relationship with latino voters. join the discussion with your phone calls, comments, and tweets. washington journal is next. host: it's a wash in a wash and journal for december 19. one of the agenda items for democrats was to pass two pieces of legislation that would've changed aspects of voting rights. congress and the first term of the current session passing neither of those bills. for the first hour of the program, we want to ask you about current voting laws in the united states and if you believe changes are needed. this is how you can reach out to us. (202) 748-8000 four democrats.

(202) 748-8001 four republicans. (202) 748-8002 four independent voters. if you want to texas your thoughts, you can do that at (202) 748-8003. you can post on facebook. you can also post on our twitter feed. congress is heading out for the holiday break. the hill writing about some of the things that were left undone in this first term, including voting rights. the author writes: like having y

trying to go to nbc news, it talks about two democratic senators in particular, this story adding that they are both supportive of the freedom to vote act that would enshrine access guarantees across the states. the john lewis voting act would have limits on states with a history of demonstration. neither supports a rule change to get around the 60 votes threshold. just to give you the general purpose or the general idea of what they are, the freedom to vote act would require states to have a 15 day early voting window. it would make election day a federal holiday. it would mandate same-day voting registration. it would bar states from drawing

put boundaries that favor a political party. that is the summary. it is noted that amy klobuchar has several cosponsors, including senator joe manchin. when it comes to the john lewis voting rights act also considered in the senate, it would restore full protection of the voting rights act of 1965, it would expand the formula to identify discriminatory voting patterns and localities. they would need to get justice department approval before making changes to election laws. those are various sources. that is a broad overview. that is some of the legislative ideas in the senate. you can let us know what you think about those pieces of legislation. republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats (202) 748-8000. independent voters, (202)

748-8002. president biden on friday brought up his desire to see voting rights legislation passed. here is some of that portion from friday. >> i was chairman of the jewish erie committee for long time. before i became vice president, i was able to pass an extension of the voting rights act for 25 years. i thought we are finally finally beginning to move. this new sinister combination of voter suppression and election subversion is un-american. it's undemocratic. it is unprecedented since reconstruction. vice president harris is making efforts for us.

i directed every single federal agency in the government to promote access to voting. each agency is heating the call. for example, the department of veterans affairs make it easier for veterans to register to vote. because we are going to use the v.a. facilities. nobody's going to stop anybody. across the board, in addition it, the justice department has doubled the voting rights enforcement staff, challenging laws undermining the right to vote. we have supported this from day one of our administration, making sure we have unanimous support in the senate. each time it gets brought up, the other team blocks the ability to discuss it. the other team. it used to be called the republican party. this battle is not over.

we must pass the freedom to vote act, the john lewis voting rights act. we must. we are going to keep up the fight until we get it done. we need your help badly. >> you are watching c-span, your unfiltered view of government. c-span was created by america's cable television companies in 1979. today, we are brought to you by these television companies, who provides c-span to viewers as a public service. host: that was president biden from friday. if you want to see that complete address, go to our website, c-span.org. you can call us on the lines, post on facebook and twitter. melissa's -- melissa is in indiana. go ahead. caller: i wholeheartedly support the freedom to vote act. we need to do that with all of the redistricting and it's obvious what the republicans are up to. without that, i fear our democracy is in peril. it is difficult to vote in indiana.

how so? we vote 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.. we are the first state that turns red every four years. except for one exception. clearly, we need options. voting should be easy and accessible. you shouldn't worry about if you can make it to the gas station and go. host: is the problem that you see the timeframe involved? caller: the timeframe and locations are bad for us. 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. is difficult. we have a lot of blue-collar workers that can't leave. employers don't support it. we have a very low voter turnout. as a matter fact, i am never in

the county i live in on voting day. i have to vote absentee by mail. with our current postmaster, i am checking that mail ballot probably as soon as i know it left my po box. i don't have faith in that. we all know that it was part of the problem with our last election. we need to pass the voting -- freedom to vote act. host: let's hear from rich in ohio. caller: people are getting hit under $400,000 because of the voting that is going on. they think it's their own money. one instance right now, people that have retirement accounts have to take a distribution

every year of the money. if they do not do that, they will be taxed 50% of that money. host: how does that relate to voting rights? caller: if you don't invite, they will confiscate the poor man's money. host: you are saying -- what is the voting system in ohio like? caller: that's the problem. people not going to be paying their heating bills. the heating is made by natural gas, petroleum. host: as far as the voting system, how would you describe that? caller: people are going to freeze in their houses. host: we will go to rate in arizona. -- ray in arizona. caller: the fellow in height --

in ohio is illustrate some of the learning ideas. they are not going to get a chance again. they will be a minority party in perpetuity. when that happens, they are dealing with people with no integrity. if republicans get power again, they are not going to give it up. host: what is it about the freedom to vote act that would change things? caller: you want to negate some of these laws like georgia and arizona. i had to reregister and make sure i was still in the early voting list. i've been voting by mail. they probably -- i had to

reregister for that. 4 for the 2016 election? caller: for the 2022 election. when they passed this law. host: what was your experience with the 2016 election? caller: no problem whatsoever. or the 2020. host: let's go to barbara in indiana. ohio perhaps. could morning. caller: it's oklahoma. host: i apologize for that go-ahead. caller: the only person i've ever seen turned away from a voting place was when obama was running. i don't member what state it was. it was on the news. they had a black panther marching up the voting place on the steps. there was a white man standing down. he would not vote because the guy had a billy club.

that is the only -- being from california, i have voted with everybody. i've been voting since i could vote. i have never seen anybody except that one turned away from a voting place. host: are you suggesting that voting rights changes aren't needed? caller: i don't think they are needed. i can remember when i use to leave work for an hour and go vote in california. i don't know why they changed that law or why the companies stopped it. they used to let people off for an hour to go vote. host: barbara in oklahoma given us her thoughts on people posting on facebook and twitter as well. these are facebook postings:

william in connecticut. very little in connecticut needs to change. texting us is one way. (202) 748-8003 if you want to do that. a columnist for the washington post talks about efforts on changes to voting rights. he adds this:

dear all more on that column if you want to talk about that. the minority leader was on thursday making comments about efforts to change voting rights efforts on the senate. these are some of those comments from last thursday. >> there is not a single state in america has passed a law that is making it more difficult to vote based upon race.

the voting rights act is still fully intact. it's been against the law since the 60's and remains against the law today to discriminate against people based upon race. there are things that states do engage in to ensure ballot security. things like voter id at the polls. most americans thanks that is a reasonable suggestion. the state of new york just in this recently completed election had votes on the ballot on same-day registration and no excuse absentee voting. liberal new york defeated both of them. most americans understand that ballot security measures guarantee the integrity of their own vote and do prevent the

temptation to cheat by others. the notion -- one of the big lies is that the state legislatures are at work trying to deny people the right to vote. host: he made those comments on friday. can find them online at our website. c-span.org. caller: good morning. my answer would be yes. we need to make voting a holiday. many civilized countries do that. we need to make sure that the polls stay open 24 hours to make sure everybody gets to vote. we had no problem voting in maryland. nobody threatens anybody. it is peaceful voting.

we need to be a holiday. along with that, mitch mcconnell just proved that we need term limits on congress and scotus. host: as far as making it a holiday, what would change versus voter participation? why would that get people out to vote. caller: they would have time to figure out what they needed to do, things like that. it would give them plenty of time, there wouldn't be a lot of rush-hour traffic. it would be peaceful voting. host: is it difficult where you live? caller: no. we are just fine. as a matter fact, i am right down the street from my voting area. there is a school next door to me. it's a polling place. we make it very easy in our county.

even with larry hogan as a governor, he is made it easy for everybody to vote. i thank him for that. have a nice day. host: jean is in pennsylvania. caller: good morning. i agree that the law needs to be passed into law. basically, states that are controlled by one party are changing the laws. gerrymandering districts in their favor, listening to mr. mcconnell's response about voting, in my mind, it's a good reason why we need the voting right act. i used to be a moderate republican. i left the party in 1982. besides voting rights, laws need

to be passed. we need to change the law requiring term limits for politicians and we need to go back and change campaign funding. they are the two main reasons why voting in this country is becoming a fraudulent thing. host: how difficult is it to vote their? caller: it's not difficult to vote in the state. in blair county, when we had the pandemic and that was the first time. i couldn't vote until i was 21. in our area and our county, we weren't allowed to have boxes of

the courthouse to deposit your vote. the day i went in, got my ballot, filled it out, the next day i went back to the courthouse and gave it to the election board. the three legislators in our area fought the idea of having a box set out where you could drop in the ballot. they keep on screaming voting fraud in pennsylvania by our one party legislature. i've been asking different legislators for proof of voting fraud. every time i have asked to see proof that there was fraud committed anywhere in pennsylvania, i never got a response. host: that is jean in pennsylvania. caller: thank you for taking my call.

i would like to say i agree with some of what every caller has said so far. it sounds like the democrats are worried about the 2022 election. hello? i'm sorry. the one thing that is not in the bill is the requirement for voter id. the simplest thing and the most logical thing ever. voter id is required for everything we do. , including getting the vaccine. it's ridiculous that we don't have a requirement for voter id. host: is it difficult to vote there in mississippi? caller: it's excellent in the state of mississippi.

they require voter id. it's very organized. it's very safe. it couldn't be easier. i would just like to say, there is only one reason why someone would be against voter id. that's because they want to cheat. i want to thank you. i think you are very fair. i enjoy watching. host: thank you for watching. let's hear from diane in minnesota. caller: i would have to say in minnesota that the voting laws are quite equal. that's not the concern of myself . when i'm concerned about is other states who are sending senators to the senate and help

select the president. we need federal laws to ensure that voting rights are not restricted. that is part of the constitutional rights. african-americans and people of color did not get that. i was raised in arkansas. i watched my grandmother and my mother do the poll tax were you had to pay to be able to vote. you had to count jellybeans in a jar. i remember my grandfather trying to find how many jellybeans were in a jar. we don't want to go back to those days. the voting rights act that was in place before john roberts get it, it made sure that states who were doing those kinds of things back in the day had to show they were not putting voters rights

restrictions and laws that were going to hinder voting. that's what happened in the south. i love it in minnesota. you don't have to have voter id. you can register the same day. we can send our ballots in. we have early voting. this gives people the opportunity to vote because we have a lot of people who can't get off work to go vote. host: that was diane in minnesota. in morning. caller: good morning. i don't think voting laws need to be changed. it seems to me that every state is able to do their voting in a non-fraudulent way. i don't understand why the

democrats are so against needing an id, since you need an id to do anything in this country. it seems to me that during the 2020 election, it was just democratic states that changed the rules concerning their legislatures being able to change any voting rules. we had attorney general's. host: which states are you talking about? caller: they change the rules in their state concerning -- it was all over covid. no one ever seemed to have a problem to go to the grocery store, to go anywhere because of covid. all of a sudden, there was a major problem to be able to go vote.

