c-span no video app, or online at c-span.org. >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government, funded by these television companies and more, including comcast. >> are you thinking this is just a community center? it is way more than that. >> comcast is partnering with 1000 community centers to create wi-fi enabled locations so students from low-income families can get the tools they need to be ready for anything. comcast supports c-span as a public service, along with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. here is a look at what is coming up this morning on "washington journal." dan bosch from the american action forum talks about the recent supreme court decision involving the environmental protection agency's regulatory authority and how the ruling could impact other federal

agencies. later, uva's center for politics director larry sabado discusses campaign 2022 and other political news of the day. be sure to show your thoughts with your calls, texts, and tweets. ♪ host: it is the "washington journal" for july 6. a new survey looks at the amount of confidence americans have in the country's major institutions. the survey showed high marks for small business, military, and police, but some of the lowest scores were reserved for the three branches of government. we will show you more of the survey. in this first hour, we ask you if you have faith in the u.s. institutions, whether it be government institutions or other institutions? (202) 748-8000 for democrats, (202) 748-8001 for republicans,

and independents (202) 748-8002. if you want to text us about your faith in u.s. institutions, you can do so at (202) 748-8003. you can post on facebook and on twitter. you can follow the show on instagram. gallup organization looking at the amount of faith americans put in these institutions over time, and they compare how the institutions are holding up this year to the previous year. when you look at categories like small business, military, police, the medical system, while there have been some drops from year to year, they still rank highest when it shows the amount of faith people put in those institutions. but as you go down the list, you will find elements of the three branches of government, the presidency, the supreme court, and congress, by the way, coming in dead last on this list, was

7% approval or 6% saying they show quite a lot of approval in that institution. the show you more details, here are some of those findings from gallup yesterday the largest decline when it comes to institutions and confidence, 11 points for the supreme court. 15% for the presidency. highest level of confidence, it would be for small businesses. lowest level, 7%. it showed a new lowe's and confidence for all three branches of government. the supreme court, 25% of people saying they show a great deal of confidence in that. presidency, 23 percent. congress, 7%. the military is the only institution besides small business with people expressing confidence, or at least a great deal of confidence, coming in at 64% of people showing faith in that institution. police 45%, below the majority level for only the second time

since the service started. five other institutions held their lowest levels, as well. organized religions, newspapers, and these others. you can find the survey on gallup, and there are other questions. we will be showing you this as we go along. when it comes to what we want to hear from you in this hour, how much faith do you have in these institutions? it could be the three major branches of government, supreme court, presidency, and congress. maybe you want to comment on things like your local police, local hospitals, or the medical system. let us know what you are thinking. (202) 748-8000 for democrats, (202) 748-8001 for republicans, and independents (202) 748-8002. if you want to text us your thoughts on your level of confidence in these institutions, (202) 748-8003.

it was earlier this year that justice sonia sotomayor, this was before the decision but after the leak of the initial decision, she was at a forum and talked about this idea of faith in the supreme court and was asked about it. there is a portion of what she said. [video clip] >> on the topic of the current state of events in the world, we are living at a time where public confidence in the institutions generally seems to be declining. until recently, the judiciary, especially the supreme court, had enjoyed relatively steady confidence from the public. and gallup is reporting that, for the first time since i started pulling on the issue, public confidence in the court has plummeted and is at its lowest point. so why should the public continue to have confidence in its institutions of government,

including the supreme court? >> institutions are made up by human beings. because we are human, by necessity, we make mistakes. it is the nature of the human enterprise that people, as people, as judges, as politicians, as presidents, as whatever, that we are going to make mistakes. we are going to have errors of judgment. what you believe in is -- what we believe in is an institutional structure, our government, how it operates together, the three branches of government, the checks and balances and the way they operate. and in the people who created us, you are equal, if not the

fourth branch of government, and perhaps the most important because you vote. and you are the ones who will let, or -- who elect, or at least indirectly a point, the other branches. and to that end, when we, as institutions, have made mistakes, other parts of the branches -- because a four work in tandem, and i created the people as the fourth branch -- the people have worked to make changes. host: you can find more of that on our website at c-span.org. gallup highlights a couple other features from this survey on institutions and the faith people put in them. it shows democrats an independents showed more than a double-digit loss and confidence in the supreme court, no meaningful change amongst republicans. republicans have lost more confidence in banks. they also showed double-digit

declines in the confidence in the military and police. independents are less confident in organized religion than a year ago. a smaller drop amongst republicans and no real change amongst democrats. when it comes to these institutions, how much faith do you put in them? a call from the independent line, north carolina. go ahead. caller: good morning. i have very little confidence, truly, very little confidence in today's -- can you hear me? host: yeah, go ahead. caller: i have very little confidence. one of the reasons is all of our institutions seem to use archaic documents as the basis for everything. our constitution, in all its beauty, is antiquated. it does not allow these institutions that govern our lives on a daily basis to take

an analysis of the situation as it exists in 2020. sure, the military is always going to rank high. they are defenders of our nation. but the institutions inside that control the military are what the problem is, and that is where the confidences. there is no such thing as an independent party in america. the reason the institutions are so chaotic is because you have only two choices. politicians are not voting for their districts, they are voting along party lines. what does a politician have to do with a vote that takes place in a district in ohio? because it is a party line. host: ok, talking about bigger issues, a lot of specific institutions but also

referencing the constitution. colorado springs, this is scott, republican line. caller: good morning. with the supreme court, the decision that came down should have been that way from the beginning. all they did was give it back to the states. and for the states like california and new york, michigan, and like here in colorado, places where they support abortion, nothing is changing from what the supreme court did, giving it back to the states. it will still be legal for those states to have their abortions. host: when it comes to confidence, would you rank the supreme court high on your list? caller: yes. everything going on on the democratic side, show hosts in hollywood people -- and hollywood people, they are

giving the supreme court a lot of crap. all they did was give it right back to the states for the people to vote on. host: ok. caller: the states that are liberal, that will not change. host: we will go to jim in highland park, new jersey, democrats line, talking about these institutions in the amount of faith you put in them. hello. caller: yes, thank you for taking my phone call. and the reason why i am calling is i have absolutely no confidence in the actions of congress, especially the one side of the aisle. the other side of the aisle. and we should have more religion and less politics in our congressional debates. host: why do you focus on

congress as far as level of confidence, or at least a lack of confidence? why do you focus on congress? caller: because it is obvious that they are at odds with one another, and nothing of consequence is being done. host: that is jim in new jersey highlighting congress. if you look at the chart from gallup that was released earlier, congress coming in -- when the question was asked about the level of confidence, a great deal or quite a lot, congress is last on that list. 7% of people asked in 2022 about that great deal of confidence in congress, that is down from 12%, which was a year ago when the survey was taken. you can choose congress, the supreme court, the presidency, other things like military,

small business, organized religion, public schools, you have it. as far as the confidence you put in there, and you can pick one specifically. independent line, randy in louisiana. you are next. caller: yes, my faith is very limited in these institutions. they are there, but very distrustful of most of them. and the truth is, it is what they do, not what they say, it is what they do. that is what is in question. host: what do you mean by that? caller: yes, they will say one thing and then do something else. it is hypocrisy. host: can you give a specific example as far as an institution that does that? caller: i think all of them do that. except the military.

the military has a specific purpose and is very clear about it. all these other institutions, one day it is one thing, next day something else. host: randy there in louisiana, independent line. if the military, by the way, when it comes to this poll, gallup saying small business on the military are the two institutions rated most positively by each of the party groups, while congress is essentially tied for the lowest. republicans read the presidency, newspaper, and television news similarly low to congress. television news tide congress has the lowest among independents. supreme court and big business rated about as poorly as congress among democrats. the results say republicans and democrats differ the most with presidency. newspapers 30 points, public schools. confidence in supreme court, organized labor, religion,

medical system, television news, enlarged technology. as far as faith you're putting into these institutions, give us a call. (202) 748-8000 for democrats, (202) 748-8001 for republicans, and independents (202) 748-8002. in massachusetts, this is al. go ahead. caller: good morning from plymouth, mass, where it all started. the one institution that should be holding them all accountable, the media, is no longer doing their job. we had a great economy years ago and the talking points were livable wage. remember, everybody? we do not hear that today. we do not have a media holding this administration accountable. that is the problem. the media just glosses over things. now everything is a youtube video posted. no longer in depth reporting to get to the truth. so unless we are seekers of the truth, then all the other

institutions are not going to be held accountable. host: if media is lowest, what is the highest institution he put faith in? caller: [laughs] at this point, i do not think it is anything human, let me leave it at that. host: independent line, james is next, virginia. caller: yes, i believe that every man and woman have individual rights to be in charge of what happens to their body. i don't think government should be involved with what a man or woman does to their body, as long as they don't impact other people. consequently, i do not think the government should be involved in abortion, whether it is federal government or the state government. there is a consequence right now

, 25% confidence in the supreme court. also, i believe that america, the experiment, should elect its president based on the popular vote. and as a result of that, i believe that i have basically 25% confidence in the congress, as well. thank you. host: great deal of confidence in the supreme court, asked by gallup, in 2022. 25%. but go back a year ago, 2021, same question, 36% expressing their opinion of the supreme court, level of confidence in the supreme court. that number that is there and a lot of other details at gallup, if you want to check it out yourself at gallup.com.

democrats line from lisa, talking about faith in u.s. institutions. caller: yes, good morning. i do have faith in our institutions. the problem i think it's -- i agree with the caller from virginia. in a way, i do not think government should be involved with the abortion issue. secondly, i think people need to be taught civics. they need to understand how congress works, the senate. same thing with the supreme court. because they always have this comment as to, well, my vote doesn't matter. but you are not voting every two years. you are voting only for the actual four-year election for a president. and then they don't understand

if we don't have who we want in congress, and in the senate, we will not get the votes for the things that we want. host: so lisa, give me a specific as far as an institution you put a great amount of confidence in. caller: i put a great amount of confidence in every institution. my issue is it is being politicized a lot. host: ok, that is lisa in maryland. this is from twitter. a viewer saying that i have confidence in the millions of individuals who make up our institutions objectively doing their job. i have confidence in institutions because i look at evidence, unlike faith. another viewer saying i agree with the caller from north carolina that we have outgrown the constitution, and it needs to be amended to reflect the world. of course, that will not redone anytime soon. this one points out a specific

thing, zero confidence in the supreme court now, zero confidence in the right wing to be civil about issues. he says the right wing has destroyed democracy. separation of church and state is gone. it is becoming a police state, he adds. if you want to go to specifics, you can highlight those on our various feeds, twitter, facebook, or text us at (202) 748-8003. if you want to call us on the lines, (202) 748-8000 for democrats, (202) 748-8001 for republicans, and independents (202) 748-8002. one more, a text from cori in upper marlboro, maryland. she says confidence is quite low, corruption, dishonesty, and greed characterizes the culture of our government, and lack of transparency, executing an agenda. joe in green valley, arizona,

independent line, about your level of faith in u.s. institutions. host: i think the institutions are fine. i do not think it is institution, i think it is the 536 elected people that are about unconstitutional. i look at the representative and leader of the senate, and it makes no difference which party. that person and the people they represent control what is even brought for the people, the rest of the members of congress. they are not allowing them to vote on good things, bad things, or white. people not putting down what they vote, they are allowing only certain things to come before a vote, so they do not cause people to have to represent something they really don't want. they are looking at, what can i put in front of the people that

will draw money for me to get reelected to my job? which at this point, i would say 90% of them are un-american in their actions. host: if those are the issues you have for congress, what would change that for you, as far as developing more trust for them? caller: we, the people, do not bother to look at who we are voting for. too many of us are looking at the party. i want the party -- the party is what is causing all our problems , instead of the people. the party has more power than the people do. and it is we, the americans, that are failing and being somewhat un-american in the way we vote. the supreme court, i don't know

