host: good morning. it is wednesday, may 3. the treasury of secretary notified congress monday that

the u.s. will default on its debt as early as june 1. because mccarthy and others are set to meet with president biden's tuesday to discuss the debt ceiling signoff. we will ask you about your confidence in washington to avoid defaulting on the national debt. democrats (202) 748-8000 , -- republicans. (202) 748-8000 democrats, (202) 748-8001 and independent (202) 748-8002 . you can also post at journal@c-span.org twitter @cspanwj. i will show you the associated articles. this is the treasury secretary janet yellen noted in congress on monday that the u.s. could default as early as june 1 on

its debt. it does not raise or spend the nation's borrowing authority. it averts what potentially has become a global financial crisis. yellen urge congressional leaders -- credit of the united states by acting as soon as possible to address the 31 $4 trillion limit on its legal -- $31.4 trillion limit on its debt. this article in foxnews.com, mccarthy agrees to the may 9 meeting to resolve the debt ceiling standoff with president biden. he has agreed to meet with president joe biden may 9 after the president issued an invitation about how to resolve the federal standoff. this is weeks for the government

needs a higher borrowing limit. mccarthy spoke with biden tuesday and agreed to meet next week. the agreement to meet came hours after secretary janet yellen told congress that they will need to borrow more money to maintain existing operations by june 1. let's get an interview with john pierre who was asked about the meeting and timing. >> a question on the timing and limitation. as of friday in the building said there were no plans to invite speaker mccarthy and an invitation going forward on monday. was the white house caught off guard by the timing of this which is earlier than what has been forecasted? >> we knew secretary yellen's letter would be released yesterday and we thought -- the president thought it would be a

good opportunity to remind congressional leaders the urgency of default. we were aware, but the timing is up to the department of treasury. that is something for them to decide. but the president thought it would be a good opportunity to remind congressional leaders that we must not default. it is their constitutional duty and congress must act and that is something we have been clear and repetitive about as you know from here. host: that was yesterday at the white house. we are asking you this morning what is your watch -- confidence level in washington to avoid the default. we will start with freddy in illinois on the line for democrats. good morning. caller: am i on? host: yes you are, go ahead. caller: ok. host: -- ok. we will move on to this article from axios. take a look at this. the headline is democrats unveil

a plan to 5 -- -- it says housed in senate democrats are taking procedural steps and the fourth vote on a clean debt ceiling limit. the house minority leader, he keen directories -- who keim jeffries, noted that they plan to file a just -- discharge position. and it would force a vote on a clean debt ceiling increase. the legislation -- legislation he says was introduced by -- the beginning of the congress in january to make it eligible to bring it to the floor under that process. and the filing of a debt ceiling measure could be brought up on the discharged calendar -- we

will be back with the discharge effort. this movie is after senate majority leader chuck schumer placed a clean debt ceiling increase in the house gop built to raise the debt ceiling and cut spending on the senate calendar. we are asking you your opinion. do you think the two sides will come to an agreement before defaulting on the national debt deadline on june 1. here is a research poll i wanted to show you that came out last month. it is showing not a whole lot of positivity about washington coming together and solving big problems. the headline of this says in divided washington americans have negative views of both party leaders, in share of

public saying that the country is unable to solve its major problems. take a look at this graph, you can see, on the screen, low approval ratings for biden, gop, and democratic congressional leadership. here is the breakdown. the people who say they disapprove or approve of the way joe biden is handling his job as president, 60% approve. the job of republican leaders in congress are doing 68% disapprove role -- disapproval. and the job that democratic in congress are doing 33% approve. 65% disapprove. let's look at chuck schumer who was on the senate floor yesterday criticizing the gop plan. >> nothing about the default on

america at=ct has been -- act has been on the table. i want to give all americans a personal invitation, you are welcome to see this work. no longer will the doors be closed, but the debates will be open. from the committee rooms to this floor, we commit to pursue passionately and embrace the day. well let's go over that, no more closed doors? if the rake. the do for -- give me a break. the default on america was written without trends aaron c area -- without transparency. debates will be in the open. how many committee debates of the house gop hold on their default on america act? how many expert witnesses were invited?

again, the truth is, to full on america is an extremist bill that would never have a shot at passing with much of the american public on its own. as such, everything about the bill was rushed and it was secret, and not open and transparent. mccarthy's words ring hollow. host: senator chuck schumer yesterday. we are asking about your confidence level in washington avoiding default. we are taking your calls we have roger in indiana. democrats. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. i have high confidence in our government to not default. my confidence lies towards more so the democrats because i believe republicans are just pulling a stunt. they do this every single time. they run up the deficit,

transfer of power goes over to the democrats, then they cry cut, cut, cut, you know, but they never want to cut the main things that really is driving our deficit which is the tax cuts for the rich, there are tax incentives that big oil corporations get. they do not have that in their plan. they just want to cut from everyday working folks. so my confidence is in our government. it is high. i do believe that the democrats will do the right thing. they are trying to do the right thing for the people, the republicans, they are simply trying to do the bidding of their faith messiah trump. host: all right. let's take a look at a couple member tweets. this one is starting with president biden who said maga

health republicans have laid out two options for as cutting veterans and food programs by 22% or default on our national debt. that is what holding the american economy hostage looks like. and another in south carolina said the administration -- separately negotiated on the boat -- on this. but now they say we radically it's up be agenda or default on our debt. this is dangerous economic stunt. we must do something to prevent catastrophe. and one said there is nothing fiscally responsible about paying. -- it would plunge our economy into a recession. mega republicans --maga

republicans must stop complaining and raise the debt ceiling. and dean said some people recognize the consequences of default thing on our debt and we need five reasonable republicans to join us. after saving us from default i pledge to work with anyone to them move our shooting, reduce our deficit and debt, and on the republican side representative marjorie taylor greene said sorry, rep or to -- representative jeffries there will not be five republicans who sit willing to sign a position to bring joe biden's clean debt ceiling bill to the floor. that would be a career ending move in less they want to switch parties. and then secretary ellen and others sent a letter on the debt ceiling deadline for joe biden wanting to meet. and guess what? he is still refusing to negotiate. he can continue throwing

tantrums but we will not allow a debt ceiling increase without reform to reduce nature debt. and representative jake laturner says 90 days, that is how long president biden and chuck schumer have refused to do their job and adjust the debt limit. the gop has passed a plan to grow the economy and in reckless federal spending in washington. we are taking your calls want to know what you think about that. maryland. line for democrats. hello. caller: hello. i'm not confident that mccarthy would be able to rally together to create any sort of concept that will be able to pass. i think this entire debate is really -- ridiculous throne the start -- ridiculous from the start. they need direction when it

comes to the debt of the united states. i believe that it is unconstitutional for congress to not pay our debt. if i am spending money on a credit card, i cannot just go back and agree to not pay off the cart after our ready bought things. if this debate needs to happen and it needs to happen when you actually bring budget bills to the floor later in the year and decide what is going to be spent. host: it's interesting you brought that up because that is on the front page of the new york times. it says this is debt limit constitutional. and they consider an untested theory. they said a standoff between house republicans over of the nation's borrowing limit has administration officials debating what to do if the government runs out of the cash to pay its bills. including an option that

previous administrations deemed unthinkable which is a challenge to the debt limit. under the theory the government would be required by the 14th amendment to continue issuing new debt to pay bondholders, social security recipients, government employees, and others even if congress fails to lift the limit before the x date. that is with the validity be of a public debt of the united states authorized by law includes debt encourage prepayment of engine and fees for services and suppressing insurrection or rebellion shall not be question. some challenge that that language overrides the statutory borrowing limit which caps the federal debt limit at $31.4 trillion. and it requires their -- requires a raise. let's go to duke and independent

in the main. caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: i think i will probably come up with a resolution -- they will come up with the resolution they usually do but who knows what it will be. what gets me is we voted these guys in that in my opinion are a disgrace. we voted them into work on our behalf and these guys are getting paid with benefit that we cannot have and afford for ourselves. we have to make sure they get theirs and they are down their name calling each other, fighting, carrying on, i guarantee you that if you stop the pay and the benefits immediately, as of right now they have nothing until there get there act together. he would see them get it together by tomorrow morning. i guarantee it. this is nothing but a doggone circus sideshow. i would think they would be so embarrassed and how they conduct

themselves because i think they are a disgrace. host: let's talk to joe in new jersey. republican. caller: how are you? i think it is funny coming from democrats they have become the war hawks of our country. we are not only paying our debt, we are paying you rains debt, -- ukraine's death, funding a war, and giving money to afghanistan now. did you know that? we are still giving money to afghanistan. i want to help ukraine as much as we can but we cannot give them a blank check. and democrats are complaining we have a debt now. republicans are becoming -- they have always been the fiscal conservatives but they are becoming the normal people when it comes to finding this for the country. the country has the pay the bills, but the bills should be directed towards american. host: do you think they will

come to an agreement? caller: i think after they cut spending, why can we not send a couple people over there to stop the war in ukraine? host: do you mean troops? caller: no, stop the war, no, peace. peace. peace treaty. i am from new york city originally, there is a building on the east side of manhattan on the east river that takes about 5000 parking spaces in manhattan called u.n.. a doing? all they do is take a parking spaces in manhattan. i know that firsthand. host: let's go to the bronx and joyce is calling us on the line for democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. i think the republicans are -- i cannot even explain how i feel about them at this time because they play games with people's

lives. it is all about scoring points for donald trump and making themselves look good, they have proven time and time again, they do not give a damn about the people. all they care about is the seat and donald trump. host: what you think about the debt ceiling negotiations or the standoff i should say? caller: i think it is ridiculous for them to hold america hostage and not -- they tried to stop -- the democrats are not going to approve that they stop benefits for hard-working people and sick and suffering people and babies and children. they want the best with medicaid it, and medicare. they want to get rid of all of the social programs that have helped people over the many generations. they don't give a damn about

human life. and children they have proof that also with guns. they love guns more than they love babies. the debt ceiling i think it will be taken care of because it has to be, but they left the whole thing hostage and they like to play games. excuse me. with people's lives. and that is not right. host: let's take a look at senate minority john kuhn yesterday he was on the floor in yesterday blaming the white house for an action -- in action on the debt limit issue. >> it is about time. 90 days after his last meeting with speaker mccarthy and weeks of white blank refusal to engage in discussion, president biden finally agreed to meet with the speaker about debt ceiling legislation. i will say it again, it is about time. if the administration does this, the united states is weeks away from reaching its borrowing

capacity. and the president has to reach a agreement with republican house led leaders on a debt ceiling bell. but the president has been completely able on the issue. while i am pleased that the treasury secretary conveyed the urgency of the situation to the president, as the -- president actually going to sit down with pete -- speaker mccarthy. it remains to be seen how seriously the president will take the negotiations. he has not been taking it seriously so far. house republicans on the other hand have been taking the issues. -- issue seriously. they offered to adjust reforms and slow the rate we accumulate debt, but 18 hours ago the president was refusing to engage on the issue at all. the day republicans pass the debt ceiling legislation last week the president was asked that he would sit down with

president -- speaker mccarthy to negotiate in his room light, i am happy -- his reply, i am happy to meet with the speaker but not on the debt limit. the debt and it is not negotiable. in other words, it is my way or the highway. you either accept my position on the debt ceiling increase with no spending reforms, or i will let our nation default. mr. president, if that is not an unserious position, i do not know what is. host: we are asking you about your confidence level in washington to avoid default thing on the national debt and david is next -- republican. hello. caller: hello. good morning. i am 80% confident that we will get this resolved. john kuhn is right, the president has waited 90 days.