in my state, in my district, i've never had a problem voting. sometimes the line is long. sometimes it's not long. it depends on the election. host: what makes you believe it's the same where you live across the 50 states? caller: i don't believe anybody has been suppressed. i don't believe some of the states missouri has not change their voting laws recently. georgia recently did. i don't believe they are trying to suppress anyone from being able to get out and vote. you have online. you have mail. they want you to go and register to vote. if you don't want to take the

time to do that, don't complain about it. host: that is rick in missouri. he mentions georgia. if you go to the washington post, glenn kessler who publishes occasionally things he calls pinocchio's about politicians compared to the truth, he highlights the pinocchio of the year something president biden said. the new law ends voting hours early. he writes that he condemned the new georgia election law that imposed strict shins on voting.

there are other things there if you want to read them at the washington post website. we are asking you what you think about voting laws. you can call us on the various lines. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independent voters, (202) 748-8002. you can talk to us on social media. election audits should have zero out like a bank account audit.

that is tommy from sarasota. tim and rhode island says we need to change the voting day from tuesday to saturday. you can add your thoughts by text or social media. this is can in ohio. you are next. caller: i would just like to say if they change anything, they need to make it more transparent. in ohio, we have id. we stand in lines. i'm 70. my back is terrible. if i can stand in line, anybody can. host, what you looking for?

caller: if somebody's got a beef about the voting in our state, it should be counted and it should be public. the public should see what's going on. it's not being done. we are not going to do that. if there's nothing to hide it, there shouldn't be a beef about it. host: what makes you think transparency isn't happening? caller: like i said, i think the january 6, that's what got those people crazy, the lack of transparency. they weren't taking evidence that lawyers were putting in front of them. they would come up with some rule. host: ok.

that is ohio calling then, talking about elections. cnn has a story about something similar. this is from their website.

there is more that on the cnn site in ohio, we will hear next from john. good morning. caller: i think it's john lewis act that needs passing badly. you've got guys like the governor in texas and the one in georgia trying to change. the 2020 election was fine. they found nothing wrong. although states went back and recounted. republicans don't want to believe in facts. they want to believe in the big lie. that's the problem. if you want to make it fair, if you have to have an id, why don't they make the id free? host: what is it about the john

lewis act that would change things specifically? caller: it would stop them from gerrymandering the states. we've got to get back to the way it used to be instead of republicans and democrats. we've got to stop that. they are trying to change the people who are counting the votes. the guy in georgia would not switch votes with -- i don't know how many the president wanted changed so he could win georgia. this last election was proven that's the way we ought to do it. how many states had to recount? it turned out to be fair. host: john in ohio. this is terrence in hawaii. caller: i've got six rules that should be universal.

voter id should be confirmed and verified. noncitizens and illegals should not be able to vote. only citizens. you've got to vote in person. every voter should get a receipt of how they voted. no election changes during the year. only legislations of each state can change the laws. no one else. that would solve the problem. if you get a receipt that you voted and how you voted, that cannot change. if they say that somebody else voted or you voted for democrat, your receipt confirms that. if you are an illegal alien and you voted, that should be thrown out. host: let's hear from mike in virginia. caller: good morning.

it depends on where you are. the voting areas across the street, it's based on what the state is doing in different areas. in georgia, they want to stop the states from certifying the votes. they keep saying fraud and evidence. evidence was never presented in court. how could it be that they only cheated against trump but all the senators one even though people said they were going to lose seats. all the republican congressman

came back. it doesn't make sense. we have a lot of problems. we have gerrymandering. we have campaign finance. there cannot be senators there for life. something has got to change. host: that is mike. the news out of michigan reports that the governor is leading a group of governors urging leaders in the senate to pass that legislation that would protect the rights of american voters.

from florida, on a line for democrats, this is ron. hello. caller: thank you so much. the woman that called in from oklahoma said she is 86 years old. if she was born in 1935, she has never seen anything disparaging about voting rights for people of color? are you kidding me? i think we should have a national voting holiday. having a national holiday for voting gives people the time to get to the voting booths. people need to stop listening to

donald trump. it's been proven over and over again. you're going to take voting away from african-americans in cities , from phoenix, atlanta, milwaukee. host: what is voting like there in clearwater? caller: i do absentee ballots. i am a wounded warrior. i always vote absentee. host: john is next up in new york. caller: good morning it, thank you for all you are doing. merry christmas and happy holidays. everybody this morning that is concentrating on voter id, the

problem with the situation is the fact that they are turning around and taking some of these things which should be dealt with in a nonpartisan way and dealing it where what's happening is the fact that states like georgia are not. host: go ahead. you are still on. caller: basically, what it amounts to, georgia is already doing that. they have republican legislators in upcoming elections. they are have partisan poll watchers which does suppress the vote. you can intimidate voters. they are already turning around,

replacing election board officials in various parts of the state run by democrats. it should be totally nonpartisan. that's what a lot of the people are missing. as one person recently stated, it doesn't matter if those votes are being overturned, you could win by one million votes. and still not win a particular election. that's what it comes down to. host: john in new york giving us his thoughts. a group of students here in washington has been in front of the white house, holding a hunger strike over the issue. the washington post reports that.

there's more to that story the washington post if you want to read about students and their efforts. from duane in york, the independent line. caller: how can the u.s. be a standard bearer when they cannot get it right? you can't point to other countries and instill voting rights of citizens in other countries when we can't get it right here. when we voted for joe biden this year, we voted for change. we voted that we needed change. now we have two senators stopping this movement. we have a movement we need to have in this country. we are being stopped. republicans are not going to

help. we have two democrats standing in the way. let america prosper. we are not prospering right now. host: how do you think the changes would change voting rights overall? caller: that's a good question. if we could answer that, we can't answer it because we are still in the doldrums of senators not wanting the filibuster. host: what is it about those two pieces of legislation that are important. caller: voting rights -- it's a right. it's a right to vote. i'm not quite sure. i wish i could answer that question. host: that is duane giving us his thoughts. thanks for calling. let's hear from linda in new hampshire. hello. caller: hello.

how are you doing? i think our voting laws need to be changed. we need to show voter id. if we have to show id for everything else, our drivers license or any kind of thing with our picture on it. showing who we are, illegal aliens shouldn't be voting. you should have an id in order to vote. host: what is the rule in new hampshire? caller: we have to show id in new hampshire. you have to show your id in new hampshire. to vote. host: do you think that states

should have that authority from the federal government? caller: i think it should be every state showing id. i want every state to show id. host: that is linda -- go ahead. caller: it just upsets me that letting anybody vote. we need to have an id. i believe the elderly as it can't get out, to have mail-in voting. i don't believe in everybody having mail-in voting. i believe in early voting. i think voting should be done in person. if you are able to get out, you should be able to stand in line and vote. host: that is linda in new hampshire.

we will hear from john in pennsylvania. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. caller: voter id is something that should be required regardless if you are democrat or republican. if you want a fair election, everybody should be in favor of voter id. there is no question. if you're not for voter id, you are trying to get pull something over. get people who aren't legally citizens or whatever to be able to cast doubts. this past election, there is allegedly 81 million people that voted for president biden. you tell me where the suppression is?

you had 76 million -- 76 million people that voted for donald trump. then you had 81 million that voted supposedly for president biden. there is no voter suppression. you got 81 million people turning out. host: since you said allegedly, why do you characterize it that way? caller: i will tell you. i am in pennsylvania. i went to bed on november 3 and there was 85% of the ballots counted. president trump was up by almost 800,000 votes. when i woke him of the morning, joe biden won the state. he was leading at that point.

the judge decided he was going to keep the balloting counts open until friday so they could process more democratic votes. time and time again, people have tried to bring fraud to the courts and the courts turned it down. president trump was such a threat to these people in washington. host: you also heard people talking about they were convinced that election took place, even among them administration. caller: put somebody on tv like mike lindell. he's given $5 million to somebody that can prove what he

is stating. he has spent so much of his own money to dig into this voter fraud. you won't put him on the air because you don't want to hear what he has to say. host: nothing substantial has come out of that. caller: let him show the american people what he has uncovered with his investigation. host: what do you think he has uncovered? caller: pedro, there are international ties. host: when it comes to mike lindell, what has he uncovered? caller: he has uncovered an international conspiracy. this is what he is alleging. he is offering money for anybody to prove what he's uncovered not to be true.

there were people in italy tied to the vatican that were arrested. there were computer hacking and switching votes. host: ok. that's john in pennsylvania. given us his thoughts on voting rights and concerns he has. when it comes to the legislation that democrats have been trying to pass, it was senator schumer on friday talking about the status of where those bills are and what he expects in the new year. >> we tried to get republicans to join us on a bipartisan effort to protect our democracy. they resisted and blocked the senate from having a debate on this issue. a debate. not even a debate. on three of them, every republican voted not to go forward.

under the rules of the senate as they are presently constituted, you need 10. voting rights should not be a partisan issue. both parties are better off if our democracy is strong and safeguarded against assaults plane out at the state level. the voting restrictions we see past and republican state legislatures are the most egregious assaults on voting rights since the days of jim crow. they are being passed entirely on partyline bases. there is zero bipartisanship. in the senate, we are going to keep at it. just because republicans will not join us does not mean democrats will stop fighting on this issue. it is too important. the fight continues. host: that floor speech is available at c-span.org. stephen is texting us.

that's just a sample of the perspectives from across the

united states. from michigan, this is jim. good morning. caller: good morning. right now, we only have two parties. the democratic party in the anti-democratic party. the republicans want to steal our votes. we need the john lewis voting rights act. i have one more thing to say. i've been voting since i was 18. last year was the first time i ever did absentee. i will tell you one great thing, you could look up the people on the ballot from the judges to the school board members. you can see what they are representing it. i think that's a great thing. i think everybody should try it. host: you said republicans want to steal votes. what convinces you of that. caller: they are changing laws all over the country.