-- at this point, i don't know if the supreme court -- it used to be pretty good. i just think it is slipping out of favor. and that is because the people are being a little bit crooked there, too. host: another joe, this is in north carolina, democrats line. caller: good morning. i don't have any faith in the u.s. constitution. all you got to do is look back in history. we came up with something called the constitution 200, 300 years ago, and the people that wrote it up were racists. they had slaves. and we still trying to live by that constitution. we need to tear that constitution up and get a new one. that is what is going on. these people in this country, the people in this country are completely out of their minds. host: that is the constitution

being a point of contention, so what about institutions -- are there specific institutions trust or don't trust? caller: i don't trust none of them. number one is, they are all but by, what you call it, lobbyist? which is bribery. all of these people in the congress and the senate and in the presidency, they all millionaires, multimillionaires, and they got to be millionaires from the people of this country, from racism. to keep them divided. host: let's hear from tina and pennsylvania, independent line. caller: hey, pedro. hope you had a happy fourth. i am listening, and i have not lost faith in our institutions. but i have lost faith in those we have put in the seats. i am coming from -- this is just

my opinion now -- i 100% believe in the constitution. people that are saying we have a right to, we have a right to, it is not in the constitution. laws need to be made. and i think we're lost in this country. we need to put people in there that are not going to sit and have special communities over stupid stuff and start ruling for america. i mean, we're lost. america is lost. we have, on both sides -- that is why i became an independent, i don't want to be affiliated with either side. we have got them saying push back, burn this, protest that. if we all sit back and remember how we felt on september 12 of 2001, at that time we were one

nation, a republic. we need to get back to that. and all of this rhetoric from those sitting in those chairs, it is dereliction of duty. we pay their salaries. they are there representing us. it is not supposed to be one way. host: ok, that is tina there in pennsylvania. several of you talking about the constitution, talking about specific institutions. gallup draws conclusions from what they saw in this survey, saying confidence in the major institutions of the federal government is at a low point, at a time when the president and congress are struggling to address high inflation, gas prices, crime and gun violence, immigration, and foreign policy challenges with russia and china, adding confidence in the supreme court already dropped even before it overturned roe v. wade. donnell in georgia, democrats

line, about faith in institutions. go ahead. caller: good morning, pedro. i have faith in newspapers. i think students and people think what is on the internet and social media is a newspaper. there is a big difference. a newspaper is run by journalists who only tell what they see. the internet and social media and stuff has to be separated. new york times, washington post, even local papers that focus on what is happening in the communities, i still have faith in you that. host: why do you have specific faith in that type of media? caller: i will admit i am biased as a newspaper reporter, someone came up reading newspapers as a kid in new york and now i work for one in atlanta. i know the people that work there, they don't have an agenda. here in atlanta at the newspaper, people just want to tell what is happening and give

you the news and that is it. but people say fake news, but they are talking about what is going on on the internet or some website. that is not journalism, that is just people on the internet. so i think newspapers really need to be separated from online and what have you. so i still believe in the journalists. host: how much favor do you have for other forms, like talk radio or television news or cable news ? how much faith we do have a nose? caller: i believe talk radio, it is talk radio. i am trying to get you to listen every day, so i have to say certain things to get you to listen. internet radio is the same way. i think television, they are fighting for ratings. again, these are entertainment sources. there is no real entertainment value in your newspaper. you read it, you learn something, and you put it down. television wants you to stay there and watch it and watch commercials. the agenda is different.

i have a lot of friends who do tv, but i still think it needs to be separated from the other entities, newspapers. we are not trying to do the entertainment factor, i am just giving you information and that is it. host: ok, talking about the importance of media when it comes to newspapers. newspapers on this list from gallup. people ask how much faith, a great deal of faith, quite a lot of faith in newspapers specifically. 16%, that is down from last year at 21%, same question. you can add that to the mix as we go on through the hour about your faith in these institutions. government institutions, institutions like police, fire, medical, public schools, a lot of things being mentioned. in st. charles, missouri, independent line, mark is up next. caller: hi, thank you for taking my call. i just wanted to call, totally agree with the caller from

massachusetts. i have lost total faith in our news media. they are just, most of them, an arm of the democratic party to try to control and try to totally put the narrative out there for the american people to hear, which is totally just -- it is false. it just seems like they try to -- with the stories that they have and the stories that they do not even report on, they try to control with the american people here and what they think. quite frankly, i think even c-span has lied and cheated the american people. so i have lost total faith in our news media. host: now you target only television news. do you treat those things equally amongst newspapers, radio, and the like? caller: i do not really read too much of the newspaper.

i am talking about the news, the cable news, as well as just my local news. like i said, it just seems like they are a political arm of the democratic party. and again, even c-span has lied and cheated. host: you said that twice, so how did we lie and cheat? caller: well, thank you. i would appreciate it, and i hope you do not cut me off because i do not think you will like what i say. but it was back when trump was running against hillary clinton, i think you guys had an agent there, i forget his name, i think steve scully or whatever, that was supposed to moderate the presidential debate. and he had put out on his twitter, his email, not exactly sure, a bunch of negative comments towards trump before the debate. and when he was confronted about it, he totally lied to the american people. host: i do not think it would be characterized that way.

we talked about it and aired it quite openly. bickel head and finish your thought. caller: thank you. i would like to if you stop interrupting me. and he said some things that were totally against trump, and then when he was confronted about it, he said his account had been hacked and it was in him and blah blah blah. host: sure, and he also said he lied about it, and the network took action on it. if you watched it, then you know it. so. caller: and then you fired him -- host: no, he was not fired. he was placed on leave and then came back at did eventually get another job and left the network on his own occurred. caller: but even that they brought him back is just unbelievable, the only thing worse i could think of was when cnn did the same thing with jeffrey toobin, if you remember

what happened with that. host: ok. caller: i would be willing to explain it. host: no, no. you have done that. and i do not mean to interrupt you, but i wanted to clarify what you said and the characterizations you posed. thanks for the call. max in ohio, republican line. hi. caller: hello. i just got one little thing to say, and it is about the roe v. wade case. jane roe was for abortion, but in 1995 became pro-life after getting religion. i have not heard this on news, but i know that news knows and i was quite a bit of tv and read the paper -- host: thanks for your input. but as far as faith in institutions or your level of faith in institutions, how would

you characterize that? caller: if they would tell the whole story and not shorten up things in the house of representatives and the senators, i think it would be good, but they just tell bits and pieces of it, and that is why you do not have a lot of faith in it. host: by the way, to the previous caller's highlight of television news, that category just above congress as far as people's level of trust, 11% when it comes to the poll taken in 2022, compared to 16% television, people who show a great deal of faith in television news. we have been showing you this poll, and to show you some highlights again, this is what gallup says are the level of trust in institutions that people have. u.s. institutions. a wide range, with small

business, military, and police ranking up at the top. at the bottom of the list, the level of support dropping as the list goes down, public schools, organized labor, banks, large technology companies pulling down in favor. as you go lower, supreme court, presidency, and congress, which comes in last place. we are asking you, kind of based on the things you have seen from this and what other people have mentioned, what is your level of trust your faith in these institutions? you can comment on the political side, which we deal with. you can comment on television news. maybe about the police where you live or elsewhere. (202) 748-8000 for democrats, (202) 748-8001 for republicans, and independents (202) 748-8002. text us at (202) 748-8003. ohio is next, independent line, this is keith. caller: good morning.

yes, i think it is important to note that our institutions have been taken over by special interests. the people stopped paying attention to that, and somebody filled that gap, and that somebody is corporations and political interests. so we can only blame ourselves that this has happened, because in america we are allowed to advocate and we are doing it the wrong way. people are allowing corporations to take over the media, that is what has happened there. and of course, the talking heads will espouse their narratives, and this has caused a massive drop in trust from the people. again, we have done it because we allowed them to do it. should demand congress break up these media companies, take them away from corporations, and make them independent.

and this would help independent news a lot. because we hear, no matter what station or news blog you read, it is the same thing. so they cannot possibly think the same thing at the same time. so that is as far as the media. all of the other institutions, the groundwork is there for it to work, it is just a matter of who is controlling it. host: when you say who is controlling it, as far as another institution, what example would you give? caller: well, the media, as i explained -- host: he spoke about the media, but other forms of institutions, being corporately controlled. what example would you give? caller: for example, somebody wants an narrative or something pushed or if they want a court decision, they will use money or

your special interests to push congress to rule in their favor. and somebody like me standing here, just a working guy, i can't do that. so we have allowed our system to be overtaken by special interests, that is my point. host: ok. sammy in north carolina, democrats align. hello. caller: good morning. i do not have faith in the supreme court. yes, i do not have faith in the supreme court. i think president biden should extend the number of the supreme court, and i think the national bar association should disbar or take the license away from the last three nominees for supreme court. host: was your level of faith in the court low even before those three came in or was it just the

recent decision on roe v. wade that changed that? caller: it is basically the recent decision on roe v. wade, and i am really pro-life, but justice amy barrett was put in two weeks before, when they still nominee from president obama, it was like a crooked court. host: by the way, the washington times highlights another poll which talks about faith and confidence in certain institutions, to an extent. highlighted by seth mclachlan, saying people are losing faith in washington possibility to tackle the top concerns, four months off from the 2022 midterm. democrats are defending their slim majorities. according to a poll released tuesday, there is more and more concerned with inflation, rising gas prices, and the economy, a survey showed 57% of adults said

the actions of the federal government over the past six months have hurt their families when it comes to the most pressing issues. you can read more of that at the washington times, and you can weave that into the conversation on your level of faith and certain institutions. john in pennsylvania, republican line. caller: good morning. i just wanted to, that i feel congress is corrupted at this point. the way it is being run now, it was never intended by the founding fathers. money is the big influencer. you never see a congressman leave office rich -- i mean, poor, rather. everyone retires a multimillionaire, if they even retire. ok, we need term limits. and money is the big influencer. they all have special interests. they are all partisan hacks, and they don't represent the people.

they are sworn into office to uphold the constitution, and they do anything but that. host: give me a specific as far as where you think money or special interests play a large influence in the results in congress or the white house, for that matter? caller: ok, look at nancy pelosi. totally, totally partisan as far as her stance. she is not open-minded, basically. she has been accused of insider trading with stocks and stuff like that, along with maxine waters and others. there are never any investigations on them. they can hold meetings that cost the taxpayer millions of dollars. at these special meetings, like the january 6 meeting, by the way, those members on the panel

are getting twice as much as an ordinary meeting, basically. and there is no end in sight. they can call meetings after meetings, and it is costing taxpayers a lot of money. we're the ones footing the bill. congress does not generate any money. all government money comes from the taxpayer, you and me. we are footing the bill for all this. they become rich off of us, basically. they do not produce any product or anything like that. we need term limits. host: you made that point. thank you for that. to the january 6 hearing, news coming out yesterday that the panel announced it will reconvene on july 12 at 10:00 in the morning for another public hearing on the investigation into the capitol. this comes after the hearing that place most recently featuring cassidy hutchinson. july 12 action :00 is when you can see that. you can always view these hearings on c-span.

there televised. you can always watch them again on our website at c-span.org. bill, independent line, new york. caller: hello, pedro. good morning. i have confidence in c-span, that is for sure. but yeah, journalism, in general, what people perceive as journalism, very low confidence. they get a lot of their news from social media and the internet or youtube. and they think this is news. and then you have these cable television stations that, when they try to present news, if it is not acceptable to a lot of people, they can find their opinion somewhere else. that is basically what it is, it is all opinion, not reported news anymore. people just -- and i am an independent, and i was a republican my whole life.

