard as to all the take aways from the trip, the pros and the cons and what we look to do moving ahead. showing that america is back at the table and working with her allies. that is extremely important. the past administration seemed to not work with allies, the g.

-- the g7. in my travels, they wondered what happened when it was america only and not caring about the allies we had in nato. i think president biden began to reverse that, letting people know we are back at the table and want to work together. that is a way to handle some of the issues i talked about, whether it is iran, russia, china, it is worth our allies. host: our guest is congressman gregory meeks. we are talking about foreign policy. we welcome your calls and comments. for republicans, the line is (202) 748-8001. for democrats, the number is (202) 748-8000.

for independents, the number is (202) 748-8002. we will get your calls in a minute. what else can the u.s. do? what can congress propose in terms of legislation to strengthen our defenses? guest: i think the president did the right thing because communication is important. let them know we have the ability to do a number of things. we will not talk about them so they have a chance to prepare. i think the president laid it out that there has to be a change in behavior on behalf of putin and the folks around him. otherwise, there will be a price to pay -- and he did that face-to-face, unlike what took place with the last administration, were basically the former president took putin

's word above our own intelligence. this is a different president, different positioning. members of congress to back up and support the president in that mission and stand up with our allies. what putin had been trying to do and continues in the way he thinks he can have success is to divide the alliance, divide and conquer. that is why it was important for the president to make his first overseas trip, to show we will be in lockstep and unified prior

to the summit meeting with russia. that sends a message. we are leading with our allies, and not leaving our allies behind. you want to participate to make sure we are having dialogue and conversations with the russians. maintain iran not having a nuclear weapon. preserving the earth with climate control. we have to make sure our allies have the same values that we have, that we are tied together. that is the best way to reign in some of the bad behavior we have seen from mr. putin.

host: iran's president elect saying he will not meet with the biden demonstration, he wants sanctions lifted as soon as possible. what is your reaction to his election? guest: the supreme leader is the one that will make and call the shots. i think we need to get back into the jcpoa. i think that is really important. there are indications of compliance in that regard. that is all really important to make sure we see and hear. i am looking to talk to a number of folks at the iaea, where we

are having negotiations for compliance to help reengage and get back into the jcpoa. the goal for us is iran should never have a nuclear weapon. we are focused on making sure iran does not have a nuclear weapon. host: let's hear from viewers and listeners. we will first go to carl in west virginia. good morning. caller: good morning. i hope you cannot take my question the wrong way. president joe biden made a statement that white supremacy is more of a threat to our country than the taliban. i know the government keeps its

distance. i would like you to tell me how many african-americans have been killed by white supremacy in this country in the last six years. also, joe biden said none of his family would be involved in foreign entities during his time in office. hunter biden is still in china in business. i would like for you to give me your definition of white supremacy so i can compare myself had no were i stand -- and know where i stand. host: congressman meeks, would you like to respond? guest: if you look at the threat and go over the internet, you look at the threats being made,

it is more in-house terrorism, than the terrorists but attacked us previously. we are making sure we are secured against al qaeda and we are looking to get that done. internally, we have seen various acts around this country, almost an insurrection right here in washington, d.c. on january 6 that is the biggest threat to our nation i have ever seen, the took place. washington, d.c. on january 6 when we saw an insurrection. that can destroy the democracy of our country. we very much need to be ready and focused.

i never thought to be quite honest with you that i would witness that in the united states of america. i never thought that was possible. host: let's hear from james, oklahoma. go ahead. caller: good morning. my question is on foreign. what will be our long-term plan with china and human rights abuses? we are seeing a lot of the same things that started in germany with world war ii. i wonder what our current plan is to tackle that? guest: i agree with you. it is something we have to make sure we stand up and hold china accountable for. i am working on a bill as we

speak to hold china accountable. we want to hold them accountable for what they are doing in hong kong and taiwan. we believe we need to stand up and hold to our values, make sure we are doing death or same way the president stood up strong with putin in russia. we need to make sure we start leveling the playing field. working with our allies and partners, which is what we are doing now. it is a focus within the committee. i hope to have a bill coming out of the house by the end of the month that will lay out various

issues and solutions that we should be able to do to get china on the right page and try to make sure that the values, if they want to be involved in the international community, the need to make sure that human rights violations cease immediately. i think the only way to accomplish that is with our allies. host: there is news this morning about further moves to shut down debate in hong kong. hong kong's daily newspaper to close after government shut out funds. alex is next up on the independent line in silver spring, maryland. good morning. caller: good morning.

brief two-part question for the congressman. the other day, i saw several news agencies with a bold headline stating that the biden demonstration had frozen about $100 million or so in lethal weapons aid to ukraine. i wonder if you know anything more about that. the article itself did not seem to provide any details on that. it was just sort of a headline and filler text. as a second related part, during the trump administration, i recalled that after the helsinki summit, a number of prominent individuals were suggesting that perhaps we should have the

translators who are in the room in the private meeting with vladimir putin to release the documents, the text of the dialogue that they had in private so we can determine whether or anything nefarious was going on. i wonder if based on the timing of this headline and article referring to the freezing of ukraine aid, if there is a suggestion we should also release the transcripts of the translators for the biden ministration during their private meeting with putin, just to see what they were talking about. host: ok, alex. we will hear from the congressman. guest: as it pertains to ukraine, we want to make sure the ukrainians have all the weapons they need. there was a proposal to move forward.

i think the president was clear with the russians -- never say they have the right to make folks in the ukraine and the crimea area -- i believe the national security council ended up putting a proposal we had on hold after russia announced troops stationed in ukraine and that led up to the president's -- when he was meeting with mr. putin at the summit. it seemed as though russia decided -- we are watching their behavior. we are going to stick with our allies.

sovereignty of the ukrainian country, we are focused on it with our european allies in that regard. as it pertains to the summit, i think the president is moving forward. he wants to make sure we set the agenda with mr. putin. my committee may look into it because we are still deciding. the president has made it clear he is looking forward, he is not looking back, and trying to make sure we meet again and unite our allies against russia or anyone else and we will be able to deal with them in a collective way. host: let's hear from ralph on the democrats line from augusta, georgia. good morning. caller: my concern is both foreign and domestic.

you are talking about ukraine and sending troops into battle. and we want to control other people. what concerns me in the u.s. -- our capitol building and the house and senate cannot come together to figure out how to solve that problem. it concerns me greatly. we want to go find someone else, but in this country, we have problems. host: congressman meeks, do you think there was an intelligence failure ahead of january 6?