it is too long. that thing that i find most disturbing about the republican side is, on both sides people are being threatened by marjorie taylor greene, i will call her out. she is going to -- she wishes to do that because she wants to create chaos. she wants to a recession. also that -- she wants to see a recession. and also that it leads to president biden not being reelected. i think mccarthy has painted himself corner. he has become the speaker and he had to concede to marjorie taylor greene who insinuated herself in june what should be a discussion between mccarthy and biden. i still remain 80% sure it will

happen because of [indiscernible] marjorie taylor greene. thank you for taking my call. host: maggie democrat. caller: this is maggie. they cannot default on the debt limit. article 14 section four of the constitution or vice versa, i am not sure, but they cannot do it is in the constitution. it is in the law you have to adjust the debt limit. host: alright let's go to william in a story -- in illinois. hello. caller: good morning. i have a question to ask you about this and about the debt ceiling end about this -- one thing they should not do about this -- they should have put [indiscernible] on the ballot board and i

understand that joe biden will argue on twitter. they will use that for their [indiscernible] to stand for more voting. you understand? the voting fraud going on in 2023. hello? host: ok,. got it. let's take a look at another members tweet from elise who says that democrats are covering up biden's failure to negotiate a sensible budget by lying to veterans and politicizing the v.a.. house republicans will always protect our veterans benefits. there are zero cuts to them in the grow act. and that is referring to the -- this, if you take a look at this article from the washington post, it says biden needles

house gop concerns about the spinning cut that affects veterans -- spinning cut that affects veterans. it says that they provide no explicit protections for veteran programs. that would condition raising the debt ceiling on spending across the federal government. house republicans have insisted military and veteran spending would be shielded. a lack of specific -- dismisses 70 -- specifically -- raises concern among abba c -- advocacy groups. he mockingly said republican lawmakers would determine whether they were protecting veterans among the steps they should take. biden said -- the bill say this does not apply to veterans benefits. oliver is in full church, virginia.

democrat. good morning. caller: good morning can you hear me? host: yes i can, go ahead. caller: thank you. i am little upset with c-span like i have ever been upset with you all before. last night i looked at online, there is a -- president reagan and dogtrot together it a clip that you have never shown the nash and donald trump together -- and donald trump together. it is a clip that you've never shown the maga republicans meeting. and they said that there is no debate when it comes to the debt limit. the democrats did not do this trick when they were in charge of the house. you have to let people know that democrats raised it three times

for the trump administration. and donald trump was a bum as a president. sexually assaulted women and they still went along with his plan because they knew he would destroy the country. c-span has got to get the truth out there. if they want to talk about it they need to tell the truth. donald trump and reagan met online where they are both saying you do not play with the debt ceiling. nancy pelosi never did that. goodbye. host: as oliver mentioned our website has all kinds of clips from the past and any program you might have missed. take a look at c-span.org. st. paul minnesota, independent. hello. caller: hello. how are you? i am curious if any callers have

thought of money having no intrinsic value in terms of the debt ceiling. the government regulates it. i remember the obama administration, there being a kind of a joke about needing a $1 trillion coin in order to pay back that. host: do you think there should even be a debt ceiling? caller: i do not, no. because there is no, the money already has no value. if we all agree that money does not have a given value it does not matter how high the debt ceiling goes. most of that is held by american citizens to begin with. host: let's hear from brett in louisiana, republican. caller: i just want to say, for some reason, the democrat callers all they have say is derogatory things about half the

country. you out -- ought to just hang up on them when they call and maybe you should hang up on me as well. host: i will not hang up i will listen to what you have to say. he hung up. atlanta, georgia. democrat. caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: i want to say this is only a power grab. the republicans are only doing this because they want the white house and to make biden look bad so that when he, when it is time to reelect the president again they want that president -- the president that they want to be the president to be in a better light. so they really need to stop that and force marjorie taylor greene from georgia is just a disgrace. that lady is just throwing crap all over. they need to do something about

her and get her out of the position because she is just a puppet for donald trump and the republican party. thank you. host: annette is in alexander city, republican. good morning. caller: good morning to you i love c-span i do not care what anybody says. it is amazing to me how democrats have a major -- a knee-jerk reaction no matter what the topic is. they will bring up trump and the evil republicans but let's get back to the topic, from what i understand the debt ceiling is costing us right now $1 billion a day in interest. over $365 -- re-$65 trillion a year -- 365 trillion dollars a year. and it's going to go up. and should we even have a debt limit? oh my gosh.

future generations are going to deal with this. i don't know how our country can continue to not care. there is money being wasted. i agree that both parties are afraid to look at things because they want to get reelected and that is a shameful art. -- shameful part. host: what areas do you think need to be cut? caller: i am glad you ask that question, not being a politician, and less you can get the -- i've seen books but i cannot get my hand on it right now but korbel oral -- court barrel projects that both sides have done they have done it for votes in a bridge that goes nowhere for their community or their state. that is just an example. off the top of my head we have all heard of programs where we scratch our heads and say are

you kidding me? what good is that? and i'm not a politician, i am not privy to everything that they are, but something has to be done. it does not matter who the president is, obama eight years, clinton, they go through this every time. somebody has to have the courage to say, ok, come on now. with almost 32 trillion in debt. when you hear the word debt, to me, that is something that has to be repaid. and we are only paying on the interest right now. someone said, well, if i max out my credit card i have to pay them. no, we have the option of bankruptcy and the credit card company will work you and lower it. america does not have that option. host: all right. let's take a look at senate

majority leader chuck schumer on the floor yesterday talking about the plan for the senate democrat plan to proceed on the debt limit debate. >> republicans refused to level with the american people about the bill. democrats are more than happy to do it. we would show the american people how to default on america act would decimate federal law enforcement in the country, erasing 30,000 law enforcement jobs, and leaving border security enforcement jobs hanging out to dry. it has a direct result on family slashing job care, and funding to families. i mean to -- do republicans seriously think that is a way to avoid default by depriving the country of political resources. and will the american people -- it is chock-full of totally irrelevant far right goodies

that would deregulate fossil fuels and power the biggest corporations in give tax giveaways to the ultrarich and impose cruel and popular tax -- on working families. we will expose these atrocities on thursday where the senate budget has hearings on how to default on america and how it will leak into our country. it will be the first legislative hearing in the house and looks at what default in america does. there will be more hearings to follow. if republicans want to sell their agenda to the american people they can do so in debate about the budget. and the appropriations project. that is where the debates have always have and, not in the middle of a default crisis that now stares us in the face. democrats expose default on america bill for what it is. our position remains the same. both parties to do what we have

done in the past for last three times default faced us. both parties should face having clean, bipartisan bill to avoid having default together before we hit critical june 1 deadline. host: that was the senate majority leader chuck schumer yesterday on the senate floor. we are asking you for the next 25 minutes in this segment about your confidence level in washington to resolve the debt ceiling standoff and avoid default. michael is next in oklahoma city. democrat. caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: i have never spoken to you before. i am calling because they seem to want to put all of this on the president. one of the most common things i hear on this channel is i don't understand. people say that all the time. it is obvious. the only thing the president does is sign a bill.

he has to be presented with the bill and he signs it. he does not have to negotiate. congress does that. as far as my confidence, i am not confident at all. the house of representatives is full of insurrectionists and -- their plan is to crash the economy. and have us all live in's global and been lame joe biden. that is it. that is their plan. and they just, if they cannot separate the idea of raising the debt limit from their normal [indiscernible] to make a budget. the government does two things, they tax and face thin. host: what the gop -- tax and they spend. host: what the gop is saying we

will raise the limit but you have to cut spending and get the physical house in order as they put it. caller: that is a threat, isn't it? do this or we will do this. is that the way it is supposed to work in congress? i think the budget, they work all year long on this. they have various committees looking at the various agencies and saying, ok, you get this, you get that. they work it out in congress and get a vote. that is not what our congress does anymore. they get in and try to attack the other side. so i do not have any confident that they will be able to get a bill date he can sign that will extend the limit. we will just go into chaos and then the beloved leader will come down from the mountain with a new constitution and lead us into nazi land. i don't know. host: let's talk to bob in

dallas texas -- dallas, texas. independent. good morning. caller: good morning. the radical right are 16 insurrectionists. and this is insurrectionists.2. thank you. host: betty is calling us from south carolina. republican. good morning. caller: yeah it wasn't like that when trump was in office, but i have never seen the like in my life. where democrats and them still saying this man is a doing -- is doing a good job. look at what it is now compared to when trump was in office. it wasn't nothing like this. i'm telling you, and lies, the lying-est people i have ever

seen. like chuck schumer, nancy pelosi, the biden family, the whole nine yards. and another thing, fox news, they are the only ones that tell the truth. they tell the truth. i believe every word they say. host: all right. let's take a look at this article from the hill. the headline is mcconnell will attend the debt limit negotiation in the white house. he says he will at seven resident bidens invitation for congress top leaders to meet -- president bidens invitation for congress top leaders to meet. but speaker mccarthy will be the talk point person. and biden on monday invited democrat and republican leaders in the chamber of congress to meet with him may 9 to discuss the debt limit which treasury secretary janet yellen said will expire as soon as june 1. let's take a look at the

republican senate leader mitch mcconnell who reported on tuesday. >> got a call from a speaker from israel last night and also the president called about the meeting and the president has asked us to come to on may 9. i will be there and i believe the speaker announced he will be there as well, but let's be perfectly clear about where we are. the house has passed a bill which raises the debt ceiling, and outlines house republican priorities. people thought that would not happen but it has. the message to the president at this point is also pretty clear that a choice between accepting the house bill or entering into

a discussion which was speaker have been trying to have with the president for some time for an agreement between the two of them. this is a situation, i've been through a few debt ceiling dramas, there is no solution in the senate. we are a divided government the american people with republicans in the house the democrats have a presidency. this speaker and the president need to reach an agreement to get us past this impasse. that is my message going down to the white house meeting, it will be my message in a white house meeting, and that is clearly how we get to a solution. host: that was senator mitch mcconnell and by the way, c-span will have live coverage of the senate budget committee hearing on the debt limit thursday.