back in the 80's when reagan was in it, lee atwater said we don't want everybody to vote. we just want to vote people to vote for us. host: specifically what laws are you referring to? caller: they are trying -- for one thing, in wisconsin they are trying to make it so if they don't like the vote, the state legislature can change it. this is who we want. host: you said the john lewis voting rights act would change things. how? caller: it would keep the republicans from doing what they accuse democrats of doing it, stealing the votes. host: how? caller: like i said, they are trying to make it so legislatures can change votes. where i live, the gerrymandering

is so bad it. they are trying to redo it. i don't have any faith. it's like a jigsaw puzzle. that is done so that certain groups can gain. another candidate has no chance of winning. host: that was jim in michigan. catherine is in illinois. caller: good morning. seasons greetings to you. i want to echo what the person who just called about mail-in voting. this past year was the first time i did a male in ballot. i thought it was a blessing. i was able to sit down and think about all the people i was going to vote for. i took the time. in the past, i would be rushing,

waiting to get a booth, i was trying to be fast. i just marked and hoped i got the right one. when you're standing there with people looking at your backside, you are distracted. i think mail-in ballots are perfect. when you become of age, you should register and at election time, your ballot should come. you get that sacred document and you savor it. you fill it out. host: when it comes to the system, how was security done with that? how do you know that it got to the place it was intended and that you were registered as you intended? caller: i am in illinois. and i filled out my ballot, i took it to the post office. i didn't put it in my own

mailbox. i dropped it off. there were options where you could take it to the commissioner of voting. you could drop it in their box. there are many ways to make sure that your sacred voting document got counted. host: i was going to ask you, is there a way to find out? you get a receipt? how is that registered? caller: well, that is a point i hadn't thought about. in the past year, because of covid, that's the way they set it up. maybe there should be receipts that you can get. maybe they send you a note back saying your document was received. host: overall, you have faith in

the system? caller: i believe my sacred vote was tabulated. i think people take voting -- this is a sacred moment for our country. every citizen of age should look at it and say i am going to do my duty. host: let's hear from one more caller. this is michigan, the republican line. caller: i think the problem with the law they are trying to pass is too broad. i think they need to narrow it down so what you have are the

license to vote, something to has your picture id on it, also i think they should have continuity across all states. this is a national election. there has to be continuity in the voting. each state should not be able to regulate whether or not you need to have a voter id. or whether or not you need to have people that are standing there watching you vote. i think they do need to make election day a national holiday. many households have two people working in them. there is childcare involved. this would give them the opportunity to hand off the kids. it makes perfect sense to me.

you don't have to take time off work to do it. i really do believe it should be a national holiday. host: that finishes off this hour, hearing from you to changes in voting in the united states. thanks to all of you who participated. to everyone who purchase made it. two guests joining us in the next couple of hours. we will hear from 20 messenger. he will discuss the fees and costs of the criminal justice system. later on, geraldo cadava will discuss the republican parties relationship with latino voters. >> this year, the u.s. supreme court took up two cases which could decide the fate of roe v. wade. its landmark ruling on abortion

rights, tonight on q and a. joshua, author of the family row, talks about the complicated life and times of jane roe, the woman behind the case. the activism and the impact her actions had on her and her three daughters. >> her life is such a mirror, a window into this whole big thing of abortion in america. look at her, look at the cost of abortion. what she actually is is a fascinating testimony to, is the cost of adoption. she struggled emotionally with what it meant to release her three children to adoption. >> you can listen to this on our

c-span app. >> when roosevelt mann toss -- montas arrived in the united states for the first time, he was 12. in his book, rescuing socrates, hero when he landed at jfk airport, he had a head full of lice and a belly full of tropical parasites. in many respect, the dominican republic and native -- dominican republic native said he was an unlikely candidate for the ivy league. he earned a phd from columbia university and ran the colombian core curriculum from 2008 until 2018. the subtitle of his life story, how the great books changed my life and why they matter for a new generation. >> on this episode of book notes plus, book notes plus is available on the c-span app or wherever you get your podcasts. >> download c-span's new mobile

app and stay up to date with live video coverage of today's events, from livestream to the house and senate floor and key congressional hearings. supreme court oral arguments. even our live, interactive morning program, washington journal, where we hear your voices every day. c-span has you covered. download the app for free today. host: -- >> washington journal continues. host: our first guest is tony messenger, a columnist for the st. louis post dispatch. the author of the book "profit and punishment." how america criminalizes the poor in the name of justice. thank you for joining us. guest: thank you for having me. host: as far as the topic, we will go deeper as far as the contents of the book how did you first get interested in this topic? guest: one of the things that sparked my interest was ferguson . after august 9, 2014, when

michael brown was shot and killed. one of the underlying themes in the protest, in and around st. louis, were young black people in north st. louis county, who were arrested a variety of times by multiple municipalities that were using their police department traffic enforcement as a fund-raising tool. that was the first time i kind of became aware of this problem in our criminal justice system. in 2017 and 2018, i started writing about people from rural missouri, primarily poor white people -- poor, white people who ended up in jail, because they could not afford to pay their bills for jail and their fines and fees that were heaped upon him in the criminal justice system, primarily for misdemeanors. this became something that i decided to start pursuing regularly. it was just a tremendous injustice in a country that

banned -- we put a lot of people in municipal and county jails, primarily because they cannot afford fines and fees that a legislature or some other body decided they wanted to use the courts to collect. host: you write in part saying this, the story of how court that becomes a crushing burden for people living in poverty starts with a small mistake. the sort of thing many of us do when we are young. if we have parents who can afford an attorney or can afford to bail, it becomes a blip on our lives. we write a check or strike -- swipe a credit card and move on. little mistakes can transform themselves into what seem like a life sentence. give us an example of someone who has lived that. guest: one of the main characters is a woman named brooke, who lived in a small

rural county in the central part of the state. brooke stole an eight dollar tube of mascara from walmart. she ended up involved in the criminal justice system and over a period of time, she ended up serving a year in the county jail for that shoplifting and then got out of jail and owed 15,000 dollars in a bill for her time in jail. one of the things a lot of people don't understand is that a lot of jails charge you for your time in jail, just like a hotel bill. anywhere between five dollars or $10 or $50 or more per day. here is this poor woman who stole an eight dollar tube of mascara, which is not good. you should not shoplift. stealing is bad and there are laws against that. she served a harsh punishment, a year in jail. but that was not the end. she did her time for her crimes and then got a $15,000 bill. what the judge did was the judge

required her to come back to court every month and either say hey, here is the money that i have this month from my minimum-wage job to pay down that $15,000 debt that i'm never going to be able to pay off. and if she missed a court date or was not able to make a payment, the judge threatened her with more jail time. and that sort of thing happens all over the country. it is astounding to me. as i started writing about some of these cases, even veteran lawyers came to me and said i had no idea this was going on. host: if you want to ask him questions about his book, you are invited to call (202) 748-8000. maybe you have had experiences in the criminal justice system and want to give your perspective, (202) 748-8002.

in the mountain time zone, (202) 748-8001. you can text us at (202) 748-8003. what circumstances lead to the ackles -- application of fees for jail time? guest: there have been fees in most states since the 1800s. one of the things i find fascinating is i go through the history of that statute in the state of missouri. not every county charges it. plenty don't. some counties actually have a rule for they say look, i want the judge to have an ability to pay hearing. if the person before the judge, the defendant is somebody who qualifies for a public defender and lives in poverty, the judge might say you know what? this person does not have to pay. one of the things i found researching the history of the law in missouri is that in the early 1800s -- late 1800s and early 1900s, the law had a different feel to it.

i compare it to mayberry. we remember otis, the town drunk. he would come and put himself into jail. he would be brought a nice, home-cooked meal, while he sobered up. the law in missouri and some other states used to address that. it said people could bring their own food. families can bring their own linens and pillows. it had a humanitarian element to it in which the folks who wrote that law in the late 18 hundreds and early 1900s recognized that the folks who come to local jails are members of our community and are expected to come back into our community at some point. this is the part that i think some people don't think about in the criminal justice system. most of the people in our jails are not murderers or rapists or people who are charged with very violent crimes. they are folks charged with misdemeanors who we expect to come back into our community and we should be doing something as

taxpayers to make sure that we make it easier for them to come back into our communities and get jobs and be reunited with their family and all of those things. but, over time, that statute has lost that humanitarian vent to it. now, there is nothing in the missouri statute that says by the way, if somebody is poor, they don't have to pay. there is nothing that charges money for jail time that says oh, by the way, aunt b can bring a home-cooked meal and a pillow for you so your time in jail is more comfortable. and i don't know why we got away from that. but really, that is just one piece of the puzzle. the other part of that is most folks that come into the criminal justice system now are charged for traffic offenses or minor misdemeanors, they end up with other fines and fees on top of the jail bill that are a massive burden for a poor person

to deal with. it means that they are going to be tethered to the criminal justice system long after they have pleaded guilty or have been found guilty and served their time. host: all of those fees adding up to a can amount, what is done with those dollars? guest: it depends on the state. in most states, the legislature, particularly since 2008, the last recession, many of your viewers may remember that during that, a lot of state revenue dried up and state lawmakers had to look for other sources. in many states, particularly states where you had republicans who had signed on to grover nork 's no new taxes pledge, they turned to the courts. they said you know what? if you are coming to us as a state legislature and you need

money for something, maybe it is retirement for judges, maybe it is money for a demented violence shelter, some of the money goes -- domestic violence shelter, some of the money goes to good causes. all of those fines and fees get added onto every ticket that you get or every charge that you get where you go before a court. for instance, one of the women in my book is from oklahoma. she pleaded guilty to a minor misdemeanor and ended up with a bill for about $1000. that money went to -- some of it went to general revenue and some of it went to the prosecutor's office. some of the went to private for-profit probation companies. sasha darby in south carolina, another character in my book, similar situation. she ended up spending 21 days in jail because she could not afford to pay her bill. in some states, that's what they

do. you stand before the judge and the judge says can you write me a check today? if you can't write a check for the judge, the judge sends you to the jail and charges you a certain amount of money per day off of what you owe in debt. it creates this incredibly divided system for people who have money and can write a check and buy their freedom and people who do not have money and they end up in jail, not because they have committed another crime, but because they are poor. host: tony messenger is the author of profit and punishment. -- alexandria ocasio-cortez -- "profit and punishment." he won a pulitzer in 2019. your first collar is patrick. thanks for calling. you are on with our guest. go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. this is america. we try to get a profit, no

matter what the situation is. you might want to consider your next book the conditions of american jail. i saw a program on you were -- european jails. in american jails, they can get no name werner cell phones and run extortion rings out of them -- burner cell and run extortion rings out of them. we are the last nation in the world where you can get those phones that criminals run their organizations from. i was impressed, considering you had stop the steal on january 6. host: mr. messenger, anything from that? guest: patrick, one of the things you mentioned is the recidivism rate. the u.s. has a high recidivism rate. one of the reasons is the element of terminal is asian and poverty, and how we use cash

mail. we use it in most places unconstitutionally. we use it to hold poor people in jail because they can't afford to get out. so, what happens is there was a study done in 2013 done by the arnold foundation out of texas. they looked at low risk defendants in jails in kentucky. what they found is that those who were stuck in jail because they could not afford their bail over a short period of time, even 24 hours to 48 hours, were more likely to commit further crimes than similarly situated defendants who were actually -- who actually did not spend any time in jail because they either did not get a bail charge or because they could afford to write a check for their bill. the study looked at folks who were in jail up to 30 days because they could not afford their bail and again compared them to similarly situated defendants, all low risk defendants, meaning misdemeanors

and low-level felonies. it found that the people who were stuck in jail because they could not afford their bail were 70% more likely to commit further crimes than those who were home with their families and able to continue with their jobs. think about it, it makes sense. we disrupt people's lives and we take away their cars, their apartments and their children, all of these things can happen in 24 hours when you are stuck in jail and you can't afford your bail, even though you are not a threat to overall public safety because you are charged with shoplifting or whatever the case might be. and we make it difficult for them to go back into the community. this study is the most comprehensive study that i have found in this country that looks at this and says our cash mail practices in the united states make us less safe. keeping people in jail pretrial when they are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty

makes our communities less safe. that is why there is such a movement throughout this country to reform cash bail and use it only for its constitutionally required purposes, which is to make sure somebody gets to their next trial date or, in rare circumstances, the most violent people who are charged with crimes, that we protect society from them. so, that is what they'll supposed to be used for. it is not what it is used for. patrick is from florida. one of the people i quote in the book is a prosecutor from florida named andrew warren. and he talks about bail being misused in jurisdictions all over the country because we treat the court system like a fast food joint where we are running people in and out and too many of those people are poor and if you can't afford to pay, you are going to jail and you're stuck there until you can meet your public defender, until

you can have an opportunity to have your family raise the money. and those of us who have a different lived experience, who have money on a debit card, we don't have the same circumstances. that is one of the major problems with the criminal justice system in the united states. host: let's hear from jeff. caller: merry christmas. i want to ask you how it feels to be used by the communist spreading propaganda ad nausea network, c-span, to give cover to what just occurred in waukesha. you want to talk to me about the bail reform and how you feel that would have helped the citizens of waukesha? this is a diversionary tactic, putting you on the air to give cover to what is happening in every metropolitan area in america.