guest: i think there was a lack of action for the intelligence they had, and a lack of preparedness for the intelligence they had. the language taking place around the country leading up to january 6. clearly, a lack of preparation. we need to fix that -- there is no question about that. as i look, and i met with some -- at the house, he is focused on that to make sure that does not happen again. that there is coordination between capitol police, the national guard, the d.c. police, better communication in that regard and better preparation. the lack of preparation and/or

oversight by those in charge previously. we need to turn that around 180 degrees and do that as soon as possible. i agree with the caller, i am disappointed we could not do this with a bipartisan commission that had been proposed by speaker pelosi and majority leader schumer. i am shocked with what has taken place with some of the republicans saying there is revisionist history of what took place january 6. if you look at the videotape -- your eyes are not lying to you. you can listen to what congressman mccarthy said on that day. that is when he told the truth. now, he is moving further away from what took place, from what

the facts are. and basically saying the american people's eyes deceived them. these individuals, -- the way they fought the police that were here. they came with the intent to try to get a member of congress. even republican members. i am just absolutely disappointed and i am shocked, and clearly disappointed in my republican members who refuse to come in a bipartisan way with the commission so we can investigate for the sake of our democracy what took place, who was involved, why it took place and then come up with a solution to make sure it never, ever happens again.

host: let's hear from tom on the republican line in wisconsin. caller: i would like to know from this gentleman, he says biden is getting tough on putin, and the first thing he does is give him the keys to the biplane to make more money. the other thing is, no wonder nato in these countries want us back in because we will start paying the bills again like we always do they don't have to pay their bills. trump wanted them to pay their share and they were starting to do it and now they are back to the same old thing. thank you. guest: clearly, trump believes putin more that he believes our own intelligence agencies. you talk about the pipeline, that is something the biden administration inherited from the trump administration. 95% of it was completed during the trump administration.

it was just about completed when biden took over. working with her allies again -- when you have a lemon that is bad, you try to make lemonade out of it. the biden administration inherited a lemon from the trump administration with the pipeline, 95% of it complete. we are trying to work the best we can so we can deal with allies, not upset them and have them divided from us, which would have been putin's wish. we want to be in lockstep and figure this out together. host: i just want to get your thoughts mr. president preparest to meet the afghanistan president.

what are your top concerns in terms of the u.s. withdrawal from afghanistan? guest: after 20 years, there is no military solution to the afghanistan issue. i agree with the president about pulling out. there are real concerns in regard to some of the freedoms and rights -- and afghanistan. we need to make sure they are still protected. the taliban has to stand up and make sure their pledge in regards to al qaeda and other terrorist organizations trying to organize in afghanistan.

there are things we will have to pay very close attention to. some of those individuals who worked with us, lives could be on the line. we have to make sure we do not turn our backs on them. we are looking at congress giving special details for their safety if they have to move. i am confident -- our state department and diplomats on the ground, trying to help secure a better future for the people of afghanistan. we will not be turning our backs on them. the military solution, we could be there for another 40 years. to turn the situation around and

afghanistan so it can be better for the afghan people. host: as the map behind him might indicate, he is the chair of the house committee. thank you for joining us. guest: thank you for having me. host: ahead on "washington journal," we will open our phones to talk about some of the issues we have addressed, including the filibuster, the vote on election reform, foreign policy issues we just addressed with congressman meeks. here are the lines. republicans call (202) 748-8001, democrats, (202) 748-8000, and independents and others, (202) 748-8002. >> derek chauvin was convicted for the murder of george floyd and is scheduled to be sentenced

this friday. his defense as asked for probation. prosecutors are seeking 30 years in prison. watch the proceedings live friday at 2:30 on c-span, online at c-span.org or listen on the free c-span radio app. >> this saturday, donald trump holds a rally in wellington, ohio to support max miller, a republican running against an incumbent republican in the 16th national district. that is on c-span, online at c-span.org or listen on the free c-span radio app. >> c-spanshop.org is c-span's online store. your purchase will support our nonprofit operations. you still have time to order the congressional directory, with contact information for members

of congress and the biden administration. >> "washington journal" continues. host: about a half-hour -- a little less -- of the open forum on "washington journal." call in with topics we have discussed. (202) 748-8001 is the line for republicans. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8002 for independents and all others. the foreign policy issue we did not address, from the new york times this morning, said to have trained in the u.s., saudi's who participated in the 2018 killing of washington post journalists jamal khashoggi received training approved by the state department, according to documents. the times writes the instruction

occurred as the unit responsible for the killing was beginning an extensive campaign and kidnapping, detention and torture of saudi citizens ordered by the crown prince to crush dissent inside the kingdom. the training was provided by an arkansas-based security company owned by the equity firm. the company says the training was defensive in nature and devised to better protect saudi leaders. one person familiar with the training senate also included work with surveillance. you can read that at nytimes.com. we talked about the vote in the senate about moving forward with democratic legislation on voting reform, they failed to get the 60 votes needed to advance that legislation and bring it to the floor.

the president of the senate calling the vote yesterday evening on the floor. this is politico's reporting, failure on election strategy. after months of buildup, democrats are boxed in on their party's signature reform plan and there is no escape route. a filibuster that many in president joe biden's party hoped would turbocharge the vote threshold. support of the filibuster has hardened in recent days, culminating in a defense of the super majority -- we read you some of that earlier. senator joe manchin in nearly a dozen other senators reluctant to eliminate a reform the filibuster. a series of republican blockades

on former president donald trump's impeachment, equal pay standards and most notably the election bill. read that at politico.com. (202) 748-8001 is the line for republicans. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8002 for independents and others. let's go to talladega, alabama. go ahead, bill. caller: thank you for taking my call. host: you bet. caller: i want to make a comment about yesterday. i am glad they did not vote to eliminate the filibuster. a couple of years ago, the democrats voted to keep the filibuster intact. and to respond to your previous guest about what happened on january 6 at the capitol, over

14,000 hours of film has not been released to the public. i would like that to be released to the public. i would like for -- i would like to know who was the officer who shot and killed an unarmed woman protester at that -- the event that happened on january 6 at the capitol. host: to mark in oklahoma on the democrats line, go ahead. caller: i think it is time for pelosi to go. she has made several comments. i think it hurts overall the

house and the senate and our government when you have the house of representatives that wants to play their own little games and not listen to the people and see what is going on in our country and what they want. i think the attack on the capitol -- there is a distrust because they are doing what they want to do and not listening to the american people. host: you are on our democrats line, you are saying speaker pelosi is not listening to the majority of democrats, or the majority of all americans? caller: not listening to people in general. they are doing what they are wanting. there is one state, they took a

lot of people off the voter roll last week, it was on the news. they could not verify them. there needs to be a book done on the attack on the capitol. i think there needs to be a deep dive all the way across into all of this. host: reporting for michigan, the associated press on the republican legislature, the senate in michigan released the results of the 2020 election investigation. not surprisingly, the investigation concludes the outcome represents the true results. a critical eye toward people who