i have never been more disappointed in the republican party and how they have gone to extremes to push a hate narrative. us versus them, a division in this country. and this is what they are running on. they have no agenda. and then the democrats who are literally split apart, because you have people that wanted to really do good things for this country and then you have people that really want to get things done but he had -- but can't without big huge compromises, and it alienates the far left, which in my opinion, can be a little bit too controlling. we have to have more moderation, have to have more cooperation from both sides. host: ok. that is bill in new york. more on the january 12 hearing, new york times reporting that that hearing that takes place, the january 6 hearing that takes place on july 12, will be led by

representative raskin, representative murphy. looking at the group that attacked the capitol and how mr. trump inspired the mob, and they will detail conversations between political actors close to mr. trump and extremists. that is what you can expect. again, you can watch it on c-span. mike in west virginia, hello. caller: good morning. i do not have faith in institutions. think about it, the massive fraud -- [indiscernible] what would have happened? the structure of our government, senate in the majority, stopping the agenda of the president, gerrymandering, electing the

congressman, finance reform. why not do it like in britain, where it is publicly funded, not from corporations, not from any interest group for democrat or republican. how can we have any confidence in that institution? the people did not come out -- especially politically appointed officials, everything was woven. what about the attack on the capitol on january 6? what happened? what if it was arab terrorists in the capitol? would they just say we share information? host: ok, jerry in virginia, republican line. caller: yes, good morning. i do not have any faith in any of our institutions anymore.

let's start with what y'all are calling the house of representatives. we don't have a house of representatives have a dictatorship. i watch the votes on these bills and things on c-span, there is never one person in the what is called a democratic party to have a vote any way other than what nancy pelosi tells them to. she will not go to the floor unless she knows she has all of the votes. and let's go to the justice department. they are just as corrupt as the democratic party. you have all these riots about black lives matter and antifa and nothing is ever said about them. but somebody stands up at a school board meeting, there terrorists? and go to the fbi. i watch the deal live from the

capitol on the sixth, and there was clearly people working for the fbi encouraging people at the capitol. the fbi is another arm of the democratic party. host: let me go back a couple steps, you had the house of representatives and said you had low confidence in them for how they do their business. at the house was taken by republicans next year, would you have the same sentiment? caller: well, i would hope they would do a little bit better than what the party now is doing. host: would you consider them tutorials then in nature? -- would you consider them dictators in nature? caller: yes, same thing. host: ok, jerry in virginia talking about his faith in institutions or no faith in them. a caller mentioning britain, in international news, it is said that prime minister boris johnson is battling to stay in power today after his government was rocked up of the resignation

of two top ministers who say they can no longer serve under the scandal charged leadership. there will be the weekly prime minister's questions session and parliament, with grilling by many senior lawmakers. the story says discontent over johnson's judgments and ethics, and resignations of the treasury chief and health secretary within minutes of each other. to see how that plays out internationally, one of the things we show quite frequently are events going on in british government. boris johnson and the house of commons liaison committee, you can see that live if you're interested in finding out how he does after today, 10:00, right after this program, watch it on c-span and also c-span now. to pat in new york, independent line. caller: how you doing? thank you for taking my call it i will try to get this in you asked the gentleman earlier what other institutions does he feel

in the same way faith has been lost. i would like to help him out and include medical, banking, education system, both university and public, congress, both parties which work for the same oligarchs, family courts where you have 95% awards of custody to the mother rather than the father, things that can't be explained really. the difference here is that it is like a dictatorship, perhaps, like the gentleman said, but not in the sense of the 20th century dictatorship, it is a dictatorship by oligarchs, a totality it -- a totality -- totalitarian system owned by cash. even systems that call themselves nonprofits, like ucla and other ones with a sock

away money in their own banking system and call it expenditures that are write-offs, i can go on and on. but what the difference is here and why china is growing so rapidly, faster than any other nation, is they have a centralized government or a form of dictatorship, if you will, that controls the capitalistic structures in their nation and makes them work for the entire nation successfully. the difference here is that these structures control our government, and that is the difference. who controls what. host: ok, that is pat in new york. person giving thoughts from earlier this year, justice clarence thomas talking about the institution of the supreme court. at the time, he was also talking about that leaked opinion on the dobbs decision and talked about what he saw as threats to the u.s. justice system. here is a portion. [video clip] >> the whole idea, your point about institutions, i think we

are in danger of destroying the institutions that are required for a free society. you can't have a civil society, a free society, without stable legal systems. you cannot have one without stability in things like property or interpretation and impartial judiciary. and i have been in this business long enough to know just how fragile it is. and the institution then ima part -- that i am a part of, if someone said one line of one opinion would be leaked by anyone and you would say, oh, that is impossible, no one would ever do that, there is such faith, belief in the rule of law, belief in the court, a belief in what we're doing,

that was verboten. it was beyond anyone's understanding or imagination that someone would do that. and look where we are. now that trust, or that belief, is gone forever. and when you lose that trust, especially in the institution that i am in, it changes the institution fundamentally. you begin to look over your shoulder. it is like kind of an infidel at a -- infidelity, that you can explain it but cannot undo it. and i think you are seeing it through any number of our institutions, whether it is in the political branches or whether it is in the university -- host: you can find that on our website, c-span.org. a viewer's is our institutions are governed by corrupt

lobbyists and politicians, exposed by our best president ever, and now he will be potus again. this one says congress is probably lowest on my list, they advocate responsibility and produce joint legislation now, give too much power to the executive branch. ann on twitter sang political partisanship has destroyed any confidence i might have had in the power of our institutions, building upon the preamble to the constitution. it is reported that senator lindsey graham, rudy giuliani, and five other allies of former president trump were subpoenaed to testify for a grand jury and in georgia into election interference by the former president and people close to him. the probe was launched in response to the president's january 2, 2021, phone call to the georgia secretary of state in which he asked the secretary to "find the votes necessary to

overturn george's election results." president biden won the state. from mike, democrats line, in jersey. hello. caller: good morning. i have lost complete confidence in the supreme court. i do not believe that they can rule fairly any longer. i believe they are a faithless court. i also have severe doubts in the congress and the president of the united states. i do not believe that they can secure our freedoms any longer. host: why is that? caller: well, it appears -- the court's decisions are laughable. their legal reasons are laughable. they are not interpreting the constitution. they are rewriting it.

host: louise is next in fredericksburg, virginia, republican line. caller: i think the institution i distrust the most and think does the most damage to the country is the u.s. state department. they are supposed to be representative of the united states. instead, they go around starting wars between countries everywhere. i personally think that the state department right now is running the war in the ukraine and has ran it. and i think that they just create trouble all over the world. they are not building anything. they are actually destroying things all over the world. host: you say the state department is running the ukraine war. what do you base that on? caller: just the facts.

listen to them. listen to them. just listen to what they say, listen to how they operate. when you listen to tony blinken with the congress, i mean, they say they are trying to fix problems all over the world, but actually they are aggravating problems all over the world. it is the most corrupt institution outside the law enforcement and the schools that i have ever, ever, ever seen. and i think the state department needs to be yanked up from the roots. host: ok. i think the first caller mentioning the state department this morning. independent line, mark, washington state. caller: i would like to say it all keeps coming back to representation. so i want to know, why 435? why do we keep enlarging our

congressional districts until it is almost ridiculous? eastern oregon goes from medford to pendleton. all the people out there, different industries, representation now is like one rep for every 700,000 people. it used to be one for every 30,000 when the constitution was written. we used to have the cardinals in the 1960 that took care of stuff -- in the 1960's that took care of stuff. same thing with the senate. puerto rico should be a state, similar to washington, d.c., and lobbyists would be alleviated. no gerrymandering. host: karl in west virginia, democrats line. caller: yes, most politicians are, democrats and republicans, they hoodwink the american people. by this, i mean, rahm emanuel

used to work for president obama and said it best, most politicians never seen a problem that they didn't like. in other words, if they solve all the problems in this country, they wouldn't have a job. so there you have it, people. host: one more call on this topic, jack in missouri, republican line. caller: hey, institutions, they are what the people make them up to be. right now, they are horrible. supreme court is the best one. i do not know why all the people say they are horrible decisions. they put the decision back in the power of the states, the power of the people. isn't that what a republic does, gives the people a right to choose? if they do not like the rules in each individual state about the abortion laws, vote out the representatives. host: where you fed up with them before the roe decision?

caller: i have always been. i do not cry when they make a ruling i do not like, like biden , like schumer, like every celebrity in america. i watched howard dean this morning on cnn saying we have to pack the supreme court, we have to impeach clarence thomas. this was on a media news network, talking about packing and supreme court. so they are going to put more people on their? what does that sound like, that is what my five-year-old does. host: that is jack in missouri. speaking of the supreme court, one of the decisions they did make in the final days, looking at regulations of the protection agency. our next guest joins us will talk about the impacts of what that means as far as regulation and how congress goes about it ahead of revelatory policy.

university director of politics, --. in those conversations coming up on -- those conversations coming up on "washington journal". >> c-span brings ea unfiltered view of government, our newsletter recaps the day for you. scan the qr code at the right bottom to sign up for this email and stay up-to-date for everything that is happening in washington each day. subscribe today using the qr code or c-span/connect to subscribe anytime. >> c-span has unfiltered cover

erage. we also have international perspectives from the united nations and statements from foreign leaders all on the c-span networks, the c-span now free mobile app or c-span.org /ukraine. our web resorts page where you can watch the -- resource page where you can watch the latest video. >> listen to c-span radio with our free mobile app, c-span now. was alive strings and -- with live floor proceedings, campaigns and more. c-span now is available at the

apple store and google play. downloaded for free today. c-span now, your front row seat to washington anytime anywhere. continues. "washington journal" continues. >> what it means for regulation making. host: good morning. describe your organization and your point of view that your organization takes when it looks at these topics. guest: certainly. it focuses on free-market policies.

host: you look at regulations. what is your interest in looking at regulations and what do you look at work in the force work? guest: whether or not they are doing that, also how they are following the administrative process, if they are taking note of rules, that kind of thing. host: members of the government that have been given powers that congress gives them, the recent decision on the epa, there are two levels to it. what does it mean for the larger picture of revelatory policy? guest: epa was a fairly narrow decision. epa cannot regulate greenhouse commissions from across the country. it did not say that they cannot potentially regulate greenhouse gases at all. it said that they want congress

to tell them to go ahead and do that and they would be able to do that. that applies to other agencies, there was also a clear signal from congress unless there's a statutory authority, agencies can point to and have met economic and political obligations, there's a good chance they might be thrown out. host: is there part of washington to let a congressman to make a regulation as long as it does not violate any major rules and it defined what that decision is on the agency itself? guest: congress the cito agencies what they want them to do. what we have seen -- congress wants to tell agencies what they want them to do. then you end up with a situation where they are trying to jerry rig.

host: as far as what we are seeing now, in order to go forward, congress has to give them a clear guidance on what they should or should not do. i am oversimplifying but over expand on that. guest: we want to let that to regulation. another thing congress can do that would be beneficial, a cabin trade system. there are certainly solutions out there. host: the guidance has to come from congress. one of the people responding is justice. the stakes here are high, congressionally authorized agencies to carbon dioxide emissions, the court appointed itself or the agency the decision on climate policy.

i cannot think of anything more frightening. what do you think of that. ? guest: she raises a point. congress needs to tell them what to do. she has implied they have told them what to do given that there was a spring court decision to regulate greenhouse emissions. the majority in the case made, these decisions that come down for agencies come out they need to -- provide a specific provision of law. back in 2009, congress considered the cabin trade will. they did not enact it. that was the signal to the majority that congress had considered these in they do not give the a authority to do that. host: what does this decision mean for every other revelatory agency in washington? guest: they need to be careful that they have the proper authority to do if they want to do.