that is tomorrow. that will be in the morning at 10:00 a.m. on c-span, c-span.org, and the free c-span now at. pp. taking your calls on the debt ceiling and the standoff between democrats and republicans. jim is a democrat in california. good morning. caller: good morning. i am surprised at how little a lot of these people on the right seem to understand what happened during the trump administration. they are attributing when he percent growth on the debt -- 25% of the growth on the debt to trump. but that is not true. the facts are the facts and you cannot get away from it how -- no matter how much you try to twist it. they have failed people so long that they believe this mandate because of mcconnell alluding to

it because they got this in the house. but unfortunately you think the message sent to the house members was that we need to work together and stop laying his game -- playing these games and get on to doing the business. i had a comment from a family member that was promoting going into default. the trouble is from the taxpayers on the hook for this. and, it really is to make an offhanded comment. but in fact, it drags us deeper into the debt. and there is no solution there. it is nonsense that matt gaetz and marjorie taylor greene, and b's characters that have now -- these characters that have now got those senate leader, i mean the house leader, by the short hairs, basically they are holding the entire country

hostage over this nonsense that they refused to work together with anybody and pretend that they actually have a land. -- a plan. i don't see it. and i could list item after item where they do not take responsibility for. and recently, like these media like facebook and like that. there is an ongoing attack against democrats laming biden for everything. they do not question the facts of what led up to this. in the history, the democrats have bailed out the country time and again because of the debt that republicans drove us into. the same thing that happened under the obama administration and the clinton administration. in they all talk about the good things that trump did. i am waiting for a list of those things. other than waste money -- they

were like a bunch of carpetbaggers stealing out of a little old ladies purse to get as much as they could on the way out the door. now, it is like a scam of continuing to try to get funding from these people who believe this stuff hook, line, and sinker. host: ok. got it. it's look at this message on to enter -- twitter. i do think that they will find a resolution on default -- even though they have this dispute everybody knows that defaulting is not a good idea. we have sally, and independent from new hampshire. hello. caller: hello, thank you for taking my call. i believe you are asking the confidence level of where we stand on getting the debt issue saul. -- solved.

my fear is that it will move forward and kick the ball down the road. particularly, the last caller got me a little worked up. i consider myself an independent and maybe a little more conservative on this fiscal level. but wow, i am kind of appalled at his understanding of things. when you have a charge card and yours -- your spending level is at a certain level, it should directly be related to your income level. therein lies the difference. under trump, the gop was far greater. there was a big difference between the spending level and how it was done then versus coming to the country and now what has been happening. and i am terrified with money will they keep spending it why it -- when mom and dad pay the credit card bill they at least cut up the child's credit card. it has gotten so out of hand

where we are funding all the different countries and everything without taking care of our own first. for a a while, it was so unpopular to say america first. and they thought there was something wrong with nationalists for saying that. no, america first for our tax dollars we need to be more physical responsible in those ways. if we would stop spending on all these other countries when we do not take care of our own first, that will be when we can finally get back to a point where we have the other countries -- help that other countries and help the people that want to get out of their countries and come here. but until we get a grip and cut up the credit card, our economy getting our train rolling again and income rolling again we just cannot. i cannot believe people like the last caller cannot see the difference. host: got it.

let's go to a republican in waynesboro, massachusetts. hello. caller: good morning how are you? host: i am doing ok. caller: that color blew me away. my body -- caller blew me away. my buddy would say hey dingdong the money has already been spent. i do not understand why there is confusion. this is not a credit card, this money has been spent already. it is if we are going to own up to our agreement to pay the bill. we can talk about all the things they want to talk about like cutting funding for poor people and taking food out of babies mouths, but we need to pay what we have already spent. we do it all the time. we did it three times for trump to raise the debt ceiling. let's lift the coin and make it

happen. host: democrat in clintonville, tennessee. good morning. caller: good morning. first time caller here. i want to talk about the veterans. benefits being cut. republican say that there will be no veteran benefits cut. let's go back to 1955 up to 1964, i was in the air force for 40 years, and when i was discharged from the air force, i had no benefits because the republicans balanced the budget on veterans benefits. and it took 10 years for the democrats to restore it. veteran benefits had no education benefits, the only

thing that i got out of it when i was discharged in the air force, the only thing that i received was travel pay for 300 miles. that is all i have to say for people who think the republicans will not cut veteran benefits. inc. you very much for hearing my call -- thank you very much for hearing my call. host: greg, good morning. caller: good morning. i waited, occasionally i get on, this was a very long wait. i have had a couple thoughts. let me answer the question first which is what most of the colors do not do. -- callers do not do. i have confidence that they will get it, but the confidence -- the democrats know 70% of the public does not want biden to run again. they are going to make him look like a hero, so, what he will do

is he will do something and it will get to next april and then we will have to go through this again. and he will read the teleprompter. the real question is who writes the stuff on the teleprompter? he is not making these decisions but my answer is based on the fact that the people who write the teleprompter will require him to do something so they can make him a hero. as to the callers -- you have tolerated a lot of crap this morning. you started the first 20 minutes all democrats oriented. the first two callers were democrats. you have evened out since then a little bit. it -- why don't you -- host: in my defense. we take them as they come in. we did get a lot of democratic callers early on.

caller: that answers a question i had before. ok. host: and we try to even things out. caller: ok apparently you made an effort. in my opinion i am not sure it is equal yet but you made an effort. i agree with that. why do you not say to these people and talk about trump? don't you remember joe biden raising -- promising to raise the debt limit when he was a senator? why not that? host: ok, let's go to melvin in fort lauderdale, florida, democrat, good morning. caller: good. these republicans they try to take -- first of all what they do not understand is they need to look up. we look up the president by terms and you see any time a republican -- since reagan left office, they left the country in a recession. the democrats had to pull out. when trump was in office 2019,

he signed that he -- faces bended the debt limit talks through 2021. in that period of time he also ran the budget up $7.8 trillion in four years. 15 million of that went to him and his golfing. and they are talking about spending. and then they keep talking about running the government like a household credit card. if you do, all these floods, tornadoes, and other disasters would not get paid because there would not be any money. this is not a household budget, this is all of those things. last, we keep talking about the country when trump was there but when he left the country in the pandemic where biden had to come and rescue, his being able to get off -- and being able to be

disseminated we would still be shut down. and trump on top of that made a deal with opec to cut oil production from 100,000 barrels a day because the oil was getting out there on the shift because there was nobody to unload it. the country was shut down. that is what happened when trump left. and the democrats and taxes went up 6%. all right. thank you. host: louisiana, independent line. roy, good morning. caller: hello i have some things to say. i've listened with some interest to your callers here. i know president biden has done some right things by supporting ukraine. i appreciate the fact he has done that. i know and i do think he should not have cut off the canadian oil pipeline because the cost of taxes on fuel have gone up.

i think that has been a big problem. and they call those people -- host: what do you think about the debt ceiling and both sides coming together on that? caller: i don't think this is as big of a problem as people say. i really don't. host: the default itself? caller: the default would be a problem but i think they should just pay it. there is no reason to default on it. host: so do you think it should be a so-called clean bill which means no spending cut and just raise the limit? caller: i don't see -- i don't know what they need to cut, they probably do need to cut something. i am an independent, i am not a republican or democrat, i do not like that, but i know abortion should be available for women who have been raped or have been victims of incest. whenever their health is in

jeopardy they should be able to get an abortion. that is the way i feel. host: we will talk more about that later in the program. sharon, middletown, delaware, republican. good morning. caller: good morning. i've been sitting here listening and i tune and a lot of mornings. i listened to both sides, and we have a very tight window to get biden to meet with anybody. let's face it. the guy could not wait to be resident. he is available from 10:00 to 4:00 every day and then boom, he is on vacation again. all the extra spending with the climate change, this and that, it is extra, wasted money. we have always had climate change. let's face it. they are putting a lot of extra money where people -- into our military. nobody wants to join these days. did anybody notice that? we are in a very bad situation.

i talked to a lot of people that lost their 401(k). we have the banks crashing, we have illegal immigrants coming in here. this is just a disaster. so anybody saying it was better under biden, really needs to sit back and take a look. your caller from california, what a joke. look at what is happening in his date. it is -- in his state. it is a disaster out there and also new york city. and they all have something in common. our poor kids that suffered under the school closures, it is a catastrophe. an absolute catastrophe. i am really worried. my kids are grown, but he created 12 million jobs, no he did not, that is another lie the biden family is telling. most of us -- most of those are

people coming back after the pandemic. until our president can actually with a straight face start telling the truth to the american people that will steadily go into decline. host: let's try to get another caller in joseph in mississippi. independent. caller: good morning. i am a first time caller. host: good morning. welcome. caller: thank you i have been listening to you guys. i wanted to say after this political stunt is over kevin mccarthy is doomed. thank you. host: let's go to ike in california. democrat. caller: yes, i have a couple comments. this is the first time calling. [indiscernible] the question is, do we pay our bills? we should ask them do we pay our

bills? when a bill comes in, do you feel like we should pay our bills? yes or no, if they say no, it is done. and if you answer -- whether you are republican, democrat, independent, whatever, and if you ask that question and if you say do not pay our bill and why did you vote? you voted for people to do the thing that is right. quit saying about i am this and that, just ask the question do you feel like i should pay the bill? yes or no. that is the only question you should ask when you call in. do you feel like we can pay the bill? host: all right. caller: thank you very discusses supreme court role in the fight over abortion --

access. where joined by brian of demand justice. run the progressive groups at the forefront of that effort. will be right back. ♪ >> american history tv saturdays on c-span two exploring the people and events that tell the american story. 8 p.m. eastern on lectures of history. university of california davis art history professor talks about objects of state american culture and museum of collections and repatriation efforts. 9 p.m. the presidency former defense secretary gives a look

behind-the-scenes of the george w. bush white house with presidential scholars of the university of virginia and miller center. inside the george w. bush presidency. exploring the american story, watch american history tv saturdays on-span 2 andind full schedule on your program guide or watch online any time at c-span.org/history. ♪ >> if you are enjoying book tv at sign-up for our newsletter using the qr code on the screen. to receive a schedule of upcoming programs and more. book tv every sunday at the c-span 2 or anytime online at booktv.org. television for serious readers. ♪ >> live sunday at attorney and author philip halbert will be our guest on and -- in depth to

take your calls. he has written six books. his latest book not accountable is a repeat -- joined a live conversation with philip k howard sunday at noon eastern on c-span 2. >> healthy democracy does not just look like this, it looks like this. americans can see democracy at work. with citizens truly informed. a republic thrives. get informed straight from the source on c-span, unfiltered, unbiased word for word the nation's capital to wherever you are. to get the opinion that matters the most is your own. this is what democracy looks like. c-span powered by cable. >> "washington journal" continues. host: welcome back.

i enjoyed by thomas jipping senior legal fellow at the heritage foundation. welcome to the program. guest: thank you for having me. host: will take your calls in a little bit based on party affiliation. democrats, 202-748-8000. republicans, 202-748-8001. independents, 202-748-8002. last year the supreme court overturned roe v. wade. there has been a number of legal challenges since then. can you give me your reaction to that? guest: by saying the constitution does not confer a right to abortion, that lifted -- it is like you're going to a tollbooth your arm goes up a single forward creed that allowed pro-life efforts to go forward.

just like under roe v. wade, there is still legal challenges to that from those who want to defeat those kind of pro-life measures. you have a legal challenges to state of pro-life laws. the litigation that has gotten the most attention in the last couple of months actually focuses on abortion drugs. that was not tribute so much by roe v. wade other than when roe v. wade was in place, challenges to -- of this kind were put on hold but here the abortion drug mifepristone, which is first approved by the -- in 2000 there has been since that time questions about whether the fda went through the proper process to approve that drug. that approval has been challenged in federal court. host: i would ask you about mifepristone and the challenges about the approval process even though it was approved 20 years ago.