pushed false theories for their own personal gain. we will hear from steven on the independent line in illinois. good morning. caller: good morning. there has been much discussion about hr1, the voting rights, the voting law in regard to whether or not congress, the federal government has any authority to control state elections. i would like to read a portion of the constitution, a very short section. the times, places and manner upholding elections senators and representatives shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof, but the congress may at any time, by law, make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing senators. therefore, i would push that people calling in regard to

whether or not hr1 is constitutional or legal, at least read the constitution. i would hope the moderators of your wonderful program would do likewise. host: thank you. this is probably not news for those of you trying to buy a home, it is front-page news in the wall street journal, u.s. home prices in may saw the biggest annual increase in more than two decades as a shortage of properties fuel demand. the median existing home price in may topped $350,000 for the first time. the figure was nearly 24% higher than a year ago. the biggest year-over-year increase recorded going back to 1999. sales prices have been climbing sharply since last summer, when lockdowns leading to the covid-19 pandemic eased across the country and people rushed to

find bigger homes. those working remotely moved at the chance to move to a less expensive city. brian in san diego. good morning. caller: good morning. my big issue is the january 6 -- i know it will not be bipartisan anymore, but it needs to be done as soon as possible. people need to know the truth about what happened on the day so we have facts and we can make judgments. the gop is owned by donald trump. it is anti-american and doing damage to our country. we are in serious danger unless we deal with the gop. host: there was some reporting that the speaker nancy pelosi was going to make a decision either by today or by the end of the week on the fate -- there is

the headline. would weaken can update on that, we will pass -- when we get an update, we will pass that along. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i was watching c-span last night and the gentleman was talking about the mess down on the border and the thing that goes on with enforcement. all of the sudden, they disappeared and they were a bunch of people talking about -- what happens about that? host: what time did this happen? caller: the abortion issue, i have been fighting it since 1973. i would like somebody to go down and check out that border mess

and get rid of it. host: jerome powell plays down inflation threat. saying it is highly unlikely inflation will rise to levels seen in the 1970's but acknowledged uncertainty as the economy reopens print the fed anticipated the end of the pandemic would temporarily push up inflation, mr. powell said increases in prices have been larger than central bankers expected and may prove more persistent. he underscored his view that shortages, including used cars, computer chips will fade over time, bringing inflation closer to the fed'a 2% -- fed's 2% long-term target. this is a piece titled do not believe the fed about inflation.

pandemics like wars create barriers to patterns and spending. restaurant closures, food rationing and world war ii. hybrid offices or permanently cut purchases of food. many restaurants and jobs, working class and minority workers lost, the demand for materials like software to enable a more professional workforce will not go back to 2019 workforce levels. wages for skilled workers in those industries are here to stay unless the fed exerts considerable monetary discipline. in washington, d.c., william on the democrats line. caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: i am calling to speak

about the governors of certain states who feel they have an obligation to terminate expanded benefits for people in their state simply because they said the people do not want to work and it is holding back the employment rate, etc., etc. some of these businesses people have worked for are not fully open. there is a delta variant striking some of the people who refuse to get vaccinated because some of those very governors have downplayed the seriousness of the coronavirus from the get-go. it is ridiculous. first of all, if those people have been working, they have paid into the unemployment funds, along with their employer. those people put money into those funds, themselves.

the state government does not own any money. the money of the united states belongs to taxpayers. every bit of money that the u.s. government uses to help this country, it comes from the american taxpayer. host: there is news of a new candidate in the race for governor in maryland. tom perez, the former labor secretary in the obama administration announced this morning his campaign for maryland governor, announcing intentions of making government work. there election -- their election is in 2022. caller: good morning. both of the topics you have this morning -- international foreign

policy concern and what is actually going on in congress, trying to get some legislation in the senate yesterday. i will admit to you and the audience, i think we can conclude that china, economically, is -- i can also suggest to you, china and russia are allies and they have a tag team going on. you have putin, who has successfully invaded this country on a political-social basis in the way of putting trump in office, right? you still have putin upset, the

trump support we live and breathe. china is an effective economic power. russia is a very efficient cold war warrior. i would submit to you that our country is totally dysfunctional. between these two elements, we are being defeated. we are dysfunctional. are you still with me? host: yes, david, we are here. caller: until such time that we come to grips and come out of this reactionary politics, we will continuously declined as a

so-called superpower. host: thank you for your comments. the issues of russia and china. at 10:00 this morning on c-span2, it is a hearing with the chairman of the secretary of defense, lloyd austin on the 2022 budget request. that is the house armed services committee. we will also cover fbi director christopher wray, who is testifying on the fbi budget before a subcommittee this afternoon at 2:00 eastern over on c-span3. following up on some comments earlier by a previous caller on unemployment benefits. states have ended unemployment benefits and $300 weekly bonus. another eight states ended unemployment benefits over the

weekend with eight more states planning to do the same thing this weekend. that leaves long-term unemployed and freelancers without jobless aid in what than half of u.s. states. california, this is tim, republican line. go ahead. caller: best major candidate. tim kellam, u.s. president, best major candidate. host: connecticut, independent line. caller: while the country -- [indiscernible]

host: this is a analysis of the senate vote yesterday, the 50-50 vote, they needed 62 advance the voting. the blockade on tuesday preserved the status quo post trump. republicans at the state level proceed largely unencumbered with new laws curtailing voting, once again, intense public interest after the capitol riot on january 6 was not enough to carry the day, just as the massacre of schoolchildren at sandy hook elementary school was not enough to secure 67 votes for a gun background check in 2013. luke is on the independent line from ohio. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you? host: doing fine.

thank you. caller: thank you for taking my call. host: what do you want to talk about? caller: i missed meeks' discussion on foreign policy. i wanted to comment. the gentleman was talking about a dysfunctional congress. just try to do things. also, on the foreign policy, it is hopeful that trump and biden pulled us out of afghanistan. i believe in two years, the

taliban will be in charge of afghanistan again. they pledge to do one thing -- they pledge to do a number of things and have not done much. that is my comment. host: gary in fall river, massachusetts. welcome. caller: can i ask you a question? what will happen with statehood? host: the d.c. statehood? we covered a hearing yesterday. the senate held a hearing yesterday, they did not vote on the legislation. the d.c. mayor was on the panel, as was former senator joe lieberman. people argue for d.c. statehood in the senate. it was the first hearing on statehood since 2014. they did not bring the bill up

for a vote that year but people are optimistic it might get one this year, even though its prospects are low. west palm beach, florida, bonnie is next up on the democrats line. go ahead. caller: hello. my concern is wondering if the republicans actually listened to the hearing. it was supposed to be a vote to defeat the bill. they acted as if they were shooting down the bill. they said it was a victory for the american people but it was supposed to be to defeat and come to an agreement that was fair amongst everybody and for the people. if they have a problem with the bill, they should have brought up those issues. they should have voted to have the debate. instead, they just shut it down. how did republicans feel about that?