specifically on these rules have massive economic complications. the vast majority of rules will not be affected by this because there are statutory's for them. there's a lot of change we might see further pushback from this court. one things that come to mind, security and exchange commission, requiring companies to put in their environmental impact and climate change risks. that kind of thing could be considered a major question, which is where this whole case gets at. there's nothing the fcc's authorizing that says you should be addressing climate change. host: if you have questions for him, you can call, (202) 748-8000. if you want to text us this morning, you can do this at,

(202) 748-8003. aside from environmental concerns, are there other aspects of agencies that could be impacted by this decision? guest: one sector is -- then also the federal communications commission's, there's talk that they want to bring back the neutrality role that the obama administration put in a few years ago that was withdrawn. i think those potentially can be -- for the supreme court could look at. host: give me some examples. guest: they want to testify title ii utility basically. broadband in utility. it is some speculation from legal folks that that is not what congress intended to be a title ii utility.

that is something i think the supreme court would look at and say, we are not sure one way another whether this is a. host: the ftc? guest: they had a long dormant regulatory authority. it was sort of pared back in the 1970's. they have not used their rulemaking authority for competition issues, but they may try to do that under the current . that kind of thing can be considered. the supreme court might look at that and say, well when congress. brecht their authority, do they want you to issue these types of competitions? host: when they get the green light from congress, the agencies cannot do anything themselves or act in any kind of way? guest: they can try. the court may tell them they can't in that case, congress may specify that they want them to do that. host: the ability to stop them to do that. guest: it is from a decision

called major questions doctrine, that is when there is no clear statutory authority for something that agency is doing that has major implications, perhaps even beyond major, super major implications, then they want to see clear statutory authority to make sure that the agency is running or going too far from what the actual the law allowed them to do. guest: it is going to be on a case-by-case basis. it is one of those things when you see it. that is certainly a great area that the agency will have to deal with. they will have to push the envelope on what they can do regulatory. host: there's something called chevron -- when it comes to the application of this. can you explain that and how it

applies to what you have seen over the last couple of days with this court decision? guest: when the statute is vague, typically the court will defer to the agency's interpretation of the statute. that seems like a reasonable interpretation. there was some speculation, the term that the doctrine may go away. the supreme court might get rid of it. they opted not to. in fact, the other cases did not mention chevron. it sort of seems like it is going away by ignoring it. host: if you're interested in the process of regulation and the supreme court decision, because on the line, (202) 748-8000, for democrats. (202) 748-8001, for republicans. if you're interested in hearing

the court decision, which our guest is talking about, you can see that thursday 8:00 in the evening as part of our coverage of the supreme court. if you can view that on c-span, c-span now -- you can be that on c-span, c-span now or c-span.org. host: go ahead with your question and comments please. caller: the supreme court is not a legitimate court anymore. the last appointees lied about roe v. wade and all of the other -- that they were not doing things with roe v. wade. i do not think they are legitimate anymore. host: ok. guest: you are entitled to your opinion on that. i am not an expert on the process in which they became supreme court justices. strictly speaking from what the most recent grilling has to do with agencies, the decision of the supreme court as matter.

people will have to adjust to that. host: that a sherry in north carolina. one of the opinions that came from bloomberg, the epa really, he starts out for saying it is a stocking course. that is a reflection of nearly 90 years of conservative analyst in agency making in the bureaucracy that expanded the decade in world war ii. -- goes on to say everyone likes to embrace terms that confirms their biases that becomes much more problematic". what do you think of that perspective? guest: there would be more challenges in the supreme court would be more willing to hear those challenges. i do think it is a unique

circumstance for the doctrine. first of all, this was clearly a really -- down the road. second, epa is sort of a provision of the clean air authority. even when used it before, it was used differently, it was used on a plant by plant pieces, as opposed by a statewide basis. that was the departure from what they have traditionally done. congress had the chance to enact kevin trade system and they -- cabin trade system and they did not. congress would not want them to exercise authority in that way. host: what was the case generals matter to relations before when cases came up to them? guest: they were first to agencies where things would vague. i do not think that has changed.

at think what has changed, there is some more members of the courts that are more skeptical of the authority then there used to be. host: what was the decision on who decided was it 6-3? when it came to philosophy as far as the system they voted for, including the chief justice, where do they follow in for? -- fall in for? guest: there was a concurring opinion from justice to explore the major questions and little more. he actually seemed animated to use it more than the rest of the majority was willing to use it, what the exception of justice alito. there is certainly an appetite for exploring agency action going forward. host: joel joins us from texas on our line for republican. dan bosch on american action

form. good morning. caller: i really appreciate c-span. the last three nominees for the supreme court indicated that they would not return -- overturn roe v. wade, they did not say that. they quoted, to pretend what rulings he would make was beyond and he would not do so. i wish the other people would keep that in mind. they did not say it at all. guest: yeah. for the most part, supreme court nominees are unwilling to engage in hypothetical things.

it is often something they do in confirmation hearings. roe v. wade is a constitutional issue other than a regulation issue. i am not a constitutional scholar. host: you're a regulatory expert, let's start with that. what is regulation and how does the government go about it? guest: when agencies implement what congress will have to do. they delegate the epa authority to regulate and figure all of the specifics in all of that will have to come about. host: do they automatically approve it or do they go to your process after that? guest: the agency will develop a proposal and submit it to the federal register, which will make the rules for public comment. anyone can go on the internet and submit a comment and the

agency has to taken under consideration. after several months, even several years of review, the agency will make a final decision and make make changes -- may make changes. host: what degree invites the regular person? guest: it impacts them more than they realize but it is usually indirect. things like gas prices, that may not necessarily be a result of a regulatory decision. typically that is something that will come from your congress. there are costs associated with regulations that get passed on to consumers. it is sort of a balance of -- the public maybe even realize, that they will receive benefits from these regulations. host: give me an example where revelation comes in where someone benefits and for the

average person? guest: workplace safety regulations. that is something that is a benefit to the employees that has a favor. does increase the cost of certain goods and services. host: let's hear from --. caller: good morning, how are you c-span? 1917 supreme court justice decided on abortion and we change it, what is the point of having a supreme court? our georges made a decision cording to constitution -- judges made a decision according to constitution. it doesn't make sense? guest: it makes it difficult and makes our society less predictable. there are remedies to what the supreme court did in roe v. wade and some of these other decisions that congress could pass a law. on some of these other issues,

there are amendments of the constitution they can pass. there are some remedies of went supreme court changes their opinion, that is something we're going to continue to see going forward. host: when it comes to revelation, how much does it cost to overhaul? is there a price tag? how much does it cost a person for regulations? guest: i see some estimates. the total burden cost somewhere to trillion dollars annually. we track the cost of regulations and the agency estimates them when they publish them through biden's first year, for example they have 200 and $6 billion in relation were passed with costs. host: how would you describe the biden administration's approach to regulation? guest: pro regulation. specifically in climate change.

they have sort of been, we do not think we can work with congress so we going to try to push the executive authority to regulation as much as we can. host: let's go to autumn in washington dc, democrats mind. caller: good morning. i am a huge fan of the forum appeared i think the supreme court ruling is dangerous. climate change is a threat to not only human life but all plants and animals. we really need to think long term about improving our home, it is the only place in the universe we know. we need to preserve it. i think doing away with protection for the environment is only going to lead to horrible things down the road. i just wanted to say that. thank you so much. guest: he made a important point, climate change is certainly one of the issues of our time. it is also important for

agencies to stay within the bounds that congress provided them to do. it makes the supreme court are popular because everyone is like, we need to be addressing climate change, what are we going to be doing now. it is important to keep in mind, we met in 315 in obama's role, we met those targets. the market forces just kind of took care of it on its own. there is no real injury from this decision. there's an opportunity for congress to enact a durable policy that can create fixed solutions going forward. host: the story this morning on the wall street journal, says -- including one that allows economic factors to be considered on whether to let the species or endanger, ruling that was by justice tiger in oakland. also, it made it more difficult

to get protection by particular events. guest: yeah. they can block relation from going into effect for overturn it pending further appeal after the supreme court. they displayed the groundwork for the record will actually consider in these cases. in this instance, it is sort of a example that where some of these cases take case can help take some of the decisions in some of the more liberal areas, they may strike down whereas the republican administration did. some of our conservative area are more likely to oppose with the biden administration is doing. host: is it the possible the decision could move up to the supreme court then? guest: absolutely.

we had a viewer that texted us this morning host: host:. congress exercises the authority to decision making to an agency, what is unconstitutional about that? guest: you know, there are some folks in the legal world who think that there are specific powers that congress cannot delegate to agencies. that is what they call the non-delegation doctrine. for the most part, when there is clear authority from congress, it is appropriate for agencies to act. at clear authority, courts are going to be more skeptical. host: we talked about the bidens approach to revelation, how would you talk about the previous agencies approach? guest: 180. they were not ultimately successful at the end of the four years. i think it was $40 billion total in regulation cost has been

imposed. you know, they came out to about $10 million. compare that to obama administration which is $110 billion in annual. the biden administration was 200 billion. certainly a huge departure. host: what was the significant amount of revelatory reducing that you could describe for? guest: the biggest one was a row that sort of rolled back some of the annual average mileage efficiency for cars. that was the biggest one because vehicles have such a huge effect on the economy. it sort of counters to that point, the bidens administration biggest role by far is reversing that role. that tends to be were most of the cost are made of. host: let's go to lyle in los angeles. democrats mind. you are on with our guest.

caller: i would love to say, first about, i agree with the supreme court's in overturning roe v. wade. i think it is insane for women to abort their own children. it is like a alien coming down and saying, we are forcing you to kill your own children. host: we are talking about the regulatory impacts of the supreme court's decision, do you have a question about that? caller: make homosexuality illegal because it is mental illness. host: we will leave it there. julius from independent. hello. caller: i would like to say that

in a world of over 7 billion people, you got to have regulations. it is just as simple. i heard say with my own ears, i heard him say that climate change is a hoax. that is what he said. he also said -- genius. would anybody but a full say that? host: what would you like our guest to address? caller: he talking about relations. that is just common sense. host: a fine line between too much regulation and freedom for a company or a entity to operate, where do you find that balance? guest: a great question. the folks that work in my

line of work trying to grapple where is the line. it is certainly not a clear line. what agencies try to do and ultimately what congress considers when they are enacting the statute, what is the right law of session we need to provide for a market or consumers, workers? versus -- that allows prosperity. it is a balance. host: is there any examples of where that works as far as a example? guest: it is a tough question. i think we have seen a lot of benefits from clean air act rules in general and we have seen the market adapt to those. while clean air roles can be particularly costly, we have shown some flexibility in the past where we are able to adapt to those. host: viewers -- why can't congress do our jobs?