guest: legal challenges in the three decisions by the fda. the original approval. when the fda approved mifepristone in 2000 it is so on a fast-track process after essentially declaring pregnancy to be a life-threatening illness. i think many people will hear that and immediately say what that is not make any sense. the other two actions by the fda were in 2000 -- 2016 and 2021. fda lifted most of the safety precautions that had been in place. a group of four plaintiffs, four medical organizations, and quite joe -- have challenge of those under the administrative procedure act. that law requires that when government agencies like fda make such decisions they have to go through a thorough process

and they have to consider all of the evidence, they cannot be arbitrary. these groups are challenging all three of those fda actions. host: last week's senate judiciary committee held a hearing on abortion access. and health care. this is the headline of what you wrote in heritage foundation, hearing on abortion after dobbs shows democrats extremism. explain that. guest: in a couple different ways, the democrats supported the woman's health protection act in the house and senate. while many times there was say this judge puts into statute what it supreme court has said in roe v. wade, goes far beyond that. the woman health protection act would not allow any government, anywhere, to do anything that you can potentially could reduce

the incidence of her abortions. it would disallow many laws roe v. wade allowed. it goes far beyond what the supreme court did and it is a pretty extreme position. host: i want to ask you about this reuters article the headline is, u.s. supreme court earned challenge to indiana abortion cremation or burial law. explain what that law is and why you think the supreme court did not want to take it. guest: the state law is what the title suggests. if i could divine the inner workings of supreme court's mind on whether to take cases or not, i would have a different job. i do not know. ordinarily the supreme court is more likely to take a case where there are two different lower federal courts have addressed the same issue and come to different conclusions. i do not think that was the case

with regard to this state law. that may have been a factor. they were not ready to jump in and to take on that issue because the lower courts had not more thoroughly ruled on it. host: let's take a call. john in brooklyn, new york. my credit. -- democrat. caller: i want to make a shorter statement and get his opinion on abortion. the bible says in any religion all sin is sin. there is no little sin. there is no big sin. people put emphasis on abortion. what about how you treat your friends? abortion is no more sin to god than a lie. or cheating on your wife or

lusting at a woman. god does not see big sin and little sin. why do people put emesis on abortion -- emphasis on abortion? host: i know you are not a religious scholar, your illegals caller. -- legal scholar. guest: i understand the point in general. the legal question is whether the constitution which we can all read for ourselves actually does that. i do think there's a difference morally between lying to someone and killing a human being which is what abortion does. i understand his point. does that mean religious people should take other sins more seriously? i do not think that means we should belittle and downgrade the seriousness of abortion. host: i want to play you a

portion of the hearing from senate judiciary committee on the supreme court. this is michelle goodwin, law professor at the university of california and i will get your reaction. [video clip] >> in 2021 united supreme court decisively undercut the rule of law when it overturned roe v. wade. in doing so the supreme court unleashed a torrent of unnecessary uncertainty, fear about the future of protections for women held and their rights to life, liberty, and safety. justice thomas's concurring opinion place all privacy rights on a high alert say for interracial marriage, the status enjoyed by the justice himself. for all other privacy rights including marriage equality, access to contraception, freedom from state imposed realization

and more, his concurrence remains a cause for series alarm. despite the promise protections articulated by the majority and justice kavanaugh that freedom of travel will be preserved and that is dismantling of ro would return abortion rights to the state, today some legislatures are seeking to dispossess citizens of access to the ballot, whether by enacting provisions making it more difficult to vote or engaging in efforts to rewrite state laws related to ballot initiatives and referendum. thereby introducing anti-democratic principles into the democratic process itself. the post dobbs era exposes not only a cruel disregard for the lives of those most affected, but also a lack of regard for constitutional law and foundational symbols and values

such as freedom of movement, freedom of speech, freedom of association, privacy and separation of church and state. in the aftermath of dobbs, women, girls, people at the capacity of pregnancy are more at risk than ever before. host: we are taking your calls for our guest, thomas jipping. on our lines by party affiliation. democrats, 202-748-8000. republicans, 202-748-8001. independents, 202-748-8002. you can also send us a text in its rack on social media. guest: i worked in the senate judiciary committee for almost 15 years. i'm not sure i heard more subjects jammed into a few minutes from a hearing witness before.

she referred to those most affected by abortion. those affected by abortion are the unborn children who are targeted for death. one thing that struck me from the hearing is that the democratic side, including their witnesses like professor goodwin, never mentioned there was a second human being in balance -- involved. as justice thomas concurrence in dobbs, i know lots of fundraising, a lot of attention paid to that. dobbs overturned roe v. wade because roe v. wade misinterpreted the constitution. no critics of the course dobbs decision, including professor gutmann, they do not attempt this claim roe v. wade was quickly decided because they cannot. the supreme court correcting that mistake and saying constitution does not confer a

right to an abortion was the right decision. it was the correct treatment of the constitution. justice thomas is concurrence merely focus on the message that the court use in roe v. wade to invent or make up the right to abortion. his point was no matter what right you are talking about, the supreme court should not make things up. if that means other rights are in that category, then they have to be defended. professor goodwin should know, she took that swipe at justice thomas about interracial marriage, she should know that interracial marriage decision was not a privacy rights a decision like the other ones. i thought that was a little bit offputting. host: she also said the dobbs decision released a torrent of uncertainty and fear about women's health. do you agree with that?

guest: no. i think that exaggerates the role the court play on these matters. it is not up to the supreme court to settle issues to create uniformity and serenity across the country on all these matters. the supreme court had a legal question to answer and that was whether the constitution protected the right to abortion. it is not. that was the course of a job and that means the american people through their elected representatives make these decisions. that can be a rough-and-tumble, sometimes chaotic, perhaps even confusing process but that is the way our system of self-government works on any issue. host: bobby on twitter and it says, does thomas jipping know women have and will die due to complications of pregnancy and or giving birth? guest: yes.

you ask any ob/gyn, that is what they experience and the medical literature shows. women do die. the maternal mortality is a real thing. i also know that unborn children dying is the purpose of abortion. that is why it was invented. that is why it is performed. one of the doctors at the hearing actually pointed out when doctors have two patients when there is a pregnancy, the woman and her unborn child. doctors should try to preserve both. host: i'm going to play another clip from the same hearing from a woman who is suing the state of texas after being denied an abortion last year. [video clip] >> on a sunny august day when i just finished the inviting list for baby shower,

unexpected systems arrived and i contacted my doctor to be safe and was surprised when told to come in as soon as possible. after an examination we received the news that i had dilated prematurely due to condition and a cervical insufficiency. soon after my membranes ruptured we were told by multiple doctors that the loss of our daughter was inevitable. it is clear this is not a question of if we would lose our baby, it is a question of when. i asked him could be done to ensure the respectful passing of our baby -- i asked what could be done to ensure the spectral passes of our baby. i needed an abortion. they explained there was nothing they could do due to the antiabortion laws that is of which had taken place two days after my water broke. even though we would with complete certainty lose below -- willow my doctors did not feel safe intervene.

i should not have had to wait in anguish for days for the inescapable state that awaited. but this was august 2022 in the state of texas where abortion is illegal was a pregnant person is facing a life-threatening condition, aggravated by, caused by or from a pregnancy. people have asked what we do not travel to a state or the law are not so restrictive but we live in the middle of texas the nearest sanctuary state is at least an 8 hour drive. developing thespis -- sepsis that can kill, is a death sentence. host: what you think of that? she said she had to get to life-threatening status before doctors would treat her. even though they knew she would lose the baby. guest: i'm not a doctor but there are other doctors on the panel one of whom an ob/gyn in ob/gyn practicing in texas for

more than 30 years. she explained that that was an incorrect interpretation or application of the law. she explained doctors always may use their reasonable medical judgment in determining such questions. the law does not require that you wait until death's door before you can perform an abortion. anyone can read the law for themselves. it is not required that. there seems to be pushing the narrative of confusion that said only doctors who have no idea what to do in these situations. i do not believe in doctors -- i do not believe that is true. host: i guess it is a question of some doctors being afraid of breaking the law, and may be going overboard. guest: they should not have been. there are laws governing medical practice across-the-board.

but doctors always have their own reasonable medical judgment to rely upon. in that situation if a doctor thought as he has reasonable medical judgment she needed an abortion, he could have performed one. host: natalie in clearwater, florida. independent. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. mr. jipping, i do not understand why you despise woman so much because it appears to me that you favor a fetus'life more than the woman. when the law says all men are created equal, does that mean women are omitted from that? guest: the answer to your last question is no, the word man in documents like you are referring to is a term that applies to all

human beings. second, i encourage you to rethink the way you look at issues and people who disagree with you on these issues. the fact of the fact of someone disagrees about the value of human life before birth does not mean they despise anyone. your life is just as valuable before you were born as it is now. it is not a matter of favoring -- pitting the unborn child against his or her mother. one other doctors in the hearing she said unborn children and their mothers are not natural enemies. what we have come to a point where they are being treated or thought of that way and i did not believe that. -- i do not believe that. every one of us was a living human being before we were born in our lives work just as valuable then as they are now

and i think we ought to have a higher, not a lower value of all human life. host: let's go next to nisi in southfield, michigan. caller: good morning. he is talking about women's rights. they allow them to take a woman's rights from her then they will take other rights from others. everybody do not believe in religion. ok. we have to respect that because there is a 200 -- 280 plus in the world and we have the world in america. how would he feel live woman said men had to have a vasectomy at 10 years old it is easier -- which is easier than having your tubes tied? he is not a woman.

he does not have a regina. he knows nothing about a woman's body. if you want to control anybody, control yourself. don't know human being have a heaven or held to put anybody in and god said do not doubt -- have a heaven or hell and god said do not judge. it is a bunch of homeless kids. everything the heritage foundation stand for they want to take from the people instead of helping the people. host: let's get a response. guest: with respect i would say to you what you said to me is take care of your own body. abortion is not about a woman's body. it is about someone else's body. we somehow have a race the unborn child. as i said to the previous caller, you were a living human being before you were born. this should not be any more opportunity to kill you then as

it should be now. abortion involved killing of a living human being, and i think that is the highest value we can have in our laws. it is a right. we mean i want to do. in the context here, whether there is a legal right and there ought to be legal protections for life rather than legal protections for taking life. host: jodi is next. winesburg, kentucky. republican. caller: america is wrong that i will get out and i will never

date a woman have an abortion or had an abortion. it is wrong. that is all i have to say. thank you. host: in the reaction? -- any reaction? guest: i think we need to be honest about what abortion is and what abortion does. abortion advocates today? as if this is the middle ages but we are befuddled about when human life began and what is going on in the womb. we know. everyone knows. either of us somehow became a living human being we popped out of the womb, we were a living human being before, we are the same human being before. we need to be honest about that. if someone believes that killing a child they do not want should be a right, or should be legal,

just say so. but that is what abortion does and we should be honest about that. host: would you agree with abortion in any cases? guest: the so-called rape, incest, health problems life of the mother that constitute 5% of abortions. i guess many people that are abortion advocates that want to focus on the teeny slice. would you agree to make abortion illegal in the other cases, the cases where there is no health problems? where the mother is not at stake. there is no rape or incest involved in of course they do not because that is not the issue. the issue is whether abortion takes the life of a human being and it does. host: karen is a democrat in warren, michigan. hi. caller: good morning. i had a question for the guest.