are they ok with the way the senate gop reacted? how can they be satisfied with that when they acted like they were shooting down the bill, when it was to defeat the bill? host: michael in portland says -- global warming and what is happening here in the american west. wildfires are starting, the glaciers are melting off our mountains, the forests are burning down. the eastern part of the country is spared so far but that will change. stephen arkansas says biden says a recent rise in crime is because of guns. i think leaders are not enforcing the laws we already have and releasing criminals back into the streets over and over. this afternoon, the president will make a speech about crime in the u.s., that is expected at

3:30 eastern. ahead here on "washington journal," our guest is tom fitton, who heads judicial watch, he will talk about his group's efforts to get to the bottom of congressional surveillance during the trump years. joe is set to unveil his anti-crime strategy amidst surging crime rates. ♪ ♪ >> american history tv on c-span3, exploring the people and events that tell the american story every weekend. saturday at 7:00 p.m., jerry insular on his book. saturday at 8:00 p.m. eastern, brown university professor megan nelson talks about guerrilla

warfare on both the confederate and union sides during the civil war, whose tactics included ambushes and surprise rates. sunday at 7:00 p.m. eastern, law professors compare the definitions and explore whether france's model would work in the u.s. on sunday at 8:00 p.m. eastern a discussion about nancy reagan's legacy. and white house historical association president stuart mclaurin's. exploring the american story. watch american history tv this weekend on c-span three. [speaking foreign language] ♪

>> washington journal continues. host: we are joined by tom fitton, president of the group judicial watch, here with us to talk about a number of issues, including the investigations into president trump ahead of the impeachment efforts last year and the year before. first of all, tell us about your group, judicial watch. guest: judicial watch is a nonprofit educational foundation that seeks to educate the american people about what the government is up to. the way we do that is by using the freedom of information act to gain access to government information and also the legal

process to confront and expose government illicit behavior, misconduct, and activity that is outside the law. host: i saw your piece in "the washington times" yesterday. subpoena hypocrisy. the justice department used -- what were you aiming to get at in this editorial? guest: judicial watch had sued for secret subpoenas that schiff had issued that targeted the phone records of the president's lawyer, rudy giuliani. he got those phone records, then he used those records to uncover more phone records. you call people when you are talking on the phone, obviously. he published those phone records. he secretly subpoenaed phone records and then publish them. they included the phone records

of rudy giuliani, devon nunez, the president's lawyers, a journalist, john solomon, so then i hear this noise about schiff being the target of a grand jury subpoena, and him complaining about it. when in fact, he is telling us in court that we can't get access to the records and he is telling the court that this is essentially unreviewable. that the congress can issue subpoenas without going through a grand jury, without going through a federal court, without having to tell anyone. it was rudy giuliani and president trump, but it can be anyone. anyone watching now can have the records subpoenaed. this is a power that the pelosi

house says it has, and those of you who are watching who support nancy pelosi and adam schiff and hate donald trump, just so you know, this is a power that if unchecked republicans can use. host: on those phone records, did adam schiff get any pushback from the bench on these requests? guest: no. he did not go through the court, he just sent the subpoenas to, reportedly at&t or other phone companies, and they turned their records over to him. the targets of the subpoenas had no ability to object, because i don't think they found out until the records were published in impeachment reports and efforts that schiff was pushing. host: you said individuals targeted by those subpoenas had not known because they were previously kept under wraps, right? guest: right.

there was no court process, so it was not like you could object to the court once they were obtained. the records at issue, we don't know what if anything he is being investigated for, whether he is caught up in a broader subpoena. those records are subject to grand jury protections in terms of secrecy and other protections. now those recipients can argue to the courts what they need to order to protect their constitutional rights. that wasn't available to the targets of the schiff subpoenas. they are saying that this right is unbridled. host: you said he published these records. published, i assume, in the committee records. what was adam schiff's intent in doing that? guest: to harass the president. you know, i know what he did.

his intent i speculate on. i speculate that he abused the sixth amendment and the rights of the president and the constitutional rights of the targets of the subpoenas and those whose records were published as part of a jihad against president trump. now he is complaining that the justice department was asking questions of him secretly. contrary to what he did, it was under court process. you know, it is interesting. we hear from the justice department that they are independent of the body and white house. joe biden complains about subpoenas to journalists, so the justice department says they are going to do -- to stop doing that, practically speaking. now we have the justice department shutting down its investigation into schiff. i think it is interesting how quickly the justice department jumped to squelch investigations into the president's allies in the media and, chris -- media

and congress. host: tom fitton leads judicial watch. (202) 748-8001 four republicans. democrats, (202) 748-8000. for all others, (202) 748-8002. in 2019 your group filed suit against adam schiff and the judiciary committee. what happened in that lawsuit? guest: we didn't win. the lower court ruled the debate clause protects the secrecy of these records. the appellate court also agreed. it is interesting, because we did not sue under foia, because congress exempts itself from the freedom of information act. we sued under the common-law right of access to government records. at least one of the judges on the appellate court said this is an interesting issue, and she could not overrule the circuit

here, but certainly the issue of whether or not the public has a right to access these records deserves balancing with the speech or debate privilege congress has. it pops up again in the january 6 debate, because we cannot get records from the police force at the u.s. capitol because that hope of perforce is not subject to foia. there is this secrecy around january 6, because congress immunized itself, or attempted to, from the transparency requirements other government officials follow. host: on january 6, would you be in favor of a 911 style investigation into it? guest: commission is a political process. i'm talking about a legal process that judicial watch is pursuing. these records should be public, and the public and decide what

to make of them. we have asked for the video records. we have not gotten them. we have asked for records about the shooting of ashli babbitt. have not gotten them. i don't know what they are hiding. we aim to find out. host: you accused adam schiff of running a spy operation. explain that a little bit more in detail. guest: when someone takes your phone records without you knowing about it and then publishes them, that is a spy operation. that is what schiff was doing. when you look at the records that were published, there was no there there. it was just a smear operation. this is concerning. our your phone records being published, i ask you, dear viewer? i don't know. we don't know, because congress says they can do it in secret. host: to any of the people who

had their records subpoenaed by the intelligence committee, did they have any legal recourse on that? guest: maybe. maybe. i am no lawyer. i defer to the lawyers. host: our guest is tom fitton. let's go first to okeechobee, florida. good morning, democrats line. caller: hey, good morning. the host, ok, tom, i'm going to get to you in a minute. you, the host, ok? i am a republican. i called the republican line already and the phone rings and rings. finally i got hung up on twice. i called the democratic line, and boom, there i am online. you need to get that fixed. mr. tom fitton, i watch you religiously. you are the only one who is

getting down into the dirt trying to figure out what is going on in this country. i wish there was some way we could get those cockroaches out of congress. that means our republican cockroaches hiding in the walls. they need to be removed. you, tom, congrats, buddy. i'm going to fall you to the end of the earth. goodbye. host: tom fitton, any response? lakeland, michigan. derek, you are on with tom fitton. caller: good morning. good morning, america. tom, thank you very much. i believe investigative journalism is pretty much dead, but you give up -- you give extra life to that and i appreciate your educational foundation. i have three quick things. one is, we heard many times that no one is above the law, not even the president. we now know that hunter biden smokes crack -- which i believe is illegal in the united states