and god bless america. host: thank you, caller. just a note that we invited the guest on. go ahead. guest: sometimes when people get out on bail, they commit further crimes. one of the things i argue in the book is look at the data. the study out of kentucky is legitimate data. it is the most comprehensive look at what happens when you put people in, low risk defendants who, in most cases, do not come out and repeat crimes. but further, one of the things that is important about my book, there is a chapter called -- criminal justice reform is a bipartisan affair. it is very much endorsed by a lot of folks on the right of the political spectrum. i write in the book about donald

trump signing the first setback. that was very much a conservatively moved bill that was supported by a lot of folks on the right. the reason i think that criminal justice reform, and that includes bail and that includes getting rid of charges for jail and getting rid of fines and fees or at least reducing them in a serious capacity, i think one of the reasons the folks on the right and left agree is both a violation of civil rights of people, on both sides of the political spectrum, and they care about civil rights in certain circumstances. i think folks on the right understand that this system is not sustainable. they live in states that have budgets that have lots of money being spent on corrections. lots of people being put in jail, mass incarceration is

worse in the united states than any other free country. and, we find out that it is not really working. so, it is time to do something different. that is why criminal justice reform is so bipartisan. jeff, i would hope you pick up the book and take a look at that. there are a lot of conservative votes that are on the side of bail reform, because they want to see everybody's civil rights protected. host: in new jersey, mr. messenger, we will show viewers the website. chris christie enacted it. -- guest: it happens everywhere. i write about new jersey and new york and california, all places where there has been a certain amount of bail reform. in new jersey, the year after citizens there voted to implement bail reforms, crime

went down the next year. and jail populations were reduced. so, one of the things that i would encourage lawmakers to do and folks who were paying attention to this issue or are being introduced it -- to it for the first time, is look at the data and do some research and find out that yes, the coke brothers, the conservative libertarian group, very much in favor of bail reform. very much in favor of decriminalizing the criminal justice system. in part, because of the arnold foundation study and the other data that exists out there that basically says look, putting people in jail for a long period of time, particularly poor people who are being charged with misdemeanors and traffic offenses and other things does not make us safer. in fact, it makes us unsafe. think about all of the money that we spend collecting these

fines and fees and it happens in jurisdictions all over the place. somebody can't afford to pay for their jail bills. a warrant is issued for their arrest. local law enforcement, rather than working on violent crimes and solving murders and doing all of the things we want our local law enforcement to do in order to keep our community safe, they are tracking down these poor folks you can't afford to pay their bills, that the legislature decided that they wanted the police department to work on. these police departments become tax collectors. and then they stand before the judge. the judge becomes part of the collection system. all of that costs money. and it takes away from the primary purpose of those parts of the criminal justice system. and that is public safety. host: kenosha, wisconsin, this is calvin. caller: hello, how are you? i am wondering, the judges, lawyers, the prosecutors, do they all get paid from that

money that people put into the bills and probation fees? guest: in some cases, yes. that is part of the book. in some cases, that system in which those folks get their salaries and their retirements or other things paid out of fines and fees, it is unconstitutional. you are not supposed to use the criminal justice system to raise money for things that aren't related to the -- of justice. prosecutors and judges are involved in the system. there is a chapter in my book in which i talk about a particular fee in missouri, a three dollar fee. it does not sound like much until you have a three dollar fee on top of a five dollar fee and another $10 fee and five years later, the legislature adds another one and they keep raising that. that is how you get a traffic

ticket and you have a $1000 bill for that. the three dollar fee was supposed to pay for rural retirement. somebody in st. louis was supposed to put this money in to play -- pay for rural sheriff's retirement. the reason it ended up in a court fee was because the rural sheriff's came to the legislature and said we are not paying our sheriffs enough and we want you to come up with money to pay them the more for retirement. the legislature said no, we will not raise taxes. we won't say no to chefs because politically, they are a powerful force in our local communities. so we will add this three dollar fee to poor people's tickets that they get when they go to court. and it became this backdoor poor person attack in order to help sheriff's retire better. this last year, the missouri supreme court ruled that fee was unconstitutional. now, there will have to be a fight in the legislature, again. that is where a lot of the hope

is. a lot of legislatures, including conservative legislatures, are starting to recognize we are not going to use the courts as a backdoor tax collection system anymore. it is taxation without representation and it is bad public policy. so, that is the good news. a lot of legislatures are understanding this and going about trying to fix the problem. getting to the bottom of it will be difficult. there is a state senator in new york who has a bill called the end predatory fees act in which she is trying to get rid of all of those fees. i hope that bill passes the new york legislature. but then, the next up is where things become difficult. ultimately, all of those government services that are funded by the backdoor tax for poor people, they will be back before the legislature and say hey, where is our money? we want what you took away from us. that is where the fight will have to continue for years in

legislature, state by state. host: we have a viewer off of twitter who says my shot came as a new lawyer defending a dui defendant. she got appointed counsel. when she was found guilty, she was required to pay for the council. she was no more able to pay then what she was at the start. response to that and what is the role of public defender as far as making clients aware of these fees? guest: lots of states raise money to charge for public offenders from fines and fees. it is a counterintuitive situation because poor people can't afford to pay for their fines and fees. that is why they need a public defender in the first place. what a lot of people don't understand in their interactions with the municipal and county courts, i write this in the book. sasha darby experienced this

problem. they get handed this sheet of paper that says by the way, do you need a public defender? yes, i'm poor, i don't have money. that public defender will cost you $40. most jurisdictions, the public defender system will waive that fee or the judge has the ability to waive that fee. when you are a poor person and you walk into court for the first time and you are in this courtroom full of early or 40 or 50 other people, all there on similar sorts of situations. they got a ticket and it is a minor offense. you show up to stand before the judge and figure out what is going on, a lot of people check that box. i don't have $40 for an attorney. so, i will waive my rights to an attorney and it is the worst decision you can make. you immediately give away some of your civil rights so that you have somebody standing next to you before you say something to the judge, before you say something elicited by the prosecutor that might end up

making -- having worse circumstances for you. so many of these charges can be plea-bargain down to something less. they don't end up that way because the public defender systems in many states is underfunded. it takes a long time to get a public defender. or, you have people who walk into the system that have to pay for the public defender and they don't have any money. so, they can't even afford a public defender. what most people need to realize and don't always know their first time in court, there is a way to get the public defender fee waived. don't go into court without your public defender, because you need somebody to protect your rights. host: i will read a portion of this, saying more often than not , the lawyers don't mean anything during these proceedings. if the attorneys don't represent a particular client, they can't step up and argue on their

behalf that various rights are being violated. some of it is related to the parochialism of the court system -- system. no attorney who represents clients regularly before a particular judge wants to end up on their bad side. guest: i experienced this situation again. you had a young client, who had a -- who was a pregnant woman who was facing going back to prison because she violated probation. she smoked a joint because she is pregnant and has morning sickness. in many states in the united states right now, that is not illegal. in her case, it was a violation of her probation. you have a defender going before the judge, trying to protect her rights. eventually ended up filing a rift with the supreme court, asking the judge to overturn his ruling that sent the woman back

to prison, where she will have a baby in prison because of this. in small counties, you have a public defender who is out of school for the most part. and, you have a prosecutor and a judge and a sheriff who all have significantly more power within that system and tend to be aligned. it is difficult for a young public defender who has to go for that judge every single day or once a week or whatever it is to challenge that judge on a particular case, knowing that he has 10, 20, 30 other cases before that judge. and if the judge gets mad at the public defender, that public defender has now possibly put in jeopardy some of his other clients. it shouldn't be that way. but, that is the reality of how this system works in a lot of rural jurisdictions. not as much in urban areas because there are so many more

judges and more cases and attorneys and that sort of thing. but, in rural america, it is tough for a public defender to stand up there and defend all of the civil rights of their clients the way you might expect somebody who has money and has an attorney that has a little more heft than a public defender right out of college, to file motion after motion to make sure that there defendant, their clients rights are defended. host: tourney messenger is the author of "profit and punishment." let's hear from gary in atlanta, georgia. go ahead. caller: good morning to both of you and god bless you. i had a similar experience in georgia, where the falcons practice. i ran through a yellow light and the cop stopped me. the police officer stopped me

and i had to go to court. i walked in and it was standing room only in this little courtroom. it was mostly poor lack people and poor white people. luckily, i had enough money on me and i paid the fine with $75. the judge said if you don't have the money, i will put you on probation. you have to pay the probation fee plus the fine. i was like what is this? i sat there afterward for maybe a couple of hours and people were all put on probation. and i couldn't believe it. no duis, nothing like that. it was like the headlights are out, this is out and the cops are making money off of poor white and poor black people in georgia. i know another city in georgia, the judge got over $200,000 on fines. i want to say thank you for

writing this book. host: that is gary from atlanta, georgia. guest: one of the reason folks get put on probation is because in many jurisdictions, i don't know specifically about the municipality you are talking about. but in many jurisdictions, the probation company is a private, for-profit, company. their motive is to have repeat customers. we you have repeat customers is you put people on minor offenses on probation for a year or two and they have to pay the probation company money. some of those probation companies, and i write about this in my book, will drug test people. even if your offense was not anything related to drugs. so, if you happen to be somebody who battles drug addiction and you fail a drug test on a private probation company, that probation company tells the judge by the way, this person

failed a drug test, that is what happened to brooke, one of my main characters. and boom, you are back in jail. you did not commit an offense that requires you to do jail time. but because you could not pay some money or failed a drug test, now you end up in jail because of a probation violation. another interesting thing, i appreciate you calling from georgia. there is a town in georgia called lagrange, outside of atlanta, that you are probably familiar with. that town used to suspend payment, water and sewer bills or service if you fell behind on your quartet. in that town, if you happen to be pulled over for something like what gary was pulled over for and you end up before the court and you end up on probation and you have all of these fines and fees and you can't afford to pay them, they used to cut off your water and electricity.