--do their jobs? guest: that is a good question. people are really upset with the supreme court right now. they said congress can do with epa had tried to do. you know, people who will actually give them the authority. host: are there any talk in congress to put things in motion that we can rebuke that? guest: i'm sure there is the have not seen anything specific since it came out for the july 4 holiday. i think there are a few cases down the stretch of the supreme court that now congress would mention. the action is unclear. host: judith in queens, new york. democrats mind. you are on. -- democrats line.

caller: what i am saying though. why sending them to pakistan? host: ok. that is judith there in new york . the congressional review act, what is it? guest: a statute that allows congress to overturn a role, a agency issued by passing a resolution of disapproval. it has to be signed by the president. it is very infrequent that a president will sign something that overturns his or eventually her regulations. it has only been used about 17 or 18 times, history. host: in a instance if the house of representatives chose incident republican power after the midterm elections, is there any avenue for them to reverse

revelation -- regulation aside from the president signing that reversal? guest: defined the agency's ability to implement these rules through appropriations. that will also require the president's. as opposed to what the standalone venture, obviously the entire venture system has a lot of implications in what rules. there's a lot more to consider. host: this is from sue in fairfax, virginia. republican line. caller: i am a consultant in financial services. i have been studying and writing about the fcc rule for climate change disclosure, the greenhouse gas emission. it called me to read a lot about

the climate change in general. the extremist language of how existential it is and meant zero by 2050. it is really pushing through some very forceful regulation, including the fcc regulation. i looked on mckinsey's website, they have a lot of good information about what these regulations would cost and unattainable they are. i think they estimated going met zero by 2050 like over $700 trillion. this is really forceful and aggressive. i do not think attainable. calling it existential, meaning very existence. i heard politicians saying we have 12 years until we are dead.

the oceans are rising. i have information with decades of experience in climate science , the detriment of ocean and land is only expected to be at a maximum three feet, a maximum three feet. host call, i hate to that spirit what would you like our host to address? host: what would you like our host to address? caller: frontal batteries are able to restore -- until batteries are able to restore energy, that will not work. guest: you certainly raised a good point about the effectiveness of these regulations can actually

bringing about the emissions reduction we need. they are far less efficient than something like market-based. to me it is sort of one of the greater disappointments in my view of the biden administration , his willingness to rely solely on regulation is not going to get us were ready to go. host: this is from tony on twitter. why can't congress vote on the text of the final relations proposed by agencies, they may need to work a bit more. for do we authorize regulation? it is a balance of power issue. guest: once congress held at the executive to do something, it can step on the executive to say, now we take that back after we saw what you did with it. to require congress to do that for every role i think would be pretty unwilling. i get the sentiment of why you would want congress involvement in this because of monitoring

with the entities are doing. i think it would be tricky to implement --. host: from miami, florida. we will be joined by elizabeth. a democrat. caller: good morning. [no audio] [inaudible] this is not climate change, this is climate crisis. [inaudible]

if we stop throwing our paper and cardboard in the landfill. anyway. host: thank you. guest: you sort of touched on a important point, climate change is a important issue it goes back to what i mentioned a few minutes ago, regulation is not going to get us where we need to go. we need to be investing in research and a lot of the market to be innovative in these areas brings along the constitutions that will get us where we need. host: if you are from twitter says it does not seem right that a unelected entity to make regulation. that noncompliance would result in punishment by law. guest: congress actually authorizes an agency to do that.

what supreme court is saying, the decision that we started off talking about in some of the earlier decisions, we need to be sure that congress has actually tilting unelected bureaucrats to do that. host: the other decisions, what are you referencing? guest: where osha had the rule to require large employers to get there employees vaccinated or testing weekly. they blacked out from going into place because they ruled it -- they blocked it from going into place because they rolled it --. host: let's hear from dennis in wyoming. democrats min. line. caller: the supreme court and the regulations and stuff in congress. the first thing congress needs to do is pass a code of ethics for the supreme court.

that is just my comment. guest: yeah. that is something they can consider. we have seen some headlines that sort of questioned behavior, maybe some related to the supreme court justices. host: aside from what we have been talking about, what other cases regarding regulation are coming down the pipe or at least think you're interested in seeing? guest: in the next term the supreme court is going to weigh in on the extent in which epa and the army corps engineers can regulate the water in the united states. that is something we will be seeing. we will see several challenges to some of these the biden administration rules, fcc rule that was mentioned earlier was certainly one your die think it will be in the near term.

one moral. e rule. caller: just there they historical president for this realignment of regulatory statures? has there been a point that the supreme court has created or changed revelatory aspect of what we are going through, maybe even more conservatively or aggressively? thank you. guest: to great question. over time it tends to be more progressive and giving the agencies more discretion to do something. i think right now we are in the -- where it is going to start tipping back to the conservative side constraining agencies in putting the focus back on congress and requiring them to authorize these agencies to do them. dan balch joining us for this conversation.

thank you for your time. coming up, we are going to talk about midterm elections. joining us for the conversation, university of virginia center of politics, larry sabato. if you want to participate, (202) 748-8002 for independence. the president gives a metal for four vietnam soldiers. here is the president's remarks from yesterday. [video clip] yesterday mark the nation's independence. >> so dear to the capital of our nation, liberty, democracy, god given rights of every

individual. it is a journey that has never finished and it never will be fully finished. it is a work that requires us to look ahead in the future, the future on a bill and carefully to our past. understand fully where we come from, reaching those 246 years, american preachers have answered our nations called to military service. they said the way of danger, risk everything, literally everything to defend our nation and our values. however, not every service member has received the full recognition they deserved. today, we are setting the record straight. we are upgrading the awards of four soldiers who perform acts of incredible eras during the vietnam conflict, to respecting this precarious gallantry -- conspicuous gallantry and

service. it is astounding when you hear what each of them have done. they went far above and beyond the call of duty. it takes on life when you see these men. for the late step sergeant, w birdwell. two major john duffy, i am proud to finally award our highest military recognition and the medal of honor to each of you. it has been a long journey to this day for those heroes and their families. for more than 50 years have passed, 50 years since the gentleman in vietnam, the soldiers first proved their medal. time has not diminished their bravery and selflessness of putting themselves in front of their on. >> "washington journal"

continues. host: if you want to participate, here is how you can do so. you can call us on the line, (202) 748-8000 democrats. (202) 748-8001, republicans. (202) 748-8002, independence. if you want to text as, you can do so at, (202) 748-8003. there are other ways you can participate in our conversation on social media. we have a facebook page you can post on as well as twitter. you just heard from president biden yesterday reporting today he is going to cleveland, ohio. this is from the local news station there. president biden once again coming to cleveland, this time stopping at a local high school on wednesday. he plans to deliver remarks on his economic agenda, building the economy from the bottom up in the middle out. according to the white house, union workers and retirees are

expected to be in attendance during the speech. stay close to the network as more of that event takes place during the president's travel. you can wash them on c-span. you can, here on c-span before we talk about midterm elections with larry sabato. we will start off with rob. go ahead. caller: thank you for c-span as usual. you are doing a great job. as far as these midterms are concerned, this is a big deal this time around. my fear is that the direction -- the legislature, it seems like they are moving in a direction towards focusing in towards one man role. i am concerned that we are going to get a trump to run again in

2024, i think it will be disastrous. i think there's people in this party that will take him out. i was going to say, the democrats -- i hope in 2024, i think that maybe it is time for biden to reconsider. we need a pit bull, pedro. i do not know exec who it is, but someone like perhaps an hour frank, someone who can stand up and take a punch and throw. are you concerned about the house are democrats of the house losing power after the midterm? host: i think he is gone. let's hear from marcy. caller: until the church comes together there will be confusion. as the church goes, so goes the country. our rights were given to us by god. the bible says no one is in

authority except from god. the church needs to read romans 13. we need to be praying for our leaders. we need to look at our own actions, what are we doing to make a difference? we expect others to make our lives better. what am i doing to improve my family, community, state, nation, the world? the people in power -- they just have more power. if you listen to your colors, just imagine that if they have the same power, how would they act? we are truly blessed to live in a country where we have equal rights. that does not guarantee equal outcomes. we have been blessed, but we have to recognize where those blessings come from. host: again, we will have the phones open until 915 time. the wall street journal reports on the head of the u.s. atomic

inspected agency concerns about iran. it was a wide range in speech of the australian national university about the head of international atomic energy. we are reaching a definite fighting moment for a global nuclear, the risk of the spread of nuclear weapons are for everybody. we are talking about the story. iran stepping up the work ahead of the agency. iran's action, which includes the highly enriched uranium, to ramp up nuclear program. that is reporting in the wall street journal this morning. when it comes to actions reporting in the washington post, writing about the justice department suing arizona over there law requiring citizenship

to vote. it says the justice department officials say the law allows only 13 supreme court ruling that struck down the -- approve of the decision requirements. at the time, the majority of the court set the move violated federal statutes. in the lawsuit, federal prosecutors said the voter registration form already includes numerous trading proof of citizenship in -- it also said it was not material to whether that boat was required to vote by mail or in the presidential election. that is the washington post. we will hear from if you're in maryland. this is james. independent mind. ella. -- independent line.

hello. caller: the founding founders -- fathers decided they do not want a fictional unity to be a part of this country's government. the fictional character of jesus was written decades, centuries even after the supposed -- suppose a man was supposedly alive. you think if someone was actually to walk on water and heal people, there would be a rush, no one wrote about any of the stuff that happened in the bible until years after the fact. because it is a fiction. god is a fiction meant to control women and poor people. when the republicans are pushing about, they want control. it is not because they actually believe this stuff. host: that is james in maryland. when it comes to gun laws, new jersey enacting new ones.

they're covering what is going on in the state, saying the new jersey package of gun laws, given the whole passage last week after months of deliberation will require training to require a gun license. it will also require handgun owners to register any firearms purchase out-of-state. they are commonsense, smart, live up to securities values. governor murphy, a democrat said in the measures on tuesday. these are not going to be our last words on gun safety. we are going in the state of new jersey. particularly in light of the shooting in lake highland park, illinois. here are some of the comments from yesterday. [video clip] >> whether that be in production, is there anything

that the fed can do to move in that capacity? you are not getting anywhere oregon's, what about ammunition, and he talks? >> the best way to really have a comprehensive gun reform is through legislation is to work with congress. the president has done the most executive actions that any president at this time in their administration. what we are going to continue to do and continue to focus on is to work with congress to do more. one of the things i have been pointing out is the banning of assault weapons, which we believe is important as the president lead on this issue back in 1994. host: when the white house does a briefing, we tape it. when we presented to you, we can see that and more from yesterday if you go on our website.

we told you about the boris johnson event, the things going on in the united kingdom, things he may take interest in. you can see that at 10:00 this morning. that will be at 10 at c-span. you can see that live today. when it comes to issues of the bar mental protective agency, we told you earlier, oral argument, which dealt with the concealed carry law in new york. if you're interested in seeing that and howdy justices asked questions -- if you're interested in seeing that, and howdy justices asked questions. you can see that as c-span.org. let's go to raymond in colorado. independent mind. caller: good morning -- independent line. caller: there are a couple of

things i want to pull up your i have no confidence in the government because of hypocrisy that is happening lay all branches of government. each of us have to take a look in the mirror, we are responsible for voting for those people. the second thing i would like to say, all of these people who are crazy about donald trump should take a look at mary trump's -- her niece she is a trained psychologist, what she says about her uncle and how he was raised. one more item i would like to say, to all of the republicans out there, please take a look at the documentary the rise and fall of the third right. if you do not see similarities, something is wrong. thank you. host: let's hear from greg in

alabama. republican line. caller: i love the open forum line, i get to hear what everybody is thinking about. i left to see you guys bring on some -- love to see you guys bring on folks and talk about it. as we moved to energy sources and electric vehicles, start resourcing that's researching investments for the future what we might can make some money off of. i started researching batteries and cobalt. none of the batteries could be built without electro vault. 19 out of the top 20 minds are owned by china. our energy and independence is only going to go north if we continue to move that way. the u.s. now has zero cobalt

minds, we have no ability to build a battery for a electric vehicle. it would be great is to with the powers at need our thinking by being totally dependent by china to power those vehicles, not to mention all of the other problems that come along with it. host: do you see yourself purchasing an electric vehicle in the future? caller: i am closing in on 60. i can't say we will not get to that point. the energy problem, the carbon footprint of electric vehicle is the same as gas. we are not there yet. when i did actually drive one, i was impressed. host: what did you drive? i drove a tesla. caller: i was completely

surprised. it was a wake-up call. we could move that direction but we have got some hurdles to overcome. california has 60 million registered vehicles. they have great power out there. they have solar and wind. they share it here and there but they do not store it well. the forestry management, the weight it is, brown house things of that nature, i am not sure we can use the amperage demand to charge those vehicles. i am not sure if we are there yet with the mandate of 2035. host: thanks for the call. your thoughts when it comes to oil prices themselves. washington post this morning takes a look at recent prices. tuesday oil prices fell sharply,

moving below $100 per barrel for the first time since may. 12 states below $100. gasoline could fall as low as 40 to $.60 according to gas bu ddy. oil prices are culling because graham economic -- grim economic perceptions. the four-week moving average dropped to 8.9 3 million barrels a day. that is a decline in 2.6% compared to a year ago according to the information administration. joan on our line for democrats in minnesota. in minnesota, joan, hello. democrats line. you are on. caller: hello.