what about women who have children who are not there and the neighbor or the boyfriend takes and rapes the girl and if she has a baby -- if the pregnancy of the fetus, she should be allowed to have an abortion at that point? host: in the case of rape? caller: yes, or incest or the next-door neighbor raping the child. guest: add to the hearing we saw a clip from one of the witnesses there talked about the coercion that takes place for women to get abortions. that in fact pressure from boyfriend to do not want to take response ability, from parents

and others, actually create a situation where women who did not want to have. -- did not want to have one or course to have one. every person who is capacity to get pregnancy is the woke term being used as the -- use these days. they all considered it thoroughly and they all know what they are doing when in fact that is not the case. we need to be honest about abortion. host: shane in kentucky. republican. caller: good morning. i want to thank your guests for the way he is logically handling many of these callers here. i have several points.

this is the issue of semantics. i noticed your title supreme court a future access. in the future of ending the murder of children so i would encourage all of us on the pro-life side not to fall into that semantics trap and to always point out with the is really about. -- what the issue is really about. i'm a veteran. i get my health care to do and became aware in february that in september of 2022 the biden administration had -- have began to kill innocent children in amino states like in kentucky, tennessee, louisiana -- state laws protecting children.

vba -- the v.a. director has gone as far to say if the woman shows up at aba emergency room in the opinion of the doctor will bring abortion were now unemployed in kentucky to those places and kill that child. host: this is in a v.a. emergency room if a woman is in a emergency and needs an abortion because of an emergency? because her health is at risk? caller: in the opinion of the doctorate which is another issue. your guests doing a good job by dealing with. again this is written nowhere in the constitution as anguish comes from -- the language comes

from the exceptions of rape and assess. cash and incest. think about what we are talking about. to say the way in which a human being was conceived somehow give license to killing a human being. where talking 1930's germany stuff. host: let's get a response. guest: it has to do with federal funding of abortion. i'm not sure that necessarily relevant but the issues we are talking about here are the real issues. president reagan had an essay published 10 years after roe v. wade in 1983 called abortion and the conscious of the nation. he said the issue is not when life begins it the value of human life.

when the supreme court overturned roe v. wade, it returned the issue to the people and their elected representatives. there are going to have to wrestle with all of these different permutations and frankly in my view, the bible administration by trying to really get creative -- biden administration by trying to get creative and keep abortion available the executive branch role by bureaucrats no one knows, they are trying to skirt the fact that it is the american people and their elected representatives who can make these decisions. host: robin in new jersey, democrat. are you there? caller: yes, i am. host: go ahead. caller: i got my opinion of this. i would never have an abortion but i do not have the right to tell somebody else they can't.

they are into many things in our lives. transgender and genders. gaze. that is none of their business. they are working and paying taxes. we have bigger things to worry about and were never hearing about any of these doctors. what happens when someone comes in a miscarriage and they cannot perform a dnc? you have rabies born with no brains, some no lungs. -- you have babies born with no brains, some no lungs. this could cost a woman's life. guest: treating a miscarriage is not an abortion. a miscarriage is different from abortion as a dying from natural

causes is as different from dying from homicide. this has nothing to do with miscarriage. with regard to having bigger issues out there, i guess, there's not any bigger issue than whether innocent human beings can be killed for any or no reason. i do not know what a bigger issue is. this is the biggest issue. we need to wrestle with it because a lot of other things in our society depend on the value we give human life. host: robin is key new jersey -- robin in new jersey. sorry, i hit the wrong button. caller: that is fine. on to state mythological mother, and adoptive mother -- i am a biological mother, and

adoptive mother and i never seen the heritage foundation the port childcare helping -- support childcare helping working women. i believe we need support but i also believe it is between a woman, her doctor who is the most intelligent person to help you make the decision, and her god. it is not for some foundation was a bunch of old white guys to tell you what you should or not should not do with your body. especially when they do not support agencies like casa and foster care. we have thousands of children. i never see heritage fund foundation legal speaking. they only speak for the rich people. i do not understand why you do not work more productive programs and foster care. the fact that you want to take away birth control information in some of the schools. host: let's get a response.

guest: my personal opinion of the heritage foundation position on a host of other issues, those are issues that stand on their own. each one has their own debate and pros and cons that are worth talking about. that has nothing to do with whether abortion kills a human being. it is why it is eggs. it intentionally kills -- it is why it exists. it intentionally kills human beings. we did not give human life value that you cannot kill a human being for any or no reason, how are we supposed to have a foundation to build other policies like the what you are talking about? another heritage foundation is working on different strategies involving a broader agenda for helping shrinking families and marriages and helping women -- helping strengthen families and marriages and helping women.

abortion kills babies and it is wrong. host: wanda in tennessee. caller: i would like to address the abortion situation. at the age of 17 i was raped. at that time my mother had taken me to have an abortion. being there in that atmosphere, i was scared -- i was a scared young teenager and i picked up a magazine that was there in the clinic and read an article where a lady that i an abortion stated that i heard the little basket hit the trashcan crying -- basr -- bass third\tard hit the trashcan crying. my son grow up to be in all -- a

great young man. he had joined the military and i think god every day -- thank god every day that i did not abort that the young man. i think abortion is murder and i think if god did not intend for me to conceive that a young man regardless of how i conceived him i would never hit -- i conceived. guest: thank you for sharing that. there are thousands upon thousands across the country who are working very hard to help women in that situation and many others, women who feel they have no other option. we have to give them options. abortion advocates talk about choice. but the only choice they seem to support is abortion.

we have politicians here in washington who are actually attacking, condemning trying to put out a business pregnancy care centers who exist to help women see and to have other options. i am really glad that you made the choice you did and for the service of your son to this country. host: josh is next in hamilton, indiana. independent. good morning. caller: good morning. i'm not a conservative but guessing you are since you are representing the heritage foundation. i'm going to frame a conservative argument for you. we all recognize a person has ownership of their body. that is their property. the fetus and the pregnant woman body should have the paid rent if the property owner so desires. if they are that rent, the property owner has the right to evict them.

another argument, during the passage of the affordable care act lots of conservative said the doctors office is too big for person, their doctor, and the government. abortion is health care. the doctor's office is too big for a person, i doctor, and the government. thank you. guest: abortion is not a health care for the child being killed. there is that difference between health insurance issues, under obama care, and abortion we are talking about here. i do not know why the other example you gave comparing landlord to a woman. i do not know why that is a conservative argument. if the landlord caused the person to be on their property, i think that would change the situation a little bit. where talking about killing people. this is not evicting someone. it is not denying health insurance.

it is killing people. that should inform all of the different issues related to abortion. host: mary next in illinois, republican. good morning. caller: good morning. i have a -- i'm a first-time caller. i've been listening to c-span for many years and i appreciated. i'm calling about a couple calls back and bless you rhonda. i had the same situation with my daughter. she ended up becoming pregnant, she did not tell me about it. she ended up telling me a little later. i was quite upset. i do not know what to think. i saw her bed. i cried. i prayed. i did not know what to do. i have four children myself and i remember something, god does love everyone, even if you do not believe in god. he is still there.

he cares. he gives life. this is a matter of life and death. if you believe in life, any kind of life, the life of anything come of the things that grow around us, if you believe in life, then you have to say -- save the baby. i also consider it murder. how want to relate an experience of myself. i was a stem of the month birth -- seven the month birth the -- baby in 1950's and doctors did not know what to do. mom had a fall in the bathtub. i was right at seven months. she was rushed to the hospital the doctor came out to my father , she had already gone under

anesthesia, he said if i have to save one life, who do i save? the baby or your wife? my dad did not know what to do. he prayed. the doctor prayed. and here i am 74 years later. i've had a wonderful life. i've had a wonderful husband. i have wonderful children. i'm so glad i was born. thank you. thank you listeners for sharing my story and again rhonda, bless your son. host: jessica in kansas, democrat. caller: hello. for the last lady, i do not know what to say. i hope you've lived a very long life. for my comment, i have mild

autism and i did not want to have to put my family through hell and all that. if something were to happen to me. if i were to get raped, sexually assaulted, what have you. i did not want to have my family have that burden -- do not want to have my family have that burden so i do not get why people say abortion should be illegal and all of that. what do you think of that? thank you. guest: different colors have raised really -- callers have raised different situations -- typical situations and they are difficult because we are talking about whether they were to take a human life. all of these situations should be informed by the fact, right to be telling the truth of abortion, informed by the fact that every one of us was a human

being before we were born and every abortion kills a living human being. how you come out at the other and in individual situation can be a challenge but it all has to be informed by that amount of truth. host: thomas jipping heritage foundation senior legal fellow. thank you for joining us. later at 9:15 a.m. this morning on "washington journal" brian fallon joins us to talk about their push for supreme court reform including a code of ethics for justices. but first it is open forum. your chance to weigh in on any public policy or political issue on your mind this morning. you can start calling in now. we'll be right back. ♪

c-span now is the free mobile app featuring your unfiltered view of what is happening in washington live and on-demand. keep up with the day's biggest events with live streams of hearings from u.s. congress, white house events, the courts, campaigns and more from the world of politics all at your fingertips and also stay current with the latest episodes of "washington journal" and find scheduling information for c-span's tv networks and c-span's radio plus a variety of compelling podcasts. c-span now available at the apple store and will play -- google play. c-span now your front row seat to washington anytime, anywhere. >> c-span campaign 23 for covers your front row seat to the presidential election, watch our coverage of the candidates with

announcements, meet and greets, speeches and events to make up your own mind. campaign 2024 on the c-span network, c-span now are free mobile video app or any time and c-span.org. c-span your unfiltered view of politics. >> listening to program on c-span c-span radio just got easier. tell your smart speaker play c-span radio and listen to "washington journal" daily at 7:00 a.m. eastern., important congressional hearings, and other public affairs events throughout the day. weekdays at 5:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. eastern catch “washington today” for a fast paced report on the top stories of the day. listen to c-span anytime. tell your smart speaker, “play c-span radio.” c-span powered by cable. ♪ >> since 1979 in partnership

with the cable industry, c-span has provided complete coverage of the halls of congress from the house and senate floors to congressional hearings, party briefings, and committee meetings. c-span it gives you a front row seat to how issues are debated and decided with no commentary, no interruptions, and completely unfiltered. c-span your unfiltered view of government. ♪ >> fridays at 8 p.m. eastern c-span brings you afterwards from book tv i program were nonfiction authors are interviewed by journalists, legislorand others in latest books. this week eorts to shift how native america is viewed through her book. she's interviewed by american university professor elizabeth

role. watch afterwards every friday at 8 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> "washington journal" continues. host: welcome back. it is open forum so for the next 25 minutes i will be taking your calls on anything public policy or politics related. i want to show you this article the associated press. it says biden sending 1500 troops from mexico border migrant search. the biden administration will send 1500 troops -- active-duty troops to u.s. mexico border starting next week ahead of an expected migrant search following the end -- migrant surge following the end of covid restrictions. so the u.s. customs and border protection can focus on fieldwork. the troops will not be

performing law enforcement functions or interacting with mike -- immigrants or migrants. this will free up border patrol agent to perform their critical law enforcement duties, that is according to the white house spokesperson. from the pentagon spokesperson, patrick ryder announcing that this morning. [video clip] >> the department of defense released a statement regarding support to the department of homeland security which i will reiterate here from the podium. at the request of the department of homeland security, secretary austen approved a temporary department of defense increase of additional 1500 military personnel to supplement u.s. customs and border reduction efforts on the u.s. southwest border. for 90 days these 1500 military personnel who will be sourced from the active-duty component, will fill critical capability gaps such as ground-based detection and monitoring, data entry, and warehouse support to

address the needs through contractor support. military personnel will not directly participate in law enforcement activities. it is important to note the department is also evaluating options on how we might replace of these deploying forces in stride with other sources to include potential -- plain forces from reserve component. while this request is for 90 days, dod has supported ghs on southwest border for 18 of the last 22 years and every year since 2006. host: that was the pentagon spokesperson announcing additional deployment of active-duty forces to the southern border. will take your calls now. judy in new jersey. good morning. caller: hello. i'm calling in regard to the last speaker you had on. from the heritage foundation.