almost all of the victims of the scheme were people of color. luckily, a federal lawsuit was filed and they eventually won and lagrange changed those policies. thing about that mentality, we will cut off your power and electricity because you can't afford to pay debt on a traffic ticket. it doesn't make any sense. it is related to an element of the criminalization of poverty that i write about in my book. one of the places where there is some hope is lots of states are starting to repeal their laws that allow them to take away your drivers license if you fall behind on debt. think about how backward that philosophy is, the way a lot of states have laws in which you can take away a drivers license for somebody who owes debt. you are a poor person. you can't afford to pay all of the fines and fees that they have heaped upon you. and they take away your drivers license, generally without a

hearing, by the way. now, you can drive to the job that you had in order to pay those fines and fees. they suspend your drivers license and make it harder for you to get to your job. i've been in that situation. i know a lot of poor people who have been in that situation. yes what? you will still drive to get to your job. now, if you get pulled over, you have committed a criminal offense. boom, the system really has you. and you will end up owing more and more and more money. the good news is there is a nationwide movement called free to drive, that are getting states all over the country, nevada was one of the most recent ones. illinois recently repealed their law. i write in the book about the number. i don't remember what the number is right now. i think we are getting close to the point where about half the states have repealed these laws. in those states, if you can't

afford the fines and fees, you still have your drivers license and you can still go to your job and take care of your family and hopefully get that money so that you can eventually pay down that debt. which, friendly, you should not have had to begin with. host: there is jim from bakersfield, asking the question should bail be illuminated for nonviolent crime, and released based on the threat level and past criminal record? guest: that is part of the bail reform movement. there is a debate on how we determine who is a danger to society and all of that. the reality is for almost all nonviolent crimes, there should not be bail. the primary purpose of bail is to make sure you show up at your next court date. when you are already keeping financial burdens on people by requiring them to pay bail the moment they are arrested for something, you make it less likely that they can be successful while they are fighting this charge.

keep in mind, they have yet to be convicted. i argue for in the book and would like to see there be nationwide bail reform, similar to what new jersey enacted. similar to what california and new york have been trying to enact. again, as you mentioned earlier, there is pushback. the missouri supreme court enacted some bail rules in this day a couple of years ago in which they are trying to get prosecutors and police to focus a little more, and judges, on the constitutional requirements of bail. i would like to see them get rid of nail for almost all nonviolent minor offenses, because it does not improve justice. all it does is feel -- fill up jails and cost taxpayers a lot of money. host: let's hear from fred in michigan. hello? caller: hello. i agree with you about all of

the really minor stuff, traffic tickets and stuff like that. but, part of the problem they are having with different places is the guy who ran through the parade who was out on bail. there were -- there was a guy who was let out two or three times in new york who robbed a bank. he did it again and again. there was a guy who was exposing himself to kids and he did it five or six times. these people going into these stores and out of these stores and stealing and people let them go and all that stuff. so, that's why -- the murder rates are all up, what do you think people will say? i have had plenty of dealings with the court. i understand about the courts and small stuff. they take it way too far. these prosecutors who are paid for by george soros and company.

host: fred, we will leave it there. guest: fred has lots of different things in that one statement. here is the thing. as we talked about earlier, absolutely, there are anecdotal cases of individual people who sometimes get arrested, get out on bail, and commit crimes. it happens. but again, we make decisions in this country, public policy decisions. we should make public policy decisions on the overall data. not just on anecdotally, oh my gosh, this happened yesterday. let's pass a new law. for instance, yes, across many cities in this country, conservative cities with tough on crime prosecutors and liberal cities with progressive prosecutors, crime -- not crime, homicides went up during covid. some of them have already started to go down over the past

year. in st. louis, where i live, where we have a progressive prosecutor, homicides are actually significantly down this particular year. so again, do we make public policy decisions based on the spike during covid last year or do we make them based on the fact that homicides are way down this year? the smart thing for legislatures to do is to take a long look, ask the criminologist to look at the history of the data, what does the data say about why we are up this year or down that year? and not make knee-jerk reactions, based on one particular year of data or one particular crime and apply that to every town across the country. that is why the data is so important. that is why the long-term data about what happened in new jersey after they actually passed a bail reform is so

important. that is why looking at the data of who is actually in most small jails in america on pretrial detention is so important. if you look at the big picture and get beyond the big 72 point headline where one bad thing happens, we realize we should not be making laws based on the one bad thing that happened, we should be making laws based on what we can do as a society, looking at the long-term data, in order to make it safer over a longer period of time. host: let's hear from one more viewer, ziggy in birmingham, alabama. caller: i'm a person who lives in the ghetto. what i see is people get incarcerated and they come out and come back to the same thing, the same support group. so, it is more low-level crime.

you have a downspout. i have had people go into a house and take the copper pipes out and stuff like that. a lot of times, when they are caught, they are caught for that. not for everything they have already done before serious crimes. if you want to keep the community down, it is economic opportunity that is the answer. host: that is ziggy in birmingham, alabama. i know you brought up supreme court cases dealing with this issue. our people making changes with concerns about due process? guest: that is one of the big arguments. in all of the element of the criminalization of poverty, one of the biggest problems is that people are ending up

incarcerated and then owing this massive debt, without going through the proper due process. the good news is that there have been unanimous court decisions, the u.s. supreme court, the idaho supreme court recently, the missouri supreme court in 2019. idaho and missouri, both conservative states. they unanimously ruled that you should not be putting people back in jail because they are poor and can't afford to pay their fines and fees. we start to fix that problem. we saw a lot of the criminal justice problems. we saved taxpayers money all over the country. we give an opportunity to address the underlying economic problems, talked about by the caller from alabama. is that we don't immediately let people out of jail, having

destroyed their ability to possibly climb out of poverty, because the moment they get out of jail, we give them some debt that will be impossible for them to pay off. we have to break the cycle where four people are tethered to the court system for years, for decades, simply because they can't afford to buy their freedom. host: our guest, tony messenger, his book is "profit and punishment" how america criminalizes the poor in the name of justice. thanks. guest: thanks for having me. host: we will talk about the republican party's growing relationship with latino voters. we will talk with geraldo cadava . that conversation, coming up on washington journal. ♪

>> at least six presidents reported conversations while in office. hear many of those conversations on c-span's podcast, presidential recordings. >> season one focuses on lyndon johnson. you will hear about the 1964 civil rights act, the march on selma and the war in vietnam. not everyone knew they were being recorded. >> certainly, johnson's secretaries knew, because they were being tasked with transcribing many of those conversations. they were the ones who made sure the conversations were taped, as johnson would signal to them through an open door between his office and theirs. >> you will also hear some blunt talk. >> i don't know the report of

the people who signed to kennedy the day he died. if i can't ever go to the bathroom, i won't go. ♪ >> how exactly does america get up to its neck in debt? >> we believe one of the greatest characteristics of being american is we are striving to provide equal opportunity to all citizens. >> students across the country are giving us behind-the-scenes looks as they work on their entries, using the #studentcam. if you are a middle school or high school student, join the conversation by entering the c-span studentcam competition.

create a documentary using video clips and answer the question how does the federal government impact your life? >> be passionate about what you are discussing and express your view, no matter how large or small you think the audience will be. in the greatest country in the history of the earth, your view does matter. >> content is king. remember to be as neutral and impartial as possible in your portrayal of both sides of an issue. >> c-span awards $1000 -- $100,000 in cash prizes. entries must be received before january of 2022. for tutorials, visit our website at studentcam.com. >> washington journal continues. host: our guest is geraldo cadava. a history professor at

northwestern university. author of the book the hispanic republican, the shaping of an american political identity, from nixon to trump. they you for joining us. -- thank you for joining us. guest: thank you. i am happy to be talking about one of my favorite topics. host: what prompted you to put this book together? guest: first, the relationship i had with my grandfather over a long period of time. he is a conservative latino. he first voted for a republican in 1980, when he voted for ronald reagan when he was working outside of tucson, arizona. he was excited that ronald reagan was promising to put more money into his bible weekly -- biweekly paycheck in the form of tax cuts. he voted for a republican first for that fairly limited reason. over the past four decades, he has embraced every position of the republican party to the point where he has a deeply ingrained loyal t -- loyalty to

the party. when i asked him in 2016 how he felt about donald trump, he said he liked him because he was a republican. completely absent of policies he supported or anything like that, it was a devotion almost. and i have been arguing with my grandfather, discussing politics with my grandfather over my whole life, since i was a kid, about border control, welfare policies, education and all of these things. i think in a lot of ways, this book is part of an ongoing debate with my grandfather about it. i think that, as a project in general, stems from that relationship more than any desire to become involved in a heated political debate. i do think that one thing these conversations with my grandfather taught me is it gives me an approach that helps me appreciate that someone i

care deeply about and i could have very different opinions about something and even have reasons debate about something. i think that is where the project came from. host: you mentioned president nixon. how did that shape the outreach republicans would have to latino voters? guest: the nixon years were a crucial turning point for hispanic republicans and the republican party. nixon between 1968 and 1972, for a variety of reasons, made latino voters a priority. he told a story about his long-standing relationship with latinos, having grown up in southern california. at the same time, the republican party between 1960 and 1972, -- 1968 and 1972, realized it was hemorrhaging african-american voters and needed to make up for it somewhere. latino voters became the primary target.

nixon and the nixon administration started. he was the first one who appointed a hispanic treasurer of the united states. there were those appointments and a raft of economic policies, the republican party reached out to latinos in every election since. nixon set the bar for how republicans would do among hispanics. in every election since 1972, hispanics have voted one quarter to one third of hispanics have voted for the republican party in every election prayed sometimes a little less, sometimes a little more. host: how would you describe the relationship between the republican party and hispanic/latino voters? guest: i think hispanics and the republican party generally are very optimistic about the shift by hispanics toward the republican party in the 2020 election. over the past 50 years, hispanic support for republicans has

flowed and their enthusiasm has varied for a whole variety of reasons. today, i would say that both hispanic republicans and the republican party are extremely optimistic that hispanic support for republicans is growing and increasing, as you can see in all of these reports and poles that have been coming out, which have offered lots of warnings or words of caution for democrats, going forward. host: our guest will be with us until 9:30. if you want to ask him questions, call as republicans on (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. if you describe yourself as a latino voter, (202) 748-8003. you contact us. guest: ethnic self identifiers

is a hot topic and it has changed over time. i use hispanic in the title of the book. in particular, because that is the term that historically has been favored by hispanic republicans themselves. the major organization that formed in the 1970's was the -- that is about hasting or michael -- a historical moment. when you hear the term hispanic, it has to denote a relationship with the spanish empire, pride in spanish civilization and everything the spanish conquistadors brought to america, including, you know, large-scale agriculture, cattle, catholicism, the spanish

language. when hispanics use the term hispanic, it has an affiliation with the spanish empire. it is only beginning in the 1980's and 1990's where terms like latino start gaining momentum and gaining steam and it is only in the past few years where a certain segment of hispanic latino population has started to use latinx. host: the republican national committee put something out called the free of fear campaign. it was targeted to latino voters. i want to play a soundbite and talk to you about it after that. >> when i say that we are the party of freedom and opportunity, you know, we are the party of lower taxes. we are the party, you know, for a strong and thriving economy.