i wanted to talk about the supreme court. i did not realize until all of the conversations lately, that these are our elected officials that the congress are people who are in for short periods of time. they give these people full authority. they can ask a homeless person off the street to be in the supreme court. he has a chance of getting on. nobody should given that much power. they should be elected there, not nominated by people who are not in our government. host: if a justice was elected,

don't you think they would behave in a manner to ensure we would have election and that would sway their decision? caller: i think it will give people, having a person that was more fair than just having a group of men, who are in for a short time electing people to the courts for their lifetime. we the people are subject to all of their whims and fancies. i do not think it is democratic. i think that should be looked at. those people should are in their right to be on their court. not just with the people of congress. host: let's hear from ron. he is in michigan. republican. caller: just responding to the previous caller. the justices do not make

decisions. the otherwise, the topic of the press secretary not being able to answer questions about topice press secretary not being willing to answer question about biden and his son while for four years all they did was few lies about trump and his family but she will not take a simple question about him being involved with his sons overseas businesses from that podium? why is there a double standard in what the press is allowed to ask now compared to what was asking for four years? i think that is ridiculous. host: the new york post highlighting the fact that the caller brought up, saying it was the press secretary refusing to discuss the 2018 voicemail from joe biden recovered from a laptop recovered from his son hunter undermining the claim

that president biden never discussed dealings with his son, then why is there a voicemail with the president discussing business dealings? that was peter ducey from fox news. responding saying -- leaving a voicemail about the new york times -- i think you are clear, how is that on him talking to his son about his overseas business dealings, she goes on to say it we will not discuss about alleged materials from a laptop. if you want to see that exchange, go to our website at c-span.org. we will hear from jim in ohio. democrats line. caller: i want to say something about how fast technology will change these electric cars. in 1945 there were 40,000 steam

locomotives in america. in 10 years they will all gone. that is how fast technology will change with these electric cars. one more thing about trump. i like to quote donald trump. he said "only the guilty take the fifth amendment, including the mob." that reflects on his self and all of his cohorts. host: independent line from california. we will hear from roy. caller: how are we today? host: i am fine, thank you. caller: but i would like to touch on is something the gentleman from maryland claimed about the holy book. i believe that the majority of people do not understand how to read at. if they were to understand that what it is is a book about

regulations on how to live a healthy and prosperous life for all, and how we should love each other no matter what, unconditionally. when it comes to jesus walking on water, that was simply a parable to explain how one man can make a change with an impossible act. during the crippled -- curing the crippled was teaching man who had given up to stand up for himself. the blind was to teach them to open their eyes to see what was actually going on. it is a fallacy how they were actually blind and they were crippled and he got them to walk is what the churches have unfortunately presented to the

general public. host: that is roy in california. from minnesota, this is wayne. caller: i do not simply like -- i would simply like to say i think it is a moral for the united states and the rest of the so-called world who did not immediately stop putin's aggression on ukraine and has not stopped him from killing many thousands of citizens and innocent people. i think it is absolutely immoral , thank you. host: we have about 10 minutes before we go into a discussion about the midterm elections. larry sabato joining us for that. we will do open phones until then. fort republicans, (202) 748-8001

, democrats (202) 748-8000, and independents, (202) 748-8002. john in columbus, ohio. good morning. caller: thanks for taking my call. i just want to say that we hope that this nation, most especially our leader, know what it is doing. they are destroying the great foundation that was laid for their children and children's children. they are leaving no nation. the freedom they have enjoyed and their children will now enjoy -- will not enjoy because

they are destroying this nation because of politics. we need to come together in unity because -- if america prospers, everybody will prosper. that is what i want to say. i hope we will continue to do the right thing. host: let's hear from denise in california. caller: good morning. i just wanted to say that a way can do away with the assault weapons being so rampant on the streets is to give every black man in every hispanic man and ar-15 and they will hurry up and shut down that law. they will send the army, the navy, the air force and the marines to take those away from them. host: that is cindy in

california, giving her thoughts stemming from the recent shooting in illinois. one of the things highlighted in the new york times website was brittney griner, the american wmu a star detained in russia since february -- the wnba recently wrote a letter to the president saying she is terrified she will be there forever. organizing her release is a tricky proposition, complicated by washington's break with moscow over the war in ukraine. the white house press secretary asked about the status of brittney griner in the administration efforts to have her released. here is a portion of that. [video clip] >> can you talk about the status of the letter brittney griner sent to the president? her wife was on television. she wants to hear from the president. >> i can say the president did read the letter.

i was there when he read the letter. this is something, brittney griner being held in moscow, we believe she is being wrongfully detained in moscow at this time. this is an issue that is a priority for this president. he believes any u.s. national that is held abroad or detained or held hostage abroad we need to bring back safely and we need to use every tool we can to make that happen. this is a priority for the president. i want to share that on saturday brittney griner spoke with jake sullivan. that is their second call. secretary blinken also spoke with brittney griner. i do not have anything else to read out as far as a potential call or meeting, but clearly we believe she is wrongfully detained. we believe she needs to come

home. she should be home. in any other u.s. nationals who is being wrongfully detained abroad. host: cheryl in texas, democrats line. caller: i just have one comment or one question. the republicans seem obsessed with hunter biden's laptop. why is it they never question the $2 billion that jared kushner got from saudi arabia? that is all i have. thank you very much. host: tracy in oregon, republican line, hello. caller: my comment would be to readers who have reference the bible and jesus regarding our nation. respectfully, anyone can practice the religion they would like, which is ensconced in the first amendment, but the first

amendment also tells us there will be no establishment of a religion. i would encourage people who want to have conversations about what our government is doing to get a copy of the constitution. physically it is a small document. i would encourage people to read the entire constitution, to read the bill of rights. i am concerned with the recent supreme court rulings that they have violated the constitution. being a woman i am concerned for all females in the united states , girls to full grown adult women that our rights have been taken away from us. we have been relegated to being in incubator -- to being an incubator it looks like congress will create a law or we will have to do an amendment to the constitution or maybe we will

finally fully ratify the equal rights amendment, which might put an end to all of this. we had 38 states agree to it. we just need congress to pass the e.r.a.. i am calling on all men in our country to stand up with women against the overturning of roe v. wade. host: let's hear from ron in florida, independent line. caller: just came across newsmax that mr. biden shipped 5 million barrels of oil to europe and asia. you know anything about that? host: i've not seen anything up here, but there's a lot going on up here. tell us more what you saw from newsmax. caller: they said 5 million barrels were shipped to europe and asia. ms. jean pierre evidently did

not know anything about it. if that is a possibility where are the global warming people how much diesel fuel they spend burning up to take our oil out of the reserves over to europe, and every day you see something that could not possibly make sense for this administration to come up -- they come up with another idiocy. thank you. host: we have been telling you all morning about the british prime minister boris johnson and what he is going through today to survive his posting office in any event you can see on c-span. there was a conversation with a conservative who delivered a personal statement on his decision to do -- to resign from prime minister boris johnson's

cabinet after it came out boris johnson new of inappropriate behavior of his deputy chief web but promoted him anyway. [video clip] >> i welcome the prime minister's eight dollars meant that matters could been handed better in who he appointed. i appreciated his kind and humble words when i went to see him yesterday and also the kind letter he sent to me. i do fear the reset button can only work so many times. there are only so many times you can turn that machine on or off before you realize something is fundamentally wrong. last month i gave the benefit of doubt one last time. i have not concluded the problem starts at the top. that is not going to change. -- i have concluded that the problem starts at the top and

that is not going to change. i believe it is for those of us in a position that have responsibility to make that change. i wish my cabinet colleagues well. i can see they have decided to remain in the cabinet. they will have their own reasons . it is a choice. let's be clear. not doing something is an active decision. i am deeply concerned about how the next generation will see the conservative party on our current course. our reputation after 12 years in government depends on regaining the public trust. this is not just a personal matter. the philosophy of conservatives depends on it. it is central to the conservative ideal that we believe indecency, in personal

responsibility, and in social justice enabled by conventions and the rule of law. host: look for more of that at c-span.org or the c-span now app. let's hear from john in new york. republican line. last call. caller: i would like to speak about the origin of fake news. i read nothing but history. when george washington was president, john adams said why is a newspaper lying about george washington? that was the first original fake news. the origins of slavery. slavery started in africa. the warring tribes in africa, when they caught their enemy, they made them slaves. when the hudson bay company came to africa, they bought the slaves because they -- that is

how slavery started back than. here in america everybody is a slave. if you do not work, you do not eat. you have to work to make my. you're a slave to the job no matter what job you have got. host: that is john on the republican line. thank you for participating. one more segment in which we look at the upcoming midterm elections and where the various races to watch will be. joining us is the university of virginia center for politics director larry sabato. you can ask about what will happen in the midterms to get his input. >> listening to programs on c-span for c-span radio just got easier. tell your smart speaker to play c-span radio and listen to washington journal daily at 7:00 eastern.