-- he buys prostitutes and escorts -- which, once again, is illegal in the united states. the second question is, the governor of virginia. as any journalist gotten an answer on whether he was dressed up as a ku klux klan member or in blackface? third question, what do you think of the organization lawfair? they are tied up in the impeachment process. host: tom fitton, do you care to tackle any of them? guest: the hunter biden issue is one of these elephants in the room in washington, d.c.. there is a federal criminal investigation. under any other circumstance -- we already solved that during the trump administration you would have had a special counsel. we need a special counsel to investigate the hunter biden issue. because he is the president's

son, and there is evidence that implicates the president and some of his miss dealings. secondly, respect to the third topic about lawfair, i don't know about them specifically, but there is this group of folks who have ins with the justice department and the deep state establishment that have defended the indefensible. that is just part of the firmament here in washington, d.c. i forget what the second issue was. do you remember? host: i don't. i remember the third, not the second, like you. we have a question on twitter asking about, when is judicial watch going to publish the cost of trump's golf outings, like they did for obama? guest: we have in the past published the costs. other media have done their own analyses, which go beyond what we did for obama.

talking about trump's costs, initially in the first part of his administration i was on every major network talking about it. when we were talking about obama we didn't get the same media coverage. the media is interested in the cost of the respective presidential travels, i thought that was quite interesting. obviously there were not interested in what obama was doing as much as trump. i said it about trump and i will say it about joe biden -- the cost of the presidency is too much. it costs too much for him to travel. there has got to be cheaper ways for him to do it. host: let's hear from connie on our republican line. go ahead. caller: morning, everyone. mr. fitton, first of all donald trump never did anything wrong

to be impeached for. and i wanted to say about joe biden and the trip to russia, his first comment when he was asked about the assault on the white house, his comment was, a police officer was killed. that was a lie. someone interrupted him with a question. they wanted to shut him up, and it did, thank goodness. the only person killed at the white house was just, as you mentioned, ashli babbitt. i wonder if her family got six or $12 million because of her being killed?

we are in a backward country right now. host: tom fitton, care to respond? guest: to be clear, ashli babbitt was killed in the capital on january 6. i don't think they have gotten any money from the government yet. i agree, there was no good-faith reason to impeach donald trump, and it was an abuse of that constitutional power. it was used twice. it was an assault on self governance. host: i want to ask you about reporting from the new york times. the headline says hunting leaks, democrats focused on records from apple. their aides and family members. was this sort of a tit for tat for the metadata sock by the phone records sock by the intelligence committee? guest: i think it was done before that was done.

what i find interesting about those news articles is that you don't know what the investigation was about. was it about leaks? who is being investigated? who was the target? when news articles are vague like that it has someone has something they don't want coming out. i want more information about why adam schiff was the subject of a jan -- of a grand jury investigation. the media coverage has been, how dare anyone investigate adam schiff? i don't believe it can be the case that a congressman or journalist get to be immune from ranger investigations and lawful subpoenas. whether i trust the justice department to investigate jaywalking, that is another matter. i think the justice department has proven itself incapable of fairly investigating anyone, but certainly adam schiff is not immune from the investigations. that is what the rule of law is about. host: has it become too

politicized on both sides as a new administration comes in. why do you suppose it has become that way? guest: we could talk a long time about that, but typically when you are talking about politicians caught up in the investigations by the justice department, almost nothing normal happens. it really kind of distorts what ought to be a fair investigative and prosecutorial process. and that is true for both democrats and republicans. usually the republicans have been most recently on the wrong end of that. host: what was the issue that led you to where you are now in terms of your group? why did you start it? guest: it was around a few years before i joined it. we had the clinton corruption back when we were founded in 1994.

we have got this transparency crisis that has been going on at the federal government for years and years. under the obama administration things metastasized in terms of lawlessness by the federal government. you know, president trump was targeted by some of the folks that engaged in the lawlessness throughout the obama administration and now we are back to square one in terms of contempt for the rule of law. that is especially true in the immigration area, where joe biden has effectively shut down large portions of border enforcement, and virtually all interior enforcement of our laws. it is very dangerous. it is one thing to be secretive, it is one thing to have government officials get away with breaking the rules. it is another thing when doing so places innocent americans in harm's way. host: let's hear from ann. go ahead. caller: i have a couple of

questions. he said you are nonprofit, did not say you are a right organization. you forgot to mention that, that you are out for the republicans or the trump party, shall we say. you are on their side. that is number one. guest: that is not true. we are not. caller: oh, please. number two, how much did he make off of the secret service? how many hundreds of thousands of dollars did that miserable human being make off of the secret service? and how much did he steal from americans? guest: are you talking about joe biden or president trump? caller: who do you think i'm talking about? guest: i ask, because joe biden initially was getting rent from the secret service when he was vice president. we uncovered that and investigated that. other media have investigated that the secret service paid trump for the use of his

facilities, which is something that happens in the ordinary course. host: the amount that the secret service paid overtime, was it about what any president over a course of four years, about what they would spend four their needs to cover a president when he traveled? guest: you know, it depends on where the president is traveling. he was staying in mar-a-lago, so you have to pay mar-a-lago prices. they use hotels around there, presumably. when president obama flew to hawaii for his extensive vacationing the prices were significant, for obvious reasons , it being in hawaii, to put up secret service to protect him. host: let's go to jimmy in virginia on the independent line. caller: yes, good morning and thank you for taking my call. they talk about the attack, you know, january 6. let's talk about a real attack

that happened. it is called benghazi, and nothing has been happening. that was an attack on this country, when 13 people were killed, and everybody seems to forget it. we saw obama sitting there. we saw hill the witch sitting there. of course biden, his usual idiots self. nothing has been done. where is the investigation going with that? let's ask why hasn't this harris chick gone there and seen what is going on? and the huge number of people coming to this country. i guess they want to keep adding onto the democrats and get as many votes as they can. let's get with real issues as to what is happening in this country. host: tom fitton, any response? guest: four people were killed in benghazi, and judicial watch

investigated what i consider to be the most significant nongovernmental investigation in recent history. our investigation led to the disclosure of documents that led to the select committee on benghazi, and also our foias uncovered the clinton emails, the disclosure of which changed the course of history, it can be argued. did we get the full accountability we wanted? no, but we got significant accountability in large measure thanks to judicial watch. host: do you think donald trump abused his authority and asking the former attorney general to investigate people like adam schiff? guest: i don't know if he did that. certainly he is within his rights to do so if there is evidence of crimes. asking the justice department to do its job -- i think adam schiff should be investigated as

regards to leaking information, for a variety of reasons. this idea that the justice department thinks it is independent of the president, that is unconstitutional. the president has the right -- and frankly should pursue it more vigorously -- to get the justice department to do its job. to investigate -- especially very public issues of corruption. hillary clinton's emails, for instance. the justice department refused to look at it again under president trump. they think they answer in many ways to no one with regard to their decision-making or prosecutions. or even to whether to ask questions. forget about prosecuting someone, they didn't even want to ask anyone questions on these issues. it didn't matter whether obama or trump was running things.