one of the things that comes up when women get pregnant or younger teenagers get pregnant who is -- whose insurance is going to pay for the maternity care and for the labor and delivery and for the baby and insurance afterwards. irregular delivery can be $18,000 average i saw -- a regular delivery can be $18,000 average i saw online. parents plans do not necessarily cover all of this for their teenagers. it depends on what kind of plan you have. there are lots of issues that come up. also men where they want to put the baby on their plan, they are not allowed. it has to be the mother that puts the baby on her plan she does not have one, there is all kinds of issues. the second issue is childcare cost. this is never discussed with the

heritage foundation people and people against abortion. nobody talks about the men's response ability, or the father's responsibility to financially provide for the baby forever. ok. when it is a minor. the fathers need to have something deducted from their checks automatically come immediately to help the mother and at the fathers have no money because they are so young or because they just don't, the grandparents to be involved also. the grandparents you have to pay to help raise this kid -- should have to pay to help raise this kid. some lady who should not afford it should not be forced into this position. host: let's hear from catherine in rhode island. independent. good morning. caller: good morning. i have a comment for the heritage speaker that was on earlier.

they have a completely pro-birth argument rather than having a pro-life argument. where is the support for these people echo another caller has foster kids, she was adopted but then there is no support for all of these. legislate -- would legislators talk about the issue they really need to make pro-life and talk about and get the support these people need. thank you. host: kelly republican in georgetown, tennessee. good morning. caller: hi. i am calling about the trips going down to the border. i feel it is a good thing. i do not know if 1800 troops will be enough with the crisis we are having at the border -- 1500 troops will be enough with the crisis we are having at the border but i am glad where

finding a way to patrol the border and get some of those crazy vigilantes that go down there and do ungodly stuff out of their jurisdiction at the border. from the last call you had on their from the heritage foundation, he was very stoked and said in his own ways -- stoic and set in his own ways. abortion is not the greatest idea for anyone to have to do but i know it is the choice and the person has that option just like he said. for woman who can carry a child that has been raped and raised the child, kudos to you but not many women want to look at the baby of a person who raped them. host: here is some news that is just come in today.

on the wall street journal, drone strike russia as ukraine readies offensive. fuel supplies targeted. grain supply talks set for friday. the latest in a series of such assaults and acts of sabotage on russian held territory ahead of expect of ukrainian offensive. the oil storage in southern village near our own yard for as a result of the fall of a drone according to multiple media estate outlets. also on that same topic, this article from nbc news. russia claims ukraine tried to assassinate putin. the government did not provide evidence to support the claim but said it reserves the right to respond where and when it

sees fit. there is no immediate reaction from kyiv. it says that the accusations made without providing evidence and without immediate reaction from kyiv was latest in a string of reported incidents inside of russia and far from the wars frontline. in a statement published on the criminals website -- publish on putin's oversight, -- website aimed at the kremlin. linda in st. louis, missouri. good morning. host: thank you for having me. i'm calling about the abortion and the guy from the heritage foundation. they are pro-life. i feel everyone has the choice. that was their opinion. they want to say my opinion is, you are right, that is your opinion but other people have other's opinions. you cannot force your belief on

anyone else. what you believe is best for you. you do that. when i had my child it was my choice. i thought of other options but it was my choice and that is the think about it. once the baby is here, another choice of life is too for those kids to live when they're sitting in a classroom but the guns are taking the children's lives. they do not talk about that part of it. therefore guns. more guns. more guns. i think i have a choice with my own life. thank you so much. host: ron in california. republican. caller: good morning. always great to see you. i got a quick list of things that are important to talk about today. number one literacy rate in the united states, everyone says where the greatest country on earth, the probably god is russia has a 97% -- the problem we got is russia has a 97%

literacy rate. china has a 92% -- 95% literacy rate. columbia's got 92%. we have 79%. even more devastating 54% of the people in united states has under a six grade education. i used to think that firearms training was important, than i thought better yet, we ought to drug test people. if we drug test them, they are either lawbreakers or not. if they are on drugs, they should not have a firearm or able to purchase a firearm. nobody wants to touch that because there are too many judges on drugs or whatever. the problem we have got is we have stupid people buying guns that are on drugs, the sad part of the whole story is all of the

mass shootings, we never hear the after report. we should have an after report, when they get killed. what was their status, what were they doing, where they on drugs? -- were they on drugs? everyone wants to pin on mental health, it is not mental health. too much to cover, appreciate your time. host: richard in new jersey, independent. good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to talk about george w. bush and his chance to extend the ar-15 ban back when he was president. if you would have extended it, just think how many people would still be alive today, because ar-15's have been used in so

many of these killings. the other thing i would like to talk about is the supreme court. the supreme court has no code of ethics, at all. they believe they can govern themselves, that is not applicable to the rest of the country. and the other judges, federal judges all have codes of ethics across the country. the supreme court has none. roberts had an invitation to congress and refused, that is wrong. he should go to congress and explain how they are supposed to regulate themselves. the other thing i would like to mention is we have an opportunity when it comes to elections. vote for kids or vote for guns. host: we are going to be talking about the supreme court ethics issue in the next segment, at about 9:15 eastern. be sure to stay tuned for that.

jolene and montana, democrat. caller: good morning. i was going to say a few things. in my state, we are having a tough time with trans rights issues. we had a march on friday for the representative and it went really well. the democrats here are trying to work for the system and republicans are trying to be antidemocratic. on the national debt issue, how can you owe money to yourself? how can you owe money to yourself? the last thing i want to say is the world needs to unite and support the wga, they are going on strike in they need to be supported. support your local union. host: republican line, illinois.

good morning. caller: i just wanted to touch on the abortion issue and share my story. before i do, i wanted to say that i feel like most of america is right down the middle. i feel like we are not extremely left, extremely right with some of these republican states that are banning abortions completely , making them worth jail time, that kind of thing. that is extreme and not needed. anyway, i had three kids at the time. three kids under four. i got pregnant again. when i had my last child, they told me if i was going to carry a child again, i would either die or the baby would have severe complications. so me and my husband made the choice to have an abortion and i

was given the pill at the clinic. i sat there for about half hour, they monitored me. by the time i got home, i was hemorrhaging, bleeding out to the point where i could not walk. i had fainted in my home then came to, and my husband was above me. i started to get up to go to the hospital and i fainted again. i was getting bags of blood. the point of why i am sharing this story is i want women to be aware of the actual complications that can come from the quote unquote normal birth control pill. it is not a normal birth control pill. you are killing a life. i do not want to get into that, you've heard my side. i think abortion should be allowed.

i am saying it is not a birth control pill, it is a terrible thing. they push you out of that place and run you through it like a machine when i could have bled out and died and they would not have known the difference. host: this is usa today with the headline federal reserve will likely hike interest rates again and signal a pause in the inflation fight. a programming note, we will have the federal reserve chairman jerome powell with an update on interest rates and other monetary policy actions coming up alive today at 2:30 p.m. eastern on c-span, c-span now and online at c-span.org. also today at 2:00 p.m., look at transnational crime and fentanyl trafficking with fials from the u.s. customs a bder protection. u can watch that at 2:00 p.m.

eastern on c-span now or online at c-span.org. tony is next, independent. caller: first and foremost, i want to say i am so sorry to everybody who has gone through sexual violence, who is speaking earlier about that trauma, that violence. to the previous caller who is saying abortion is murder, disagree strong line. i would say nobody is telling you how to live your life and that being said, you should not be telling others as far as what to do with their bodies. abortion is a human right. our abortion drugs here in the united states are actually

tested, they go through rigorous standards for efficacy in clinical trials. one thing i want to say as well is the heritage foundation is not fact checked. so instead of having them as a featured guest, i wish that c-span would reconsider who they put on here. it was not based on fact. ultimately, i want to talk about -- i live in new york, new york city is trying to push rent increases. i want to give a shout out to the organizers who stepped in and protested ludicrous increases that would have really been bad. the rent increases are a problem and i want to conclude by saying that landlords are parasites. host: oklahoma, democrat.

good morning. caller: good morning. two things, this abortion pill goat overturned. never thought to think about god, he has outraged arms for children. an abortion that is not done right between the woman and the doctor, that is between them. but if he is arms for the children coming through the womb, why are they killing them, if it is right to be born? that is in the bible. there is another thing. people do not realize that donald trump's name is in the bible. you should think about reading the bible more often, thank you. host: ohio, republican. are you there?

caller: i am. good morning. i just wanted to go over a couple of quick points, just facts, not opinion. the decision at the supreme court, the overturning of it, the leak, that started this whole abortion thing rolling again. i guess the fact i want to invoke is that gender is a person. we go through the trouble to do ultrasounds and prenatal care, multiple ultrasounds on ladies to make sure everything is working out. we can determine at that point whether it is male or female while they are in the womb. everybody makes a decision to give it a name. at that point, it is a person. the nonsense about it is not a person while it is in the womb, when you do an ultrasound you determine a gender. at that point, it is definitely

a person. the other point i want to hit which is a fact, the average age expectancy in this country's 80 plus years old. at what point does an abortion rob that person out of the majority of their life? contraception coincidentally is available for everyone, abortion is not contraception. you rob an actual human being of the bulk of their life when you make an individual decision to go ahead and, for whatever reason it may be, to do that. make no mistake, there are medical circumstances that we do not want mom to die birthing a child that she is responsible for other children and a life and humans that she has responsibilities too. if it will take her off the planet and ruin the family because of a medical condition, that is obvious. the rest of these situations we need to address like human beings. it is about the human race, not

the 10% of the dna and that defines each person as their race. have a great day. host: an article in the new york times about sudan, warring generals agree to weeklong truce in south sudan, it has sent 100,000 refugees fleeing across borders. neighboring south sudan says both sides have agreed to name represent as for peace talks, but neither side has publicly confirmed that. it is open forum, we will hear next from john in east hampton, massachusetts. hello. caller: i wonder why nobody is talking about hunter biden being a deadbeat dad who will not pay what he is owed or have his daughter around, joe biden is such a nice guy, hunter is a good boy, nobody has anything to say about that. they say a person is dead when they do not have brain activity,

brain activity starts at six weeks so i guess you are killing someone at six weeks, that should be the law. i wonder why no one wants to talk about the 14 llcs that hunter and the grandkids have of joe biden, why do they need limited liability companies to hide money from foreign countries? not to mention all the maga extremists they love to talk about, but they do not want to talk about the manifesto. if it was trump, they would be all over it. talk about how it is all donald trump's fault and the left would be up in arms wanting to get rid of guns. it is ridiculous. there are bad people and good people on both sides, that is why i am independent. what i've seen from democrats as they do not care about life, they do not care about americans. they care about illegal aliens, letting them flood over the border with every drug they can bring, all of the six trafficking and sending her money to ukraine and doing

nothing for americans or veterans. inks, democrats -- -- thanks, democrats -- host: line for democrats, good morning. caller: i would like to talk about the abortion issue. it seems the people who are antiabortion and seem to be for life are all for the unborn. the same people seem to be the same ones who are anti-gun-control. they do not seem to be worried about the children who are living and getting slaughtered by these ar-15's. i think it is hypocritical. on one hand, they are saying they are pro-life. but they are against gun control. it does not make any sense. thank you. host: in north carolina, republican. caller: i am a little nervous. i wanted to say i am glad that

people are using the language, what abortion really is. it really is killing the most innocent among us. that is what it means. host: let us talk to janice next in the louisiana, democrat. caller: hello. yes, it all seems very simple to me, the whole situation. number one, people need to stop having children they cannot support. number two, people need training and education to do jobs well. number three, no one should carry guns openly and they should have insurance on their guns. number four, everyone should show respect and care for themselves, their families and neighbors.