important congressional hearings and other public affairs events throughout the day and weekdays at 5:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. eastern. listen to c-span any time. just tell your smart speaker, play c-span radio. c-span. powered by cable. >> be up-to-date in the latest in publishing with book tv, podcasts about books. current nonfiction releases, bestseller lists, along with industry news and trends through insider interviews. find out about books on c-span now, our free mobile app, or wherever you get your podcasts. c-span shop.org is c-span's online store. browse through our latest collection of c-span products, apparel, books, home decor, and

accessories. there is something for every c-span fan and every purchase help support our nonprofit organization. shop at c-spanshop.org. >> c-span has unfiltered coverage of the house january 6 committee hearings investigating the attacks on the capital. go to c-span.org/january6 to watch the latest videos of the hearings, briefings, and all of our coverage on the attack and subsequent investigations since january 6, 2021. we will also have reactions from members of congress and the white house as well as journalists and authors talking about the investigation. go to c-span.org/january6 for a fast and easy way to watch when you cannot see it live. >> "washington journal" continues. host: joining us is larry

sabatino, the founder and editor-in-chief of sabato's krystal ball. thank you for your time. we are talking a lot about the midterm elections. where do you see things going? guest: until several recent developments i think just about everybody thought a fairly sizable republican wave was building for november. that may still turn out to be true. we have had curveballs. the horrible mass shootings that have taken place. even with the very modest gun safety bill that passed congress and the president biden signed before july 4, it is clear people are still outraged, puzzled, frustrated this problem continues when no other country

on earth has this kind of situation, certainly no industrial democracy. and the overturning of roe v. wade and the supreme court in the dobbs decision. this will be an earthquake. it will have an effect, not on every race, i do not think it will affect races in the deeply red states, but the purple states, absolutely it is having an impact. certainly in states that are normally democratic. these things may work to the democrats benefit. i hate bringing politics into mass shootings. they should simply be denounced and we ought to mourn the victims. i am here to discuss politics and that is why we are mentioning that dimension. for those -- host: for those who vote in november, how much of that is a sway versus matters of the economy which republicans say people care more about than

the ones you have listed? guest: there is no question. the reason the republican wave is building is not just because it is a midterm election. it is true the opposition party almost always does badly in midterm elections. the question is how badly. that is where these new issues come in. potentially balancing inflation, rising food prices, rising gas prices, and other things that relate to the economy, many economists are debating whether we are in a recession or maybe going in one, others will have to tell you whether we are in a recession. you have to weigh those. you look at the scales and uad issues that help the republicans and the democrats. this is a big shock. republicans will tell you

inflation, gas prices, and food prices matter a lot more than gun control and abortion rights. democrats will tell you abortion rights and gun control give them a shot of minimizing losses in the house and potentially holding the senate by some margin, maybe even what it is right now. host: larry sabato joining us until the 10:00 hour. if you want to ask him questions, (202) 748-8000 free democrats, (202) 748-8001 for republicans, (202) 748-8002 for independents. host: your ratings are updated in june on the senate races. you highlight four tossup's. can you break those down for us. guest: it is important to note, i will tell you how they appear to be leaning today. we need to remember it is early july. if i could diverge very briefly

to a historical example, the first midterm iver paid attention to was president kennedy's only midterm in 1962. even though kennedy was still relatively popular in the 1950's and occasionally in the 1960's before that election, republicans were still expected to do reasonably well in the midterms. richard nixon had a pretty decent chance to win the california governorship that year. then something happened. right in the middle of october. it was called the cuban missile crisis. it did not resolve until shortly before the midterm election day. back then almost nobody voted absentee. everybody voted on election day. united states was seen as the victor in the cuban missile crisis. the soviet union blinked. the democrats ended up having a

wash in congress, a wash in the house and the senate and they did reasonably well in gubernatorial elections, including the defeat of richard nixon. we all know he came back but that was a terrible setback for him. my point is you cannot bring down the curtain on an election before it is over. everybody tries to do that almost every day and i refuse to do it because i too old to do it. as far as this november, voting starts in late september in a number of states and goes through the november election, i would say in those senate races right now, they are very close, and i think they could go either way. if you're looking for the current front runner, current front runner, then it would be democrats in pennsylvania and georgia and nevada is unclear. maybe the abortion rights issue

helps the incumbent democrat there. arizona, probably the democrat has a slightly. in those four states the democrats are doing reasonably well. that is a gain of one. if they actually carried all four democrats would potentially gain a seat and they would have absolute majority. they would not always did the vice president to break the tie, although as we know well there are two democrats who often do not vote with the other democrats. senator manchin from west virginia and senator sinema from arizona. that is where those four races stand. those are tossup's. there are others close to tossup's. wisconsin is leading to the republican, but you have to wait and see who the democrats nominate. we do not know how that primary will turn out.

we do not know how united or divided democrats will be. new hampshire will be another one where there is an incumbent democratic senator who otherwise might have been in deep trouble. may still lose, but right now is ahead because of the abortion rights issue. these things are fluid. this is something people do not seem to understand. they think in the spring or the summer of a midterm year you can predict what will happen. host: of the four you mentioned, which interests you the most? guest: everybody is looking at pennsylvania for obvious reasons. that is a republican seat that could go democratic. you have a republican nominee who democrats say is not a resident of pennsylvania, actually lives in new jersey.

that is dr. oz. the democrats nominated a candidate, i do not want to diss him in the slightest, he had a stroke before the primary. it is obvious it was more serious than the campaign admitted. we still have not seen the candidate out on the campaign trail. they keep saying he will appear in july, so i guess yes another 20 or 25 days to appear. there are two candidates who are damaged and we will see what happens. the gubernatorial race is leaning democratic, maybe that is helping in the senate race. if i do pick one i would pick georgia because senator raphael warnock was elected just two years ago, one of those two democratic seats in georgia that were elected in the special election in early january, the day before the insurrection on capitol hill.

they both went democratic in georgia after biden carried georgia narrowly and they turn the senate very slightly blue. the vice president is on the road right now to breaking the all-time tie-breaking record for vice presidents. she will probably do that by the end of the year. those two seeds mattered enormously. senator warnock right now is ahead. a lot of people thought georgia would bounce back in a republican year, and maybe they still will, but in the senate race herschel walker, the republican nominee, well-known football star, has had some problems. i do not intend to go into individual scandals, i'm trying to avoid that, at least for this program. herschel walker is not as strong as some had expected him to be. he has been pushed throughout by

former president trump. senate minority leader mitch mcconnell has severe doubts about him and did not want him to be the nominee, though he eventually came around, probably because he accepted reality. this may be a republican tied in georgia, but it may not be enough to pull herschel walker across. we will see what happens. host: this is carol in new york, democrats line. go ahead. good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to ask a question about new york state. claudia tenney is my representative in congress. she is in the center of the current 22nd district at the western edge of the new 19th.

it is about the 19th i would like to ask a question, specifically how does he rate the democratic candidate to be, i will let him choose either one , compared to the republican, and i would also like to ask about his take on the gubernatorial election in new york. thank you very much. guest: the gubernatorial election, at least right now, appears to be leaning substantially to the new governor of new york, kathy hochul, who is the democratic nominee. it will be a big surprise if she does not maintain that lead and if she is not elected to a four year term of her own. the republican is a well-known republican congressman who won the republican nomination going away, but even in a republican

year it is difficult for a republican to win statewide in new york. that appears to be holding true in the gubernatorial contest. in the house race, i guess he was asking about claudia tenney. her district is leaning republican. she is favored for reelection. we have to see what develops. this is very early in the house races, shortly after the new york primary. host: allen in mississippi, republican line. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i would like to comment on the insurrection on january 6. the main question is -- nobody asks the reason why it happened. i would like to comment and say the reason it happened was that

people are absolutely fed up with the corruption of the government that are in power at the moment. how can the president of the united states after two years become a millionaire? they all become millionaires, and i would like to say that president trump said in his speech we will march down to the white house peacefully. let me repeat that. host: we got the point. larry sabato, to the impact january 6 impacts voters this november.

guest: notice i did not include that in the list of factors because i do not know what they will finally say. i think they have been more groundbreaking than people expected, and some of these earrings have been riveting, including the most recent one featuring cassidy hutchinson. my sense is this committee, once the final report is released, will have two major effects. first of all, effecting the midterm election, they will not change any republicans mind. it will not change a lot of independent minds, at least the republican leading independence. what it will do is energize democrats to turn out and vote. democrats will use that report to point out that if the republicans take over congress, the voters will be rewarding people who tried to overturn the legitimate results of the 2020

election, which of course joe biden won by 7 million votes and a decent margin in the electoral college. there is no question about it unless you have a partisan filter that does not enable you to see reality and the facts. the second effect january 6 committee will have is on president trump. we are all familiar with the polls. he leads and all of them. he seems to be the favorite for the republican nomination in 2024. it is so far away. maybe he will get it. i have seen and heard myself and have seen suggestions in certain polling and focus groups that republicans who actually like trump in favor him are turning their eyes elsewhere. they want a nominee who is less controversial and has a better chance to win.

let's remember, president trump lost the popular vote substantially in both elections by 3 million in 2016 and by 7 million in 2020. those are facts. if you believe otherwise you need to cut down your online time. you are reading things on the internet that are utterly false. host: the viewer asks about the current president, joe biden, this is bobby asking will voters blame the president for inflation problems and vote for republicans despite the fact that republicans offer no solutions? guest: my answer is probably. that is our history at least. they're been 19 midterm election since world war ii. in 17 of the 19, the party in power in the white house lost seats in that midterm election

in the house. what about the senate? in 13 of the 19 contests, the 19 midterm elections, the party in power in the white house, currently the democrats, lost seats. the senate is not as settled at the house. there is more question in the senate. those races tend to be idiosyncratic. people get a chance to learn about the candidates like the candidates in pennsylvania. they learn about the individual candidates and some voters, particular independents who do not lean strongly in either direction can be affected, the turnouts of democrats versus republicans can be affected. long story short, it will be a surprise if voters do not blame president biden for the inflation rate, whatever it turns out to be by then.

probably it will still be high. they will probably blame him for food prices. and gas prices. and any other economic problems. is that fair? i have told students and others for my 50 plus year career, if you are looking for fairness, don't go anywhere near politics. there is no fairness in politics. that has nothing to do with politics. it may not be fair but that is what voters in general will do. i do not think democrats will but it could lower their turnout. if they are disillusioned and paid ridiculously high prices for gas and food, maybe they do not turn out the same rate. you have to look at the issues that are favoring democrats. it is a complicated process. that is why various models of elections are fascinating.

i love to read them and thinking about them and we publish a lot of them in the crystal ball. but they are flawed, as we all are. host: the crystal ball, by the way, senator -- centerforpolitics.org. in louisiana, this is debbie, independent line. caller: this is debbie speaking. host: you are on, go ahead. caller: i am calling as an independent bank in louisiana. john kennedy is up for reelection and i am in such chaos in the state. many people i speak to our republicans. you cannot change their mind, you cannot make them look at anything other than fox or newsmax. you cannot give them an opinion to even open up a dialogue. as an independent i cannot vote

in the primary. my question is what can i do as an independent voter that wants you to look logically at what we have in front of us? john kennedy is not a friend of this state. he is a trump 100% supporter. he follows the guidelines. the republican thoughts, not the thought of the states. help me figure a way we can alert others in this situation to try to find a way to be in the primaries as independents. ideal at a loss. i feel like i am not counted. i am tempted to change registration to republican so i can vote john kennedy out. host: we got the gist, thank you for the question. guest: i do not think debbie likes senator john kennedy.

that is my evaluation. i hear this frustration a lot in states that are very strongly leading to just one party, although it should be noted louisiana has a two term democratic governor. he did not win by much either time, but he won. states can switch parties temporarily, and particularly for the governorship, because that is seen as a more down-to-earth pothole filling position, if you will. it is all about the services. as the saying goes there is no democratic or republican way to fill a pothole. that may be minimizing governors and i apologize to the governors. back to john kennedy. he is heavily favored for reelection. could there be an upset? there are upsets all the time. i am always open to upsets.

i do not think it will happen. what can you do? you can do what you suggested, and people do this in other states. there are a lot of democrats in wyoming who will change party to vote for liz cheney in the republican primary to thank her for what she is doing on the january 6 committee. that may not be enough to save her in the primary, which is tantamount to election in wyoming, just like the republican primary for senate this year at least in louisiana is tantamount to election, probably. you could always work for the democratic candidate or you can support a third-party candidate or you can write in somebody. you can give money, you can volunteer time and go door-to-door. you could always do things and should do things as an active american citizen. i know it is frustrating. if it is any consolation, 35 to 40 states are not one party but

substantially one party, that is a shame. i think two party competition is a good thing. i would like all candidates to be insecure about whether they can win reelection. it makes them more responsive. there is less corruption when that happens because they are on their keys and cues -- they are on their p's and q's. most of us could list 35 to 40 states and how they will go in the 2024 presidential election and we do not know who the nominees will be. that is the reality of american politics. host: looking at how selections, crystal ball has six tossup republican races. looking at the democrats, 21 tossup races, 17 leading democratic and lightly

democratic -- and likely democratic 21. as far as where the house stands, your thoughts? guest: the house is clearly leading republican and probably will go more substantially republican. a net of five has to switch from democrat to republican for the republicans to take over the house. they will have to try extremely hard not to win at least five seats. they are very likely to get multiples of 5, 10, 15, 20, 25. pick a number. my terrific house editor kyle conduct -- kyle kondik keeps up with the races. we change events. sometimes there is a scandal, a candidate has to withdraw, you need to keep up with the crystal

ball, we come out once, twice, or three times a week. and by the way it is free. we do not charge the way other prognostication groups to. i am not criticizing them. they have every right to make a profit and pay for what they are doing. we are a state university and proud to be a state university and we are into public service and we provide this as a public service for free. just google sabato's crystal ball, give us any email, and you will start getting these emails and we do not give the emails to anybody for solicitation purposes. if you're going to bet, you would obviously bet now the republicans would take the house , and probably by a substantial margin. conditions can change. they would have to change radically for the democrats to keep control of the house. they could change. host: let's hear from michigan.