most of our families come from countries where the government stands in your way and the republican party is a party of freedom and opportunity that allows you to get the education you want to get. we are the party of school choice. so, you can send your kids to get the education to have those opportunities that you may not have had otherwise. and in the party that gets out of your way so that if you want to start a business, you can make of your life what it is that you want to make of your life. i think that is why many folks identify with our values. host: that was a laundry list of themes they felt would appeal. how does that compare to the research that you've done on these things? guest: it sounds familiar. thank you for playing that clip. i have not heard that soundbite. it echoes everything republicans have been saying over the past 40 or 50 years. the message early on in the

growth of the hispanic republican movement, beginning in the 1950's and 1960's, focused on the economic movement of the republican party's support for free enterprise and capitalism was why hispanics should join the republican party. it had to do with how hispanics have developed an almost blind loyalty to the democratic party during the new deal, because franklin roosevelt helped latinos put food on the table and gave them jobs during tough decades. the question hispanic republicans were asking in the 1950's and 1960's was what have you gone for that loyalty? democrats come around looking for your vote every four years and expect it and ignore you and only come back to your community when they are looking for your vote. republicans had this theory that it would be better for latinos if latinos were seen as not

loyal to the democratic party but were seen as true swing voters. that would lead to better policy outcomes. i think you hear that in conversations today. i think the kind of anti-communist, anti-socialist, procapitalist -- and those are kinds of flip sides of the same coin and the kind of religious freedom work ethic, profamily, business opportunity, those are familiar talking points from the republican party over a long period of time. today, there is so much attention to things like socialism. that is seen merely as propaganda by many democrats. it is important to combat. it is important to see it as propaganda. it is important to understand why it has resonated for so long with many hispanic conservatives. host: geraldo is the author

of the host: he is from los lunas, new mexico. go ahead. caller: good morning. when we elected the first colored president, the republicans spawned the tea party. during the last two presidential elections, the republicans moved by spawning the kkk into the infusion of their base. my question to you is since you vote republican, did you vote with the clan or did the klan vote with you?

guest: thank you for the question, to be clear i did not vote republican. i have never voted republican in my life. but i do think it's -- understanding the history of hispanic republicans is an important thing to do. as we see, there is growing support for the republican party among hispanics and think it is an important phenomenon to understand, especially since there is so much attention to the growing latino population. latinos in many ways represent the future of united states so i think it is an important topic to understand and to think about historically and analytically. but i want to be clear that i myself am not a voting republican. i think that you are drawing our attention to some important themes. i think for a lot of democrats, the election of donald trump came as a huge surprise,

something we could not. something that in 2015 when he declared his candidacy and 2016 as he complained -- campaigns, we laughed it off as a joke and something that would never happen. historians,'s carlos -- scholars, journalists have done a lot of work to piece together how it actually worked. along the lines that you are describing, the revival of white nationalism or the mainstreaming of white nationalism and its entry into the halls of congress today. a year ago on january 6. you are drawing our attention to a lot of important things. i think we need to debate them vigorously and come back any suspicion of the white power movement. i would say it's also important to continue thinking about, on

the one hand a lot of the arguments are extreme these days and we are having a lot of heated debates about the authoritarian direction of the republican party. those are real threats to democracy for sure. i do think it's also important to pay attention to all of the economic reasons, the religious regions -- religion -- religious reasons come up public health reasons, educational reasons that latinos over a long. of time -- long time have been drawn to the republican party. host: the wall street journal just did a poll talking about various things. potential matchup between president biden and former president donald trump with those people saying that 44% would support president biden

and 43% would support former president donald trump. whether those numbers tell you? caller: guest:guest: -- i would say, not only is it early. a small sample size of 160 or so latino voters. there's been a lot of questions about how representative this is. i do think the important thing to take away is that it is a lot of the other news and other reports that have come out over the past year about some shifts among latinos and think that's important to recognize. it's important not only for 2024. it is important for 2022 as well. what democrats really need to do in response, i think it's actually an opportunity. it's an opportunity to -- for democrats and all of us to get to know something more about

latino voters and what they care about, who they are. democrats need to engage in a strenuous policy debates about why their educational policies, immigration policies, health care policies, all of these things will lead to improved lives for latinos and why that he knows should vote for them because they actually have the right policy preferences. if they hope to convince the latinos who have decided to vote for republicans in 2020. host: the polls, look at that with 37% supporting generic republican candidates in the midterm. 22% undecided. guest: it's -- this is a small sample size. i think what it shows is these

are warning signs for democrats. if they hope to recover some ground that was lost in 2020, i do think they need to make a convincing case for why the policies will lead to better outcomes for latinos. i think that's the important debate that needs to happen. not so much debates about terms like latin and or whether it's about some sort of aspirational whiteness that leads latinos to vote for republicans or whether it's the opposition for terms like defund the police. these are important conversations to be having, but i don't think of the message, if the main lesson learned from democrats from all of these recent polls and reports is that democrats just need to tweak their messaging or increase their outreach to latinos. a real opportunity would have been lost to engage in strattera's -- strenuous policy

debates. i think that's of always thought it was a bad idea to think that a certain group of voters are in your pocket. because as you start taking a group of voters for granted, it means you are not really listening to their cares and concerns and trying to respond to them. all of the warning signs for democrats right now are also an opportunity for them to really learn and listen to and to be curious about what it is that latinos are telling them. host: republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. think your premise is very wrong. the caller the call said that the kkk was republican. he needs to study his history. the one who founded the kkk after the civil war. therefore, it was the democrats who founded the kkk.

it wasn't the republicans. also, you also need to know where segregation came in. stood in the college store -- college door host: would you like to address a question or comment? caller: yell really need to study the history of the democratic party -- you really need to study the history of the democratic party. what's going on in florida and texas and arizona with all the illegal aliens come across. do you think that's the reason a lot of latinos and hispanics are changing from the democratic party to the republican party? because joe biden, he's just, i don't know what's happened. him and kamala harris, every time she's asked a question

about it she laughs about it. host: immigration policy. how does it factor into latino support? guest: i would be remiss if i did not take a brief opportunity to response to the first point. i have studied the history that the gentleman was talking about. i do think it's important to note that identities have shifted over time. yes, it was a democrat but what the democratic party stood for in the 19th and first part of the 20th century has shifted. there was a realignment in the 1960's as part of the result of the southern strategy of the republican party. i would encourage the listener and caller to think about that history. when it comes to the issue of immigration, i do think that's been a salient issue for many latinos living apart -- living along the border.

these are the committees where a lot of the latinos living there work for the border patrol so that's one interest. it is also the fact that a lot of immigration into the united states happens in their communities. it is an entry point for immigrants but also across roads and home to many latinos whose communities do see a lot of the effects of immigration on the ground. i think there are a lot of lessons to be learned from seeing that happen in your community. it's not like it only points in one direction. i think communities on the border whose residence -- residents feels like they bore much of the brunt of the immigration reality right now. i do think that is part of what is led latinos in particular areas to shift toward republicans. host: rudy is next from sun city, california. caller: good morning.

i am an og blackmail who has -- blackmail -- black male. the latino population always depending on what counterpart in my family that everything is the mexican fault. and then i come back at them and i say that everybody is mexican. and we get in big fights about this. and i'm always going to defend my taino brothers and sisters no matter what. to me, -- my latino brothers and sisters no matter what. what's your take? guest: thank you for your support. we appreciate it. i think you are pointing to a

lot of things. the classical, historical construction of all latinos is as mexicans. they are still, no matter how much data gets pointed out to counter this idea that all latinos are undocumented immigrants or all latinos are mexicans. the idea persists. there is some reason for it. it is true that two thirds of the latino population in the united states is mexican, of mexican descent. that has changed a lot in the race it -- in recent decades with the growth of american populations immigration. the majority of immigrants trying to enter the united states are not mexican. the idea persists that it is all a mexican problem. i think you are also pointing to

the fact that a lot of blame for our country's problems has been heaped upon mexicans. i could point to the decline and how many midwesterners have felt like part of the reason their region has declined is the shipment overseas of many factory jobs and that is the fault of mexicans or mexican immigrants are taking jobs that should have remained in the united states and for white working-class americans. all of these ideas are circulating and, the last thing i will say in response to your comment is that there is a real debate about who and by who i mean which party truly supports latinos and what is the party for latinos? when you dismiss the idea, but when people dismiss the idea that republicans can represent

latinos, i think it comes from a place of feeling that republicans have not truly included latinos into party structures and seeing them as truly equal americans, many latinos walk around feeling like they've always been pawns in other peoples political games and these are games that are not meant for latinos as truly equal americans. i think that is a true feeling of frustration that many latinos feel toward the report -- both toward the republican party and the democrat party. host: how does george w. bush factor in? guest: he set the new record for how a republican presidential candidate to do among latinos, previously set by ronald reagan who won something like 35 and 37% of the latino vote 1980 and

1984. george bush in 2000 and 2004 won and the theory was because he was a border governor, he had a brother who had a mexican wife and half mexican children, because he, after a decade of immigration politics, represented a different turn for the republican party that was going to a group -- going to embrace comfort hence if immigration reform and have more compassionate approach. in the months leading up to 9/11, to pass the comprehensive immigration reform to formulate the structure of a comprehensive immigration reform and all of that ended with 9/11 when our country took a more

restriction's approach to both the border controls and immigration. nevertheless, i think george w. bush represented, for a long time, the idea that the way the republican party could reach out to republicans and successfully recruit hispanics, not the republican party reach out to republicans, but the republican party reaching out to hispanics had to do with the more compassionate approach on immigration. i think a moment we are at right now is having that idea kind of turned upside down and someone like donald trump, who no one with thought would be the second coming of george w. bush with latinos increased his share of latino support with restriction nest immigration policies. and that something that i think the mcgrath and republicans really need to wrestle with over the next coming months and years. host: so when you hear stories say the biden administration

holding onto some of the remaining mexico policy of the trumpet ministration, what does that mean potentially for supporters -- policy of the trump administration, what does that mean? guest: at the moment, i think there has been fear of immigration in part because of the pen -- because of pandemic, in part because of climate change which is and will continue to lead many people to try to seek a better circumstance, often in the united states. i think that's the moment we are in right now and i think that the pot -- potentially have led to an increase in support in the united states for restrictive border policies. i think that's the case. i do think there is still certainly sharp differences. has talked about the value of immigrants to the united states.