host: let's hear from mike in the new jersey. go ahead. caller: good morning, c-span. thank you for taking my call and always having somebody totally different from my point of view, it makes you think. you said you were not a lawyer. what is your background to make you part of judicial watch? doesn't make a little bit of sense. is there constitutional knowledge that you bring to the table? pardon me. a woman earlier said you were not bipartisan. i think you are trying to make the argument that you work? i have watched you almost every time you are on c-span, because you certainly get my irish up, she is a good thing. you seem to be very partisan. thank you for taking my call. guest: i am just a regular guy. i am running judicial watch.

you don't need any special expertise to be concerned about our country and try to use a group in concert with other fine americans who work at judicial watch and our supporters to hold government accountable. our results speak for themselves in terms of whether i am prepared and i have the background to do the work. we are the largest and most effective government watchdog group in the country, if not the world. judicial watch is nonpartisan. just because them across get caught up in criminal investigations and their conduct is grievous in the office does not mean we are doing at to advance the interests of the republican party. judicial watch sued the trump administration probably more than any other group in america, and we will sue the biden administration war than any other group in america, and whoever comes next. i have raised issues about the abuse of power by the justice department that applies to

republicans and democrats. i concerns about congress are subpoenaing people. i want congress to be transparent. republicans have not been there for me on that. i think -- i have been critical of republicans in terms of their cynical approach to handling corruption issues. we are nonpartisan. host: we say good morning to john on the independent line. caller: hi. thank you for your great work. i wonder why it is always republicans -- there was a grand jury and everything. i was wondering if you know anything about this report coming out? host: i'm having difficulty

hearing the caller. guest: he wanted to know why republicans were seemingly prosecuted, like, and people like that getaway. comey was a republican and he got away. in many ways it is the deep state, who you know and your connections and the institutional prerogatives of the fbi. it should not be a surprise that the doj are hesitant to prosecute the leaders of the doj and fbi. with respect to the report, i don't know when it is coming out. i will be interesting -- interested to read the report. the worst corruption scandal in recent history, which is the obama targeting of trump and the continuing of that targeting by his allies after trump came into office. that report, that and a quarter get you a cup of coffee. where is the questioning, as i

have said? there is no evidence that durham has done any serious investigation of the matters he was asked to investigate. host: any indication of when that report is coming out? guest: i have known. it is now june. he was appointed in april 2019. there was one prosecution that kind of fizzled in some respects, and that is the end. there is no other activity we can see. host: t -- to pam in north carolina. go ahead. caller: mr. fitton i have watched you on fox mainly, and my question for you is this. michael: went to prison in part due to paying hush money to a person that claimed to have an affair with donald trump, and

donald trump was named as individual one cleanly the court filings. what i would like to know is, do you think that is fair? because donald trump actually signed one of those checks paying michael: back in february 2017. -- michael cohen back in february 2017. guest: i saw that. i thought that was corrupt. the justice department got him to sign off on that. he was never tried on that. i'm not even sure he committed any crimes related to that. this is a typical approach that the justice department had toward donald trump. change the rules, change the confidentiality agreement for which money is paid, which is standard, and try to make it

into a crime or campaign-finance violation. that was an abuse of power by the justice department and shows you -- again, the whole investigation of: was an abuse of trump and his right to have an attorney. host: tom fitton is president of judicial watch. tom fitton, thanks for being with us. guest: you are welcome. thank you for having me. host: ahead here on "washington journal," president biden is set to outline his crime strategy this afternoon. we will talk next to jeff asher, who is with datalytics. jeff asher and your calls and comments, next. >> coming up today on c-span,

the house is back at 10:00 a.m. eastern for general speeches. afternoon members begin work on legislation to protect older workers against age discrimination. at 10:00 a.m. on c-span2, the house armed services committee has lloyd austin testifying on the president's 2022 budget requests. that is followed by the senate returning to consider judicial nominations for the seventh circuit court of appeals. on c-span3, a house oversight subcommittee meets. at 2:00 a.m., another hearing with christopher wray. >> c-span's landmark cases explores the stories and constitutional drama behind significant supreme court decisions. sunday at 9:45 p.m. watch gideon rain white.

gideon was denied a court-appointed lawyer. the supreme court ruled that the accused must be provided a lawyer if they cannot afford one. watch landmark cases sunday night at nine: 45 eastern on c-span, online at c-span.org, or listen on the c-span radio app. >> "washington journal" continues. host: jeff asher joins us. he is the cofounder of ah datalytics. here to talk about the rise in crime in the country. welcome to the program. guest: thank you for having me. host: tell us about your company. what do you look at specifically? guest: we started about two years ago. we work within the terminal justice sector, doing data analytics for organizations that need help.

a lot of police departments, criminal justice agencies, prosecutor offices that have no experience with doing data, doing analytics. either starting off from the ground floor, learning what your data infrastructure looks like, earning about the types of data you want to be collecting, and ultimately building the tools that allow you to collect and analyze data in a way that leads to better policies. host: what is the type of data you get from police departments across the country? guest: it depends. anything from traffic stops, traffic tickets, crime incidents, to use of force, misconduct complaints, all the way up to management-type topics, like evaluating overtime usage and things like that. depends on the agency, depends on the need, and depends on data availability. host: correct me if i'm wrong, but early on during the pandemic

crime was obviously down at that time, right? guest: we talk about crime, we are really talking about how the fbi defines it, which is the uniform crime report, which is property crime and violent crime. property crime was down big last year, as much as 15% in the early parts of the pandemic, largely because of a drop in mobility, whereas violent crime was down slightly, then rebounded to be up very slightly last year. 99.8 percent of crimes are not homicides, but people tend to think about homicide and murder, and for very good reason. murder was up 25% or more last year. host: our guest comes to this position with experience both with the new orleans police department, jefferson parish, and also with the central intelligence agency and defense