democrats line. caller: how's it going? my question was kind of brought up two calls ago but i have narrowed it down a little bit. for those of us that are not truck in the trump -- not stop in the trump -- not stuck in the trump called and have been trying to keep up and trump may well be indicted. do think that may dissuade democrats coming out because they see an indictment and they think things are handled, or do you see more republicans that were standing by wanting to get more into voting for their candidate? i'm sure somebody will come out in their campaign talking about they will free trump and yada yada yada, politics. thank you. guest: trump comes up a lot. for my lifetime, a former president in politics seems to

be mentioned more than the incumbent president. that is both good and bad, because we know why he is mentioned. i do not know whether he will be indicted for anything by anybody. the january 6 committee is collecting a lot of evidence but it will be up to the justice department to pursue criminal charges against trump and anybody else, whether they will do so is anybody's guess. what effect that will have politically depends on what he is indicted for. i want to say, and it is important to note, there are tens of thousands of people indicted for various crimes every year. some fraction are convicted, but only a fraction. most people who are indicted end up plea-bargaining or being found not guilty. you need to keep that in mind. indictment is not conviction. we will have to see whether

trump and associates are indicted and for what. it could anger republicans and they could have an enormous turnout, or it could anger democrats and they could have an enormous turnout. it could anger both of them and we could have a stupendous turnout. all of that is possible. i do not think it would turn off any voters from voting. they might be ackley -- they might be angry but they are much more likely to vote in that circumstance. if a voter is feeling love, hope, hate, or fear, then that person is likely to cast a ballot. those are the rules, that is the way it works out. host: david, south carolina, republican line. caller: good show. i will try to make three quick points. the independent who called exemplifies why she cannot engage with republicans and she did it on the phone.

almost always democrats cast aspersions in personal attacks on republicans where republicans wish to debate issues. number two, i am tired of hearing about a president using a popular vote. they campaign based on the election system. if we had a popular vote, candidates would campaign for the popular vote. they would appeal to people who live in major metropolitan areas as the democrats do. that is not how they are elected. i am tired of curing about presidents losing the popular vote it or maybe not legitimate because that is how they campaign. when the rules change you campaign accordingly. number three, i want to demonstrate how illegal immigrants telephoto entire red states. they do it by the representation -- illegal immigrants outvote entire red states. they do it by representation in congress.

they do it by the senses and article one. the house members that represent them outvote entire blue states. this probably should change. host: you got your points out. thank you very much. guest: i will plead age because i will undoubtably forget one of the three. let me focus on two. one i will agree with the gentleman, the other i will disagree. i agree about his point concerning the electoral college. it is certainly true the electoral college produces certain strategies and presidential campaigns that could have substantial effects on the popular vote. i still remember george w. bush, after the 2000 election, when he lost the popular vote by what seemed to be a large number back then, but pales by comparison to today, i think he lost it by 500,000, almost 600,000 votes.

he said if i had known that mattered, that i would've spent a lot of money getting out the vote in texas. i knew i would win in texas, i did not spend money, i would've produced a bigger republican vote that got me what i needed to win the popular vote. that argument has validity and that our system, whether you like it or not, i have criticisms, relies on electoral college. i think he made a legitimate point. i do not think it is illegitimate to the popular vote because those are actual votes. they matter a lot more than polls. those are actual votes of real people. they are real people. this is not fraudulent. the other one about negative campaigning, i cannot disagree with you more. both parties engage in negative campaigning and character assassination until the cows come home. i do not know what you been

watching, and i cannot speak specifically to your congressional congress -- contest in your district. nationally both parties are as guilty as sin. host: we talk about george's senate race. can you take a few minutes to give your thoughts on georgia's governors race? guest: that is fascinating because normally in a very partisan age, and we are in a very partisan age, polarized eire, when a party does well at the top of the ticket it tends to carry down the ticket. it goes from the white house to the courthouse. people would end up voting for the same party. there are exceptions. they tend to happen more in nonpresidential years than they have been in presidential years. this is a nonpresidential year. you will have some mixing and

matching across the country. you may get a democratic governor and republican senator. you may get a republican senator and a democratic governor. in georgia, right now the governor, who of course was strongly opposed by president in his primary, he won the primary going away. he was boosted by that. even though he won by a sliver four years ago against the same candidate, stacey abrams, that was a good year for democrats. 2018 was a good year for democrats. this one looks like is going to be a republican year, but how republican? i would say brian kemp is favored at the moment. not heavily favored. we haven't leading to him. sometimes -- we have it leading to him. the senate race is leaning democratic.

maybe we will go back to vote in the same party from white house to courthouse this fall and that could happen easily in georgia as it happened with the two senate races, that both went democratic in january 2021. right now you have a republican for governor in georgia and a democrat leading for u.s. senate in georgia. host: let's hear from jeanette in maryland, independent line. caller: i am a first time caller and debbie's remarks from the independent line registered with me because in maryland i do not vote for anybody in the primary outside of the board of elections. i think more independents are becoming disenfranchised in the primaries. in ohio you can walk in and ask for one ballot or the other. i feel like the political system is becoming polarized similar to our economic system where you get more of the wealth

distributed between the polar opposites within the two parties , and the two party system has served america pretty well 30 years ago. as more and more people are polarized, the independent section and voting across the aisle has disappeared. very few people will stand for ethically right decisions rather than following the party line. i have to really admire the lady who is heading up the republican on the january 6 committee, and mike pence. i would vote for both of those people for president, liz cheney is the person i think of. i am a democrat leading -- i'm a democrat leading independent -- i am a democrat leaning

independent and i would vote across the line for either of those because they stand for their principles. you see this political field coming to a head so in the end it will fraction our system into a three party system where people who are in the middle-of-the-road on certain things, or like some things economically or something socially, you think that will ever raise to ahead to fracture our system? host: that is jeanette in maryland. thank you very much. guest: she gave me an out. she said you think it will ever happen? i say yes. i hope millennia. despite all of the talk about the united states breaking up up and we hope that never happens. i can see a third party becoming more important. they have been quite important.

the most recent was ross perot. he got 19% of the vote in 1992 and 7% or so in 1996. it had an impact. teddy roosevelt is the only independent who got a higher percentage of the vote then ross perot. he got 21% in 1912. it can happen. i would answer it that way. in the long span of time i have been following politics and talking about it, i get this question frequently. we have never had a third party develop with any staying power. the bull moose faded, the progressives that succeeded the bull moose faded, the socialists faded, george wallace's party faded, ross perot's party faded.

it is not easy to set up a third party and haven't work. i want to add one note. you brought up a subject about party registration. in 29 states you have to register by party, plus the district of columbia. there you are more or less stuck to the party registered in unless state law specifically says anybody can vote in any of the primaries. the other 21 states, and virginia is one of them, does not register by party. i like to say in virginia we are all independents. do not register as a republican or democrat or a green or libertarian and you can go vote in whatever party primary wish this year and switch next year and switch again the following year. we have elections each year in an off year election system. there are ways for you to do this. you have to lobby your governor and legislature to do away with

party legislation. there is a split. 29 versus 21. that is an opportunity for people if they want to pursue the option of voting in either party's primary in a given year. host: let's hear from arkansas, cindy, republican line. caller: hello. i am a first time caller and i need to make a comment on liz cheney and the january 6 committee. i feel like she is a disgrace to our country, not only republicans but democrats and our whole country because i think she is an angry person and she hates donald trump so much. i think it is more personal than political. all she is doing with this is to try to keep them from running again, and 70 people can see that. -- and so many people can see

that. she has ruined her whole career. the lady before me said she would be her person. i cannot see how that would happen. joe biden is one of the biggest dividers. he said he was going to bring everybody together. all he has done is divide our country and he puts blame on everyone else for every single thing he has done wrong. the whole biden administration is a disgrace and a complete failure to our country. i am so happy that we have, i thank god we have newsmax and fox news as the only truth out there that we have that we can get the right information. host: cindy, we will stop you there. she did mention liz cheney's race against her likely challenger. you see liz cheney winning reelection? guest: is going to be very

difficult for her to win. she would be the first to acknowledge that. that is a 70% plus trump state. this is a republican primary so the overwhelming percentage of people voting, even with the option of changing a registration on election day, the overwhelming majority of people voting will be republicans, therefore people who voted for trump twice. she knows the odds and she is doing what she thinks is right. i am not going to start an argument with the lady about what her motivations are. she has said the motivation is she believes donald trump should never again even visit the oval office, much less residethat is. she believes he violated constitutional principles, not to mention american traditions, when he was president. that is her right. she's an elected official at least until the new congress takes over in early 2023.

so as far as that race goes, i've got to say this, one of the first books that i ever read in the 1950's was profiles encourage by john f. kennedy and ted sorensen. i think some of the stories were exaggerated a bit and maybe one-sided, but i admire, and i think millions of other people admired the idea that there are people of courage and politics who are willing to sacrifice their own seats to do what they think is the right thing. maybe it is the wrong thing, but they are acting on their principles and beliefs. that is something we should admire, even if we disagree strongly with someone, whether it be liz cheney or some democrat like joe manchin would be an example. if they are doing what they think is right, and they define

right, that is worth a bit of admiration. host: let's try to squeeze in one more call. joseph in texas, democrats line. caller: good morning to both of you. what was your best year you ever had in particular? and what tools do you use for your assessment? is astrology one of those tools? thank you very much to both of you. guest: well, i don't use astrology. nancy reagan used astrology, and you could understand after president reagan was nearly killed by an assassin who was just released in full, she consulted an astrologer even about her husband's schedule. she had every right to do it. i don't happen to believe in astrology. other people do. i don't want to get into an argument about astrology, so no, we don't use astrology.

we have had a pretty consistent record of picking elections well , with the exception of donald trump in 2016, for which we had loads of company. you may have noticed that. every prognostication agency i am the mill you're with thought hillary clinton was going to defeat donald trump. so with the exception of 2016, we have had a very high percentage. we keep all of that on our website. the crystal ball, center for politics, so that people can see where we were right, where we were wrong. it is part of the record. and by the way, it doesn't matter. prognostication is interesting, and we use it because this center is dedicated to civic education. we use it as a hook to get people interested and involved in politics. that is why we predict elections. it is not because it is important. everyone is going to know the

result on election day. well, usually on election day. host: the director of the center for politics at the university of virginia joining us for this conversation. as always, thanks for your time. guest: i enjoyed it very much, and they were very good questions. i salute your viewers. host: thank you very much. we will talk to you soon. that is it for the program today. another one come the away at seven a clock tomorrow. right now we will take you to an event featuring prime minister boris johnson testifying before the house of commons liaison committee on the impact of war in ukraine and on the u.k. that event already in progress. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2022] >> i'm afraid i will pull you up if your answers are pressing on time so that we can do with that topic properly and fully at the end. so every