number five, the very wealthy need to pay their taxes and then some. number six, get out of ukraine. any questions? host: i do not have any questions for you. victor is in massachusetts, democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. i'm going to talk a little bit about child abuse, it is a big issue in america. i am an educator and worked with children my whole life. we go after everybody, the republicans go after everybody for child abuse and accuses everybody. but who are the biggest child abusers in the country? isn't it the catholic church? around the world, actually. why don't they go after them if they care so much about

children? if they care so much about children, they want people to have more children so they can kill more children with weapons? i am leaving this country, i've lived here since the 60's. but i am done because right now, we live in the most dangerous country in the world. people are being killed for no reason. thank you for your time. host: texas, republican. caller: on the issue of abortion, there should be no abortion. no court has any authority on abortion issues. every person's religion, go to your church and i will go to mine. another thing about donald trump

, he says make america great again. the president of the united states only has control or influence over one of them. that is the united states of america. have a good day. host: that is it for open forum. next on washington journal, ryan fallon of demand justice joins us to talk about the bush for supreme court reform, including a code of ethics for justices. stay with us. ♪ >> book tv every sunday on c-span two features leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction bks, live at noon easteron in-depth, philip k

howard will be the guest taking your calls and talking about government and legal reform in america. he has written half a dozen books, including his most recent. at 9:00 p.m. eastern, heather mcdonald and her book, when race trumps merit, argues the pursuit of racial equity by progressives is leading to mediocrity in american businesses an institutions. at 10:00 p.m. eastern on afterwor, photographer speaks about her efforts on how to shift how native americans are viewed through her photos. she is interviewed by an american university professor. watch book tv every sunday on c-span2 and find the full schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime. >> watch a video on demand anytime online at c-span.org and try the point of interest feature, timeline tool that uses

markers touickly guide you to newsworthy and interesting highlights of key coverage. use it anytime online at c-span.org. >> fridays 8:00 p.m. eastern, c-span brings you afterwords from book tv, programmer nonfiction authors are interviewed by journalists, legislators and others on their latest books. this week, a photographer speaks about her efforts to shift how native america is viewed through her photos in her book. she is interviewed by an american university professor. watch every friday at 8 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> order your copy of the 118th congressional directory now available at c-span shop.org, your access to federal government with bio and contact information for every house and

senate member and important information on congressional committees, the president's cabinet in state governors. scan the code to order your copy today or go to c-spanshop.org. every purchase helps to support nonprofit operations. washington journal continues. host: welcome back to washington journal, i am joined by brian fallon, cofounder and executive director of demand justice. welcome. let me just start with the mission of demand justice and how you are funded. guest: we were founded in 2018, we are a progressive advocacy group that works on issues related to federal and state judiciary and judicial nominations. we advocate for tnglike the code of ethics at the supreme court, more transparency and accountability for supreme court justices and judges at lower court levels. we are active in certain states,

trying to promote the selection of professionally diverse lawyers, many public interest lawyers and public defenders for the state-level bench. we wage campaigns on behalf of individual judge and judicial justice nominees here in washington, d.c.. we are usually pressing the biden administration to select more lawyers and when they do that, we campaign on behalf of the nominees confirmations. famous people know us mostly from supreme court vacancies, we did support ketanji brown jackson's nomination to the supreme court earlier in president biden's term, we opposed amy coney barrett when she was nominated and opposed brett kavanaugh, we wage campaigns around those justices. those are activities that probably made is the most famous. we are funded by a combination of two things, we get support from grantmaking institutions

like family foundations to share our principles and beliefs, most of his institutions choose to remain anonymous, some of them disclose their donations. then we have a huge network of thousands of grassroots support of that donate to us in increments of one dollar, two dollars. host: talk about supreme court ethics, how it is set up now as far as ethics and oversight of the actions of particular supreme court justices. guest: there is very little that touches the supreme court justices. there are three levels to the federal judiciary, most know about the supreme court that has nine justices currently. below the supreme court is the appeals court, there are 13 circuit courts and district court judges, some states have just one district, some states have multiple districts. the lower courts refers to district and appellate court levels. the judges on district and

appellate court levels have a binding code of ethics that they are forced to follow, there is an entity called the judicial conference that was set up by congress to impose the rules and ethics guidelines on lower court judges and ensure that the judges follow. if judges deviate from the code of ethics, there is a process in place for a complaint to be filed and for the matters to be investigated. none of that applies to supreme court justices. the code of ethics the judicial conference hands down that governs lower court judges is advisory when it comes to supreme court justices. they will say they look at it and confer, make private decisions. ultimately, they make their own calls about whether certain situations call for recusal or it would be improper for them to take a trip sponsored by a wealthy person that is a friend of theirs. if certain situations come to light where they failed to recuse themselves but people on the outside think they should have or they went on a trip with a wealthy donor and people think

that should not have happened, there is no process for anybody to call foul. there is no process for anyone to submit a complaint because there is no policing authority. it is different from the system all the lower court judges follow in terms of there being no strict code of conduct they are supposed to follow and no governing authority that can enforce that code of conduct. host: if you would like to call in and ask a question, you can do so now by party affiliation. democrats (202) 748-8000, republicans (202) 748-8001 and independents (202) 748-8002. you can also send us a text and interact with us on social media. there's been lots of reports about justice clarence thomas, there are also reports about justice gorsuch on i believe a property transaction, even chief justice roberts wife. what are these revealing to you? what is concerning for you?

guest: there's very little rules that govern the justices when it comes to outside sources of income or giftgiving. certainly at least the disclosure of those things. justices are permitted to conduct certain activities on the outside they can earn income from, they are allowed to teach in a law school class. they can publish books and get royalty deals where they get payments for book sales. there is a limit on how much they are supposed to earn on the outside. a lot of times when people want to influence the justices, they are barred from just paying them a consulting fee or directly trying to make a monetary payment to influence decisions. what happens is the same people trying to influence the justices will try to get favor with them by sponsoring them to take lavish trips or bringing them out to expensive dinners at nice restaurants, paying for them to travel with their family on a

personal vacation. often times, that is not disclosed. one judge was famous for going to hunting lodges for vacations that were paid for by private people on the outside, the never disclosing them. he died on one of those trips. with clarence thomas, it has come to light that for almost two decades, a single individual who is a wealthy donor to the republican party has been sponsoring justice thomas and his wife to go with him on vacations to lavish spots, including private clubs. clarence thomas never disclosed the trips, which have huge values in terms of what they would be judged as being birthed outside people. clarence thomas has taken flights on a personal jet that he owns, the value of that flight if he was trying to lease his own jet would be half $1 million, he got to ride for free. never disclosed it.

with neil gorsuch, for years he owned a piece of land in colorado that he was trying to sell. for well over a year, he was unable to sell it. they had to lower the price a couple of times. within nine days of being confirmed as a supreme court justice, the property was purchased at a nice sum by the head of a major law firm that argues before the supreme court quite frequently. he listed a range of income he received through an llc, which was the name of the investment firm he set up to own the property. he did not divulge it was a land deal, he did not divulge the nature of income he was bringing in. he did not divulge the buyer. it was figured out by politico, which published a story in the last couple of weeks. this highlights the situation in terms of it being the wild west

in terms of lack of disclosure by supreme court justices and sheds light on the way people can carry favor with justices as they currently exist. host: what is your priority for ethics rules? guest: there has been a bunch of reform proposals, as you can imagine with all of the press and revelations, lawmakers are getting interested in introducing new bills. there is one offered by someone in the senate and a representative from georgia, that would attack various issues we've been discussing. it would say that if you might have a belief you should recuse, it is not just your decision. you did not get to decide on your own anymore, the bill would require other justices to have a say and come to a collective decision about whether an individual justice should have to recuse. they are bound to follow the code of ethics that applies to lower court judges. it would set up a process and if

somebody deviated from the code of ethics, there would be somebody to investigate that could then enforce the code of ethics against those justices. it would be five disclosure requirements when it comes to giftgiving and travel that we have discussed. there are other proposals from other lawmakers, senator warren and a congresswoman from washington state have a proposal that would do similar things to what the white house johnson bill would do, but other things, as well. justices from owning individual stocks from any conflict of interest that arrive that way. recently, there was a bipartisan bill that was introduced. republican senator from alaska lisa murkowski teamed up with an independent from maine, and their bill was just a very straightforward three pages that took me three minutes to read. supreme court, you have one year to adopt a code of ethics.

let the supreme court decide what it is, but you have to put it up for public comment and impose it on yourself within one year, and then you have to appoint somebody. you get to decide who. the supreme court would get to decide who they appointed, but somebody would have to be appointed to be in charge of enforcing the code on the justices from that point forward. there is a lot for the justices to fill in but that at least requires a code of ethics within one year so maybe that is a promising opportunity. lisa murkowski is one of the cosponsors and she is a republican. host: we will take some calls but we will show you a portion from the senate judiciary hearing. this is a republican who says this is all really one-sided. [video clip] >> an ethics code written by congress in statute does not mean justices lack guidance or accountability. justices and judges routinely consult the existing code of

conduct, and federal law already requires recusal in certain circumstances like bias or financial interest. we all know that. the justices are also subject to strict financial disclosure rules just like my colleagues here. not only is this democratic proposal unconstitutional, it is unnecessary. the attacks on conservative justices are targeted. they are exaggerated. the alarmism is affected. the danger is not that rogue justices are operating without ethics. it is that democrats are not winning every fight and they find that reality intolerable. i have been disappointed by supreme court opinions too. but my democratic colleagues should fill out a hurt feelings report and move on for the sake of the constitution.