department as an analyst. with your own company here, datalytics, how commonly is your data used by police departments and other organizations? guest: first off, it is rarely our data. we are working with data collected by the agencies. we are the conduit by which police departments are able to look at things smarter and look at them that are. our personal analyses, we keep a running to the murders nationwide. we are up to 72 cities. we are frequently cited in media, frequently cited in academic journals. i have written for the new york times, slate, and i am sure more that i'm missing. host: from the new york times, a look at some cities across the country and a rise in homicide rates. in portland, oregon, the

homicide rate is up to 53. it is up 82%. tucson, the homicide rate is up 76%. in minneapolis it was up 72%. in philadelphia, 28%. is there a common theme in the rise of crime across these cities and others? guest: yeah, the common theme is that they were american cities. the fbi's preliminary data through the end of last year showed that murder was up 20% or more in cities of every size. cities under 10,000, cities between 100000 and 240 9000, and cities over one million. all of those had murder up at least 20%. murder was up 15% in the suburbs. from the available evidence, most of our evidence comes from cities publishing data, it was not just big cities that saw big

rises. of the 81 cities above 200,000 that report data to the fbi in 2020 so far, murder was up in 64 of them. murder was up at least 30% in half of the cities, 40 of the 80 cities. what we saw last year was dramatic, historic, and nearly universal. host: in terms of the rise in homicide rates, washington post headline says that, as homicides soar, mayors see few options for regaining control. what are some of the options in terms of federal assistance typically in the past that has been offered that could be offered this time with those cities? guest: usually you see a surge in federal resources. you see increases in federal attorneys assigned, fbi special agents assigned. usually there are increases in grants. i think we will see a lot of

that with the biden administration's proposal. my understanding is that they are working to work on one trafficking. last year there was a large rise in gun violence, a large increase in shootings. there are cities where they are trying to do large introductions of gun trafficking. ultimately the limited options for the government, because it is so universal, it is so big, and it is hyper-local as far as, how do you solve it? the things that will empower mayors, empower local police departments, local communities are the things that will be more effective in the long run and the federal government's law enforcement responses are unlikely to mask the scale of the problem in terms of their ability to intercede in the short term and make any drastic changes. host: didn't the trump

administration try some of this? i think it was with chicago, they surged fbi resources. i believe it was chicago in 2020 or 2019? guest: 2020, it was operation legend. not too dissimilar of a response, although specifically law enforcement-focused. the major issue is that it is largely a drop in the bucket. it is a near-universal increase and federal law enforcement, there just are not that many federal law enforcement officers to make a dramatic increase, even if the answer was inherently increased law enforcement is what we need to. i am not entirely sold that is the case. i think the cause is complicated and solutions are unlikely to be , just increase officers and you will see a decrease in murders. host: jeff asher is our guest. his company is ah datalytics.

we are talking about the rise in homicides across the country. the lines are this. if you are in the eastern or central time zones it is (202) 748-8000. mountain and pacific time zones, that line is (202) 748-8001. jeff asher, is there any correlation between the rise in homicides and the rise in the other crimes, property crimes, for example? guest: typically there is only a weak relationship between taft and burglary. and a reasonably strong one between auto theft and murder. last year was the -- auto theft was the one property crime that rose. there is a relationship there. it is difficult to suss out. typically you see an increase in shootings, and when people are doing shootings they're going to want stolen cars. that leads to increases in auto thefts.

that is an evidence-free hypothesis there. go back the last 25 years, when murder goes up, auto theft tends to go up. last year it was even more strongly related. host: it has been a few months since things have started to open up in terms of cities and the easing of restrictions, have there been any signs in terms of where the crime rate is going, particularly the homicide rate? guest: right now we have 72 cities we are tracking. in those 72 cities murder is up 18%. historically you get 25, 50 cities, you can do a great job of predicting the national murder trend. the challenge this year is in understanding what it means and, is it a valid comparison this early in the year? because we know last year that it was very much not that murder

was up 25% through march. murder was up 7% through march, 15% through june, 20 1% through september, then 25% through december. there was this acceleration that picked up in the second and third quarters. we are really comparing pre-rise 2020 months to post-rise 2021 months, so the question is, murder is up, but is it decelerating? if it is up 18% now but not rising as fast as it did last year, we may only end up 10% this year, which would still be very bad -- it is obviously a tragedy and historically very bad and will have probably the most murders since the early 1990's if that is the case, but it would show a pattern that is not inherently getting worse and a challenge of comparing

pandemic 2020 with post-pandemic 2021. host: is there a correlation between the availability of guns and the rise in crime or the flip of that, the restrictive gun laws in many of those cities in terms of guns? is there a correlation there? guest: it is not inherently a correlation between gun laws. it is a difficult thing, because it is tough to rank gun laws and determine which states have the easiest. in addition, a state like illinois that has harsher gun laws right next to a state like indiana that has easier gun laws just means a large number of chicago shootings are using guns coming from outside of illinois. the correlation exists when you look at the crime guns in the atf, the number of guns the atf is recovering. most of which are not homicides. which is an indication of the

number of illegal guns floating around in a state and a state's moderate. louisiana has led murders for 30 years and also has the highest rate of firearms being recovered in the state. there is certainly some evidence of a relationship there between illegal guns and high murder rates. host: let's get to calls. we will start with mike in whitehouse, ohio. go ahead. caller: really appreciate you guys being on. i have a million things to say, but i will try to keep it short growing up in the country, living outside of toledo i was curious if your company looks into or provides any data -- whether it be publicly or privately -- on the people in these cities committing these crimes have any sort of nuclear family, access to jobs, public transportation systems? is there a ranking or data compiled that would provide

correlation? to me, i am a gun owner. everybody i know owns guns. none of those guns have ever killed a human being. i was interested if your company dives into the statistics of certain demographics. thank you. guest: it is an excellent question. that is a little deeper than we tend to go, and i think the challenge there is that usually the information on victims and perpetrators is going to be held relatively tightly by law enforcement agencies. it is not inherently something most law enforcement agencies tend to look at, what if they do it is usually in conjunction with an academic partner doing much more, deeper academic research than we tend to do. host: in new york we hear from joanne. morning. caller: good morning. this is joanne. my question has to do with the

defunding the police in all of these large cities and the riots that happened right after george floyd. the action to defund the police has had a definite effect on the fact that we cannot track the drug trafficking in the cities that the police are trying to apprehend. they have lost their undercover agents in new york city and the gangs are taking over. they are affecting everybody's safety, and i don't think we can defund the police and have safe streets. could you address that please? guest: this is actually something i have looked into. i tracked 105 cities with available murder data from 2019 and 2020. and budget data from 2019 and 2020.