i think those are sharp differences between these two administrations. i do think that right now in this moment there might be less of an appetite for relaxed immigration laws and more of an appetite for immigration restriction in this moment of uncertainty. i'm not saying that is the right approach. i think that we should take a longer view and broader view, everything that immigration means to united states, but i think a lot of the uncertainties . host: geraldo cadava joining us. from island heights new jersey, hello. caller: in the 2020 electric, i have friends, cuban friends in

the miami area -- and the 2020 election, cuban friends in the miami area, they were told that joe biden was socialist. if castro was a socialist, cuba would be like sweden. in fact, if you go to the merriam-webster's dictionary and you get the dictionary -- and you get the definition of fascism, you are told that it is where a government is run by one person who essentially calls the shots. if you go to the republican property platform, the committee agrees strong support for donald trump and the president's first agenda. america first party was started in 1942 as a racist organization

and i cannot understand how people are assuming that castro is a socialist and they are striving joe biden to be similar to that. the united states is partially a socialist organization. our police do not send out invoices. they get paid through the community chest. everybody should send to their taxes. that is a part of socialism. guest: you are pointing to a lot. i think there should be, to the extent, i think there are debates about how democrats should respond to the socialist label. one idea would be to dig in and try to define socialism and points to some of the ways in which the united states is already socialist and hasn't been for a long time. i want to be very clear when i

say that. that's one thing you are drawing attention to. i think you are also drawing our attention to how there should be, if we are going to do that, to really dig into what these terms mean. there should be a more -- there should be a debate about what we are talking about. when it comes to comparisons between joe biden and castro, i would say republican strategy to tar the democrats as socialists and supporters of international communism, including cuba. this is what watergate was about in 1972, where the republicans first efforts was to say that the watergate hotel had been broken into because there were looking for cuban radicals. remember, three of the five watergate burglars were cubans.

that castro was supporting the democratic party. another point, when romney was running for president everyone was calling barack obama a socialist. i remember hearing the speech, a single sin that a single sentence equated castro, chavez and cortes as all the same kind of socialist. alexandria ocasio-cortez represented new socialist threat to the united states. it is part of a long history of the publican party to try to tar democrats as socialists. one way of understanding that is as lies and propaganda. another way of trying to understand that is asking ourselves why that idea has been

so effective for republicans and is also resonated with many republican voters. i think the key thing is to understand is that when republicans talk about socialism, it's a code ward -- codeword for a whole system of beliefs. it is not invoking fears of latin america boogie man. it is the idea that ties to religion because socialism has long been thought to be a godless philosophy. it us also an argument about -- it is also an argument about the appropriate role of government and government dependency. it is also seen as the antithesis to capitalism. socialism is a term that republicans used to encompass and get across very quickly the whole range of ideas that is actually been central to the republican party's platform for a long time. i think we should try to understand the term that way. host: for our guests, miami

florida. good morning. caller: good morning. the reason i'm against democrats, and i always will be, you do not take into account all of us who came from cuba, the people here who are from venezuela, nicaragua, we know well well how the whole thing started. i see so many, even though i was only 14 years old when i came to this country in 1960, i've seen so many similarities of what the democratic party is trying to do now. it reminds me of cuba. sure, they are communist but they started as socialists. the government starts little by little taking away all your rights. they are trying to take away, that happened in cuba. you are not going to fool

venezuelans or nicaraguans or cubans. you can look at the cuban people as being different from the ones that came early to now, and everyone is coming here because they want freedom. they want to be able to get ahead. you cannot forget that in the senate, there are three senate. one is democrat, but the other two are the sons of cubans. there are many in the house. host: thank you caller. guest: i understand that everything you're saying is a very important part of the -- why they support republican candidates. the republican party is anti-communist party of freedom. freedom means different things

to many different people. freedom, of course, is why many immigrants continue to come to the united states. i do think freedom means different things to many different people. on one hand, it means the freedom to pursue economic and social equality area think many latinos feel it's the democratic party that is best able to guarantee that. two other hispanic republicans, it means something different. this origin story for hispanic republicans report -- support. it's real. i think you can go to miami and hear a lot of talk about the day of pigs and john f. kennedy's betrayal. i think it's important and totally real, but it doesn't explain hispanic republican support.

-- support for the republican party today. young hispanics who in no way their lives were impacted, but they are still drawn to these ideas about socialism and anti-socialism. hispanic republican support among younger hispanics who are still drawn to ideas about anti-socialism, that did not come from the cuban revolution or what happened in venezuela and elsewhere and i think that's why we need to explain it in terms that also go beyond the politics of the cold war. host: he talked about the various voting blocs between the latino voters, how does that jitter relation -- generationally? guest: that's a great question, important question. i'm going to adjust my earpiece. especially, for the reason that

we know latinos are a growing population. latinos are overwhelmingly young and both parties need to do a lot to engage younger voters, some of whom feel alienated from the whole political system right now. it is important for both parties to try and engage. i do think on the democratic side, latino proved to be more progressive. they are the ones tended to support bernie sanders and stand up. they are also the ones who have tended to embrace terms like latinx instead of hispanic and latino. the latino voters, the young latino voters are people whose lives and educational opportunities, economic opportunities have really hard over the past 13 or 14 years and i think they feel, and i can say this is a college professor teaching the students, there is

uncertainty about the future all because of climate change. younger latinos on the democratic side have tended to skew more progressive than older latino democrats. i also think somehow, the republican party and donald trump has engaged younger latino conservatives. i'm thinking about a guy in texas who is the head of an organization which is affiliated with turning point usa. he is in his early to mid 20's and has a podcast that is reaching out to a younger generation of that tino conservatives. there are many young latino -- latino conservatives. there are many young latino conservatives and prosperity who will be best and religious freedom. we have to put that in there. it will best be guaranteed by the republican party. republicans have their own way of engaging latinos right now. host: susan in michigan, last

call. caller: good morning. i would like to ask you a question about why they are not going to vote for democrats is much in this upcoming election in 2022 because of the economy and because of seeing biden come up with all of these mandates. people aren't stupid. they see what's going on. they see what's going on in venezuela and the other countries that have gotten out of hand because of socialism and communism. the younger voters, even though you are trying to educate them in college, they still can read and see what's going on. thank you. guest: thank you for your question.

one of the most interesting findings of the research, democratic polling firm that does a lot of opinion surveys of the latino community to figure out how they feel about a range of issues. i think they came out with a big report about a week ago about what happened in 2020 since the election. they've been doing a lot of interviews to figure out exactly what is going on among latinos right now. there's a really important effort. we had the results in 2020 and it is the work of social scientists to figure out what those results actually mean. i think one of the most interesting findings, and it was count -- counterintuitive to me, is that many loaded that many latinos voted for donald trump because they favored his opening the country during the pandemic. there was a lot of support, a

lot of talk about how hispanics and other americans of color were disproportionately affected by the pandemic and that the assumption would be is that it would be policies that most protected americans from contracting the disease and keeping americans healthy would be the ones that proved most appealing to latinos, but what the report found was that latinos had to sort this had decided to support donald trump because they experience economic and wanted them to open the economy. i don't know, the only way to figure out what's going on among latinos right now is through continued reference to venezuela or cuba or all of these

political debates that have to do with left versus right and latin america. i think it would be more important for us to focus our energies and efforts on trying to figure out what's going on here in the united states. again, really engaging in strenuous debates by both republicans and democrats about why their policies are actually better for latinos when it comes to education, the economy, when it comes to their abilities to practice their faith in the ways that they want. i think these are the important questions that we need to be asking over the next few months. host: geraldo cadava is an author. thank you for your time today. happy holidays to you. guest: thank you so much. it was great to be here. host: we will finish the program up until tonight with an open forum. 202-748-8000, the number to call

for republicans. 202-748-8001 for democrats. independents, 202-748-8002. we will take those calls when washington journal continues. ♪ >> this year, the u.s. supreme court took up two cases that could decide the fate of roe v. wade. it's land mike -- landmark ruling on abortion rights. author of the family row --roe, the woman behind the case and the impact it had on her and her three daughters. >> window into this whole big thing of abortion in america and the pro-lifers saying aha, look at her and look at the cost of abortion.

she never had an abortion. she is a fascinating testimony is the cost of adoption. she struggled and norma sleep, emotionally with what it meant to relinquish her three children -- she struggled enormously, emotionally with what it meant to relinquish her three children. >> sunday, january 2 on in-depth, joins us live to talk about the early intellectual history of united states, the civil war and the reconstruction era. his book titles include gettysburg and his latest, robert e lee. join in the conversation with your foot -- with your phone calls, sunday, january 2 at noon

eastern on in-depth on book tv. ♪ >> get c-span on the go. watch the days biggest events live or on-demand any time anywhere on our new app. c-span now. discover new podcasts all for free. download c-span now today. ♪ >> washington journal continues. host: this is open forum. if you want to talk about issues of public policy or politics that are of interest to you 202-748-8000 for republicans, 202-748-8001 for democrats, 202-748-8002 four independents

--for independents. senator manchin said his concerns surrounding them massive spending have not been assuaged. he said if i can't go home to explain to the people of west virginia, i cannot vote and continue with this piece of legislation. i have tried everything humanly possible. i can't get there. he told the host this is a no. if you go to the headline of that publication, you will not vote for bill back better. it also says that a couple of other interviews -- build back better. it also says that a couple of other interviews, republican senator rick scott and ron johnson slammed democrats over inflation.

i always think about how you do help the poorest families in our country. right now, the democrats agenda is hurting the poorest families. everything has gotten more expensive because of the democrats wasteful spending. prices grew spy -- by 6.8% in the year leading into november marking the highest inflation rate since 1982. and it's her mansion also making news concerning comments on fox news -- senator manchin also making news concerning comments on fox news. asking for -- when asked about that, this is what his response was. >> if you can make the senate work better, the rules are something that we changed over the years. 232 years there's been real changes, but there's never been a change to the filibuster, the

rights of the minority. i am working on trying to make the senate work better, bringing bills to the floor, amending them, having debates, understanding, being transparent to the public. >> you are in the seat of former senator of west virginia, maybe some exemptions or reforms. is that what i'm hearing? >> what you are hearing is basically, can we work on the rules that make this senate work rather than deadlock that we have right now? everyone thinks and all do all his in the filibuster. it is in how we operate and proceed -- precede every day. that's what needs to be changed. host: that is senator mansion on the filibuster -- senator manchin on the filibuster. other issues there as well. call us on the line that best represents you. we have about 20 minutes.

you can also text us at 202-748-8003. our social media sites are available to you as well. if you what to call and talk about the workload of the senate , the column today features a statistics done by c-span as far as action and congress. c-span year-end statistics points to just how failed the senate has become, a place where the origins of yesterday or find themselves wondering what happened. 2021 the senate held just 100 -- 136 hours of actual debate on legislation or confirming presidential appointments. 2013 and 2014, the senate

devoted more than 600 hours to formal debate time, or the 55% of all activity on the chamber floor. that's just some of that c-span analysis. you can roll that into your thoughts on open forum. robbie is first up, minnesota city, minnesota. good morning. go ahead. caller: good morning, sorry. i hate to say it, but joe biden, your president is the dumbest president in the world and the dumbest vice president in the world. i'm disabled and i know better than he knows. host: marty is next. he is in highlands, indiana. democrat line. caller: hello. i live in one of only two blue counties in indiana. we have no problem. it takes two minutes to walk in

and show your id and you walk over to a table. they out -- i also want to ask a question. why has the closed captioning been shut off. i've got three tds in one room. -- tv's in one room. one on dvr and one regular and neither one of them have closed captioning. it has been that way for a while now and it's why wait -- the deaf people, they have a major problem. i have one sound on and one close captioning on but i'm not getting any close captioning. it has been that way for a few weeks. host: we will try to find that answer for you. you are saying you had no issues , when you say talk about voting, do you think that changes -- do you think changes are needed as far as voting rights laws are concerned? caller: no this is fine. everything works perfect. host: let's hear from russell in

massachusetts, independent line. caller: i just have a quick comment. what i don't understand is where all of this nonsense is coming about voting. donald trump and his people, i'm an independent for reason, what i don't get is i don't see her where the democrats are going with republicans. when you are at each other's throats and society is at each other's throats, i think democracy is already gone. what i don't see is this was proven through supreme court's, i just want the whole country to understand this. supreme court, federal courts, local courts, district courts, there was no fraud. people in this previous administration have proven there is no fraud. but i don't understand is the reality of people not being able to comprehend. an election that was stolen where they are saying there was

absolute no fraud, fraud cannot be of it. we are living in a society in this country where it was proven that it was not done. we are at heads over each other over truth, not lies. host: new york times highlights one of the accomplishments of the biden administration and the senate, confirming judges. this is by katie evanson. the president's nominee early on saturday morning, the most judges confirmed and up president first year in the last 40 years. lawmakers confirmed 10 district court dutch -- court judges bringing the year-end total to 40 and notching an achievement not seen since former president ronald reagan.

it underscored how the white house has set a rapid pace in filling vacancies on the federal bench even besting the records set by the truck administration. the milestone came as a welcome victory for frustrated congressional democrats's legislative agenda continues to hit roadblock after roadblock. jimmy in athens, georgia. independent line. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i would like to explode -- express an opinion about voting rights that is a centrist opinion. it is wrong to make it harder for african-americans to vote and anybody who tries to do that is racist and should not be in office. on the other hand, it is a good idea to make it harder for low iq americans to vote. i'm not saying make it illegal,

but make it harder for low iq americans to vote. and that way they will have -- we will have better representation. who is a low iq american? one example would be anybody to call c-span and claim c-span is biased on either the left or the right. people who do that, i consider to be low iq americans. host: why would you make it harder for anyone to vote? caller: there are some people in america who are, i don't think there vote -- i don't know, i just made they are too dumb to vote. they are hurting america when they vote because they don't know an oath about america. host: but they still get the privilege of voting just like anyone else, wouldn't you say that? caller: they should have the privilege and right, but making

it a little bit tougher for everyone to vote, these people might not vote which would be good for america. host: you started talking about african-americans and then you started talking about low iq, isn't that discriminatory? caller: it's wrong to discriminate against african-americans, but it's ok to disseminate against low iq americans. and anybody who think they are the same -- to discriminate against low iq americans. and anybody who thinks they are the same is a racist. the left had more low iq voters but i no longer believe that. i believe there are low iq voters on either side and any efforts that are current grist can make it harder for those people to vote is good for our nation. host: that's jimmy in georgia. let's hear from new hampshire, democrats mine. caller: good morning. i've been listening earlier this morning and several people have

compared widen and the democrats on the left with socialism. i would like to point out several facts, absolute facts. there is a fascist tendencies on the far right, to run in particular -- donald trump in particular when he encouraged those people to take that man out back and treat him like the old days. you know what i'm talking about. i will pay your legal fees. that's facts. that is an encouragement of extreme violence for someone's political lease. that is fascist. -- political beliefs. that is fascist. he is also at the podium encouraging second amendment people might reduce us might be able to do something about hillary. the second amendment people might be able to do something about this. that is encouraging murder. he is going for that she is

calling for the assassination of his political opponent. host: why do you think this is important even though the former president is a former president? caller: because he is still very much on the scene, he still has a lot of support on the capital hill -- capitol hill. he has not gone away and he is still hanging in the shadows. one more example, host: do you think is going to make another run in 2001 to four? caller: i think it's -- host: 2024? caller: i think so because the next time he calls for a rally he will call for a second amendment rally and it will be a bloodbath and that is what they are afraid of. host: john in virginia, republican line. go ahead. caller: good morning.

i just had a question or comment. everybody has widely understood to get the vaccine area i'm older and have had the vaccine, but it does not reject you from getting covid. it just lessens the effect. -- it does not protect you from getting covid. it just lessens the effect. it does not protect you from passing covid on so a vaccinated person can pass on covid to a nonvaccinated person, but a nonvaccinated person can pass it onto a vaccinated person. passing it on, it has no affect whether you are vaccinated or unvaccinated. the only weight -- the only reason to get it is to protect yourself. if everybody in the country was vaccinated, there would still be covid. some of the collars and believe me you had many, called people -- callers and believe me you

had many, called people ignorant for not getting vaccinated. it's their choice. liberal callers that are so up on people getting vaccinated to explain what the actual purpose is. it is not going to wipe out covid if everybody gets vaccinated. host: are you vaccinated? caller: i'm older. i'm at risk so yes i got vaccinated. but if i was only 25 or 30 years old, i would see no reason at all to get vaccinated unless i had diabetes or one of the conditions. as far as a young and healthy person, there is absolutely no reason to go out and get vaccinated. host: that is john and virginia. final business of the senate before it concluded nomination of an ambassador of japan. rahm emanuel confirmation came as senate democrats struck a

deal with republicans to advance dozens of other biden nominees that have been sitting in limbo because of opposition from senator ted cruz. three of the most liberal senate democrats voted against his confirmation. afford liberal, senator bernie sanders, did not vote. others backed him when more than 30 senators or out because of the holiday break. the final vote was 48-21. mark, democrats mine. caller: i'm glad you picked me up before the show ended today. i thought maybe i could going in on voter registration. one guy that called, basically saying people aren't smart

enough to vote. that's really something that you've got people talking that weight nowadays. along the lines of everybody saying there's so much voting fraud going on in this country, you have a guest regularly that likes to talk about seeking out voter fraud and maintain a database of it. i have made use of it and making use of it right now. this is from the heritage foundation, super right wing think tank. there voter fraud records are at www.heritage.org. host: we feature the database and you are referencing the one we've had several times. caller: three or four instances

of fraud and let's talk about the one in new jersey that was perpetrated by republicans and the one in north carolina's desk in north carolina that was perpetrated by republicans. besides that, if you go to the page i'm talking about, they proudly proclaim 1334 proven instances in the entire united states. that goes back over 25 years. how many millions of votes have been done in that time? so basically, if they can only come up with host: we got your point. thanks for calling. leamington, indiana. democrat line. caller: hello. i've been listening for a while and i don't know why people are against biden.

i think he is trying to do the best he can to help our country. as a person that says the virus, why should we get the vaccination? there's 800,000 people dead because of people not getting vaccinated. because mainly those are the people who are dying in hospitals. i was in indiana and we have issues. people don't wear a mask and most of the counties. my granddaughter goes to school and she's not vaccinated. can't get her mom to do it. our country is suffering because we have a lot of people that aren't doing the right thing for the country. senator manchin is keeping

things from happening in our government that would improve our lives. a lot of people are really discouraged by them and they need to figure it out and do the right thing for our country and it would sure be nice. host: when he says his concerns over not voting for the bill back better, how would you respond to that? -- build back better, how would you respond to that? caller: he's not telling the truth. joe biden has 17 guys, -- 17 guys you said it would not affect inflation, in fact it would improve inflation. that's what i've heard. host: pittsburgh, pennsylvania. independent line. caller: good morning. how are you today? host: i'm fine thanks. how are you? caller: i'm good.

i just have a point about the border. i'm not against hispanics or anyone from other countries, it's just opening the border is dangerous -- opening the border to undocumented aliens is dangerous. it was a couple million people and they were russian, chinese coming through alaska. what would it do to the country if that happens? host: what is the point of a hypothetical? caller: the point is an open border should be open to everyone. i don't think we open -- i don't think it would be open if we had the russians and chinese coming in host: -- coming in. host: another color. caller: first of all -- guest: host:another caller. caller: these people were

unvaccinated. if you are getting most of your info off the internet concerning this, maybe they need to have their iqs checked because you just can't believe everything you are hearing. anybody can say anything on the internet. people are dying. i think i heard the other day that 5 million people around the world have died, most of those people were probably unvaccinated. what is with these people? i am fully vaccinated. but when i am in a restaurant and anybody within six feet of me, i got a mask on because i know these new variants are like a thousand times more contagious. host: what do you base that on? when you say they are undecided? caller: i watch a wide variety of news. i don't have a list of it all,

but before i go i want to say if you let all the billions of people and i mean billions of people around this whole world who want to come in here in here, we are going to be another third world country. what's going to happen with social security? we are going to have millions of people on the streets. host: we are going to leave it there because we are out of time. thanks and that ends the program for today. another addition of washington journal comes your way tomorrow morning at 7 a.m. ♪ >> c-span is your unfiltered

view of government. supported by these television companies including cox. >> cox is committed to providing families accessible, affordable internet. cox, bringing us closer. >> cox supports c-span as a public service, along with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> this year, the u.s. supreme court took up two cases that could decide the fate of roe v raid, its land -- roe v. wade and its landmark ruling on abortion rights. the author of the family wrote talks about become located times of jane roe, the woman behind the case. the activism the decision of the

case roe engendered. >> her life was a mirror and a window into this whole big thing of abortion in america. pro-life says look at her, look at her and the cost of abortion. what she is is a testimony of the cost of adoption. she struggled you normally sleep, -- enormously, emotionally. >> you can also listen to q and a and all of our podcasts on our new c-span now app. host: it's a wash in a wash and journal for december 19. one of the agenda items for democrats was to pass two pieces of legislation that