there is no relationship between the rise in murder in places that reduce their police budgets and places that increase their police budgets. i think there is a couple of reasons for that. one being that budget changes were relatively small in most places. they happen relatively late in the year. most places like minneapolis reduced its police budget, but did so in december. new orleans did it in november. it is unlikely to have had any impact on 2020. and also the other reason being that it is relatively normal in times of economic stress of the 105 cities, about 34% of them reduced their police budgets, she's pretty much on par with what we saw in the early 2010s. there was a lot of talk about reducing police budgets, but there was not really a lot of

places that did it and did it substantially. so, when the 105 cities i looked at, murder was up in something like 79% of the cities that increased their police budget. it was up in 84% of cities that decreased their police budget. not really a meaningful difference. the difference is whether or not the changes in police budget, most places that reduced them are looking to increase them now. the question is whether or not that one time decrease has a longer-term impact. where i am from in the new orleans, in 2010 they had a hiring freeze for the police department and they lost about 400 officers. they have only been able to gain back 100 officers and it has been seven years. that is the type of thing i think and have a really long term impact on a law enforcement

agency's capabilities and personnel size. so, i think when we talk about reducing police budgets in 2020, for whatever reason -- be it economic or defund the police rationale, the longer term implications are more troublesome, potentially, then the short-term implication. host: are you hearing any anecdotal evidence or reporting on police departments that are pulling back in terms of their enforcement of certain crimes or pulling back and certain areas of the city, perhaps as in the aftermath of all of the protests last year and the george floyd killing? guest: i looked at this in a piece in vox, and we looked at stop and arrest in 10 cities that had publicly-available data. we found that there was a definite drop in the change in

arrests and stops. it started in march, april in response to the pandemic, police pulling back and people being quarantined. then it picked up in may, and dropped again in june and july, and started to pick up through the end of the year. it was definitely a pattern of -- if you want to call it a pullback or decrease in arrests and stops. it is not inherently a satisfying explanation for why murder rose last year, only because in a lot of places like new orleans and new york police have been decreasing for decades. williams averaged 60,000 arrests 10 years ago, and had 15,000 in 2019, when the city had the fewest murders in half a century. there is no clear relationship. the other reason being that

there was a drop in june or july, but it mimics what happened in march and april and we did not see a surge in violence in the and april. but with the police pulling back in march and april not be responsible for any change, but in june and july it was responsible? when i talk about last year's rise in murder i think it was a complicated story, and it is possible that fewer police on the streets, fewer police making certain types of arrests had an impact, but it does not explain why violence shot up so quickly when it did. it is just not as satisfying of an answer. the other thing we found was that police were finding more firearms. in chicago there was an 80% drop in stops, at a 70% increase in the firearms they found. that suggests one of the causes was that people were carrying a

lot more guns in may and the early months of the pandemic, even before the death of george floyd, then they were in the january/february months. host: good morning. caller: i am so relieved somebody is keeping track of these statistics. thank you. i am calling about violence against women. the statistics i have seen show the incredible increase in domestic violence. is anybody keeping track of who is being shot? the violence against women act is being held up in the senate by joni ernst and the republicans because it has a provision that keeps guns out of the hands of domestic abusers and intimate partners. i think it is really important if we could know, has this anything to do with the pandemic and the violence against women? host: thank you for your call.

jeff asher? guest: that is an excellent question. you don't have data now, and we will get some data from the fbi in september when they release their official the to stakes, that it is not something that is particularly well-capped, so we don't have a good understanding of how many murders each year our domestic-related. domestic violence is one of the items i would point to as a logical explanation for why murder is up. basically, abusers and domestic violence victims are together and people cannot get away from each other. it was possible that was one explanation, but we don't have a ton of evidence to support it or refute it. you probably will not get hard evidence for a little while, if ever. host: a follow on that from dave who tweets, could you ask the guest for stats on violent crime against family members versus the public at large?

guest: that is a great question. it would be something i would love to be able to answer, but we probably will not ever get that level of detail. it is unfortunately not something we do a great job of tracking, and it is possible that the fbi is switching to a new data collection method from the srs, and it is possible we will have more insight into the nuggets of crime, the agencies are supposed to switch that that next year, so it will be a little while before we have an understanding of being able to answer questions with that level of nuance. host: a headline from the hill, rising violent crime poses new challenge for the white house. we will hear from the president about that at 3:30 eastern. we'll keep you posted on our coverage plans.

we will go to been from california. caller: good morning. my question is, who is doing all of this crime? guest: i mean, americans are. i don't know that there is inherently a single person doing all of the crime or single group or single thing you can point to that is driving crime in america right now. host: we will hear from tyrone in the nation's capital. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i had a question -- actually, a few questions. do you guys recognize if there is any sort of biases in the data you may have collected? do you collect data from places like internal affairs, with regards to crimes?

also, i'm pretty sure homicides do not just happen with guns. then mass shootings as well. there is a few things, but i will let you. guest: there is certainly inherent biases in the all data, and crime data being no different from that. murder tends to feel like one that is the least biased, because there is a body. things like police manpower can impact whether crimes get reported. we know that rapes and sexual assaults are badly under-reported. we know that auto theft tends to be reported pretty well. we have enough evidence that we should have some confidence in some crime data, and less confidence in other parts of crime data. to the degree there are biases that is mostly in the collection, especially in measuring offenses. there is a lot of bias in who is

getting arrested and when and where and for what crimes, so generally we are not talking about measuring crime, we are talking about offenses being reported by victims. host: jack in minnesota asks this question. is there any connection? guest: not that i am aware. i know that you see in the headlines occasionally, undocumented immigrants will be accused of a murder, but usually there is not a lot of evidence, especially in the most cities, in terms of why murder is rising. there is no relationship there. in the new orleans i have been tracking murders since 2008 and i am not aware of an undocumented person that was the perpetrator of a single murder here. host: we have a couple of seconds, but what do you expect

to hear from the president on this this afternoon? guest: i think this is sort of his first effort to take the reins of this. it has obviously been something we are about 12 months into seeing this really horrific rise, and i guess this is going to be a challenge for him. it may take all four years or eight years of his presidency to bring things down, but i'm guessing that you will start to see more ownership of it. it is hard to see -- to say how effective they will be, but it is certainly better than passing the puck off to cities and letting them try their best on their own. host: jeff asher, cofounder of the company ah datalytics. thank you for joining us this morning. guest: thank you for having me. host: that is it for today's "washington journal." we will keep you posted on any coverage plans for the

president, his comments on the crime increased. that is set for this afternoon. the president this morning speaking at the funeral of john warner. we take you live now to the u.s. house. they are coming in for morning speeches. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's room, washington, d.c., june 23, 2021. i hereby appoint the honorable jimmy gomez to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, nancy pelosi, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the order of the house of january 4, 2021, the chair will now recognize members from lists submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning hour debate. the chair will alternate recognition between the parties. with time equally allocated between the parties and each member other than the majority and minority leaders and minority whip limited to five minutes. but in no event shall debate