look. the agenda driven story here is justice thomas has a rich friend who had no business before the united states supreme court. for context, let's recall that history is littered with examples of public officials failing to disclose their every transaction. we can acknowledge it is required by law. it is. we can acknowledge it is the right thing to do. it is. but we can do that without maligning each justice's motive and the entire institution's credibility for god sakes. you know who else amended their disclosures because of inadvertent admissions? justice ruth bader ginsburg, justice stephen breyer, two good people. justice jackson made multiple amendments. three days after president biden nominated her.

not one senator brought that up during her confirmation hearings. not one of my colleagues walked into her hearings with the buckets of mud they have thrown against justice thomas. not one. host: what do you think of that? guest: it is a long clip. there is a lot to respond to. he said this is unconstitutional for congress to try to impose a code of ethics on the supreme court. that is just not the case. there are some arguable claims that something like term limits might not be doable via legislation, but the code of ethics is a pretty broad consensus that it is constitutional and congress can do it. there is plenty of precedent for congress to fill in the blanks on certain things, parameters about how the court operates. for instance, the court has had its size changed by congress six times. the court meets every year on the first monday of october.

that is something set by statute that congress passed. the court cannot decide a case unless six of the nine justices are there to decide. they need to have a so-called quorum. ample precedent for congress to set parameters. certainly, applying a code of ethics would be constitutional. in terms of this being something democrats are cherry picking because they are upset about the cases that are coming out of the court these days, one of the witnesses of the testimony in that hearing is a formal judge -- former judge was shortlisted for the supreme court for many years under former president bush. he was the lawyer that advised mike pence during the events of january 6. he is a very credentialed conservative lawyer, and he provided testimony to the committee yesterday saying it would be constitutional to pass a code of ethics and it is incumbent on the supreme court. the supreme court should want to apply a code of ethics to itself to boost support and trust in

the supreme court and the institution, so don't take it from me. take it from the judge. i already mentioned senator lisa murkowski, a colleague of senator kennedy, is already on board with the code of ethics bill. just a few points that i would take issue with what the senator said. host: what about him saying it was a targeted attack on conservative justices whereas other liberal justices are being ignored or given a pass? guest: i would say a couple things. three things. number one, none of these revelations came to light via democrats finding out about them. they have all been the subject of independent reporting by outside journalists. the revelations regarding clarence thomas' two decades with a vacations with harlan crow was revealed by a nonpartisan group. she had a mom purchased by

harlan crow and lives there rent free, also reported by an independent media outlet. neil gorsuch being involved in a land deal he failed to disclose nine days after he was confirmed, that is something democrats should have tried to figure out by now, but they didn't. it was politico that figured that out. it is a little bad faith on senator kennedy's part to say these are things democrats are conflating to a big scandal. these are products of independent reporting that democrats are now reacting to. i would say that, yes, there have been revisions and modifications to disclosure forms filed by democratic justices over the years. those have largely entailed good faith errors or omissions that were accidental. with clarence thomas's situation, he profited from the sale of a home 10 years ago that was purchased by harlan crow. the disclosure forms, the very little law on the books right now requiring certain things to be disclosed by the justices

requires any real estate transaction to be listed on the form. it is hard to imagine he sort of forgot that. so that is why some people are calling for not just a congressional investigation into this but a criminal investigation by the justice department because failure to report the land deal from 2014 with harlan crow in savannah, georgia, is according to a lot about the experts in violation of a 1978 ethics in government act. host: let's go to the phones now. which is in ohio on the line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. great section here. this is very topic related to today's lack of accountability from the top down. i am reading "strange justice" right now and glued to the tv for the clarence thomas hearings. i am not sure what will become

of the supreme court if there is no accountability starting at the top. that is what is lacking. in this new age, i am all for whatever needs to be done. we have to keep turning over the leaves and looking underneath them. if we do not, we are guilty of complicity not behavior. -- non-behavior. you are doing great work. i will follow you more. we really need to magnify accountability. wish me happy birthday and, let's keep going here because we can save this thing. we can make it better. host: happy birthday, rich. go ahead. guest: we all have an interest in the supreme court maintaining the trust of the public because

otherwise the supreme court becomes a hollowed out institution. the executive branch, the president is the commander-in-chief. he has an army at his disposal. the legislative branch, congress, controls the purse strings. appropriations for the whole government, including the judicial branch. the judiciary's power comes from its moral standing, from the belief that it operates outside of politics, from the wisdom it has in its decisions and the decisions are being made on a level and not favoring certain interests over others. if the public starts to lose faith in that being the case with the supreme court, then it's power erodes -- its power erodes. we should be troubled by the fact that public poll after public poll are showing that approval of the supreme court is hovering around 35%, 40%. that is something that has been true for a long time of other branches of government, the

public approval has been low. it is true about the institutions outside of government, but the fact that it is happening to the supreme court is a problem because it derives legitimacy from the public having faith and trust in its decisions. host: here is the gallup poll about that. it says approval of the u.s. supreme court down to 40%, which is a new low. here is a chart so you can see it visually. job approval right here at 40%. this is all the way back to 2001. it was 42% at one point in 2005, but now it is down to 40%. adriana is in los angeles, independent. good morning. caller: my question is the separation of powers. how do you have imposing rule violations of the justices with enforcement? it means you would need a different branch of government to enforce ethics rules.

as an analogy, in california we have a supreme court who is in charge of all the lawyers and all the judges and justices in the state of california. the legislature has no power to enforce any of the rules except to maybe enforce budgeting rules or they could take money away so i about sure how get around the separation of powers, which is constitutional, with regards to the moral aspects and the respect of the courts, i don't understand what that has anything to do when you have a constitutional issue way above that. thank you. guest: so they caller makes it -- the caller makes a great point and raises a question that has been a primary feature of this debate if you want to have a code of ethics and apply it to the supreme court, how will you enforce it? what is the outside body that

would have previewed to the supreme court? the supreme court is supposed to be the highest court in the land. are you going to have a court atop the supreme court or the legislative branch police the judicial branch? those are all very valid considerations. there are different ideas for how to deal with it, but it is definitely an idea that needs to be dealt with. i will mention a couple ways some of the proponents of ethics reform are trying to deal with that. all of them i should say before i get into a couple specifics take it as a premise that you cannot have the executive branch or legislative branch trying to police the judicial branch. all of the various reform ideas consist of having a structure within the judicial branch to police itself. and then it is a matter of exactly how to set that up. one approach is the white house bill i mentioned sponsored by hank johnson in the house. it would say that if 70 filed a complaint against a sitting justice right now, nothing happens because there is no process for resolving that

dispute. famously, i don't know if people remember this from the news from 2018, there was a bunch of complaint against brett kavanaugh when he was sitting on the d.c. court of appeals. when he was a judge on the d.c. court of appeals, there was a process to investigate those complaints and see if they were frivolous or meritorious. as soon as he got confirmed to the supreme court, all of those complaints went into the trash because there is no process to adjudicate those types of complaints when you are a sitting supreme court justice. what sheldon whitehouse posed to do is change that to see if a complaint comes in against a sitting supreme court justice, there would be a committee comprised of all the chief judges from the circuit court across the country. even though the circuit courts are one level below the supreme court, the chief judges of those courts are very respected figures. for instance, merrick garland, may remember having been president obama's nominee for the supreme court in 2016, who

is now the attorney general of the u.s. he was a judge in the d.c. circuit for a time. even the supreme court justices would acknowledge respectable people who are probably neutral in terms of the outlook they would take on assessing those types of complaints. so sheldon whitehouse's idea to have a panel of the appellate court chief justices, that is one idea. another idea from digg blumenthal, senator from connecticut, he makes a good point that every agency in the executive branch has something called an inspector general, and opposition is in charge of conducting independent investigations of the branch in which they serve. i used to work in the justice department and we had an inspector general. eric holder would have to do an interview and issue a report. the inspector general would. and then he would go to capitol hill and testify about the report and release into the media. that was a way to impose accountability on the executive

branch from within. the idea is to have an inspector general for the judicial branch and they can conduct similar investigations. host: speaking of separation of powers, the chief justice was invited to testify in front of the senate judiciary committee. i will show the letter that was sent back to chairman dick durbin saying, dear mr. chairman, thank you for your letter, i must respectfully decline your invitation. he says testimony by the chief justice of the u.s. is exceedingly rare. and as one might expect in light of the separation of powers concerns and the importance of preserving judicial independence. what do you think of that, the invitation, the declining of the invitation, as well as he did release a nonbinding statement signed by all nine justices where they volunteered to adhere to ethics standards? guest: yes.

chief justice roberts said it was rare for chief justices or other justices on the court to appear before congress. it is true. it has not happened a time but it has happened before so not completely without precedent. and beyond whether it is rare or not, there is a question of whether this is a missed opportunity on the chief justice's part. you just cited the polls that show public support for the court dwindling. you would think that as a custodian of the court's reputation and somebody that cares about preserving its image that the chief justice would want to put to rest concerns the court is incapable of policing its own affairs. you would think he would want to avail himself to this opportunity. a lot of people are saying maybe dick durbin could not require this but it would have been in his own vested interest to allay some of these concerns. and so now the question is, what are the congressional democrats going to do about it? because of clarence thomas, dick durbin did not try to bring clarence thomas in, assuming he

would decline. now he extended the offer to justice roberts and he has declined. groups like ours and other folks have said, well, if the court is not going to investigate it on its own and the court is not going to comply with voluntary request to appear before congress, congress is going to have to do its own investigation and will have to compel witness testimony from other people. not the justices themselves perhaps but other people involved in some of these controversies that have come to light. clarence thomas may say separation of power so i will not come up here, but harlan crow cannot say that. the gentleman that bought the property in colorado cannot say that. there is increasing pressure now on congressional democrats, including chairman durbin, to do fact-finding with respect to the other individuals in these transactions. what were they trying to achieve? how did they meet the justices? how did they decide to let clarence thomas's mother continue to live in the house rent free for 10 years?

how is that not financial benefit to clarence thomas? host: next in laurel, maryland, republican. good morning. caller: yes, good morning. i just have a couple of brief questions and then a comment. first of all to mr. fallon, did you watch the entire hearing on c-span? guest: i watched most of the hearing. cannot say i watched the whole thing. caller: clearly you didn't. also to the commentator from c-span, did you watch the entire hearing that took place? host: what point do you want to make? caller: here is my point. you are throwing arrows and justice as gorgeous, as is mr. fallon. little did you realize that it came out in the hearing that when gorsuch sold his property as part of an llc, guess who he sold it to. a democrat who has been a significant donor to the democrat party.

secondly, i don't think he saw when senator cruz portrayed first of all all of the derogatory magazine covers aimed at justice thomas, which is now kind of a second go around to go at justice thomas. secondly, he pointed out very clearly that sotomayor, kagan, all of the justices had had paid for trips, hundreds of trips. 150 in some cases. 160 in other cases. it sounds like we are aiming at the conservative court in singling out justice thomas, justice gorsuch, justice -- i'm sorry, i forgot his name. but the bottom line is let's not

just pick and choose and say it is only the conservative justices who are taking advantage of getting these particular benefits. host: ok, joseph. let's get a response. guest: the caller mentioned that it came out in a hearing yesterday that the gentleman about neil gorsuch's property in colorado was a democrat. that was not new information. that was in the initial report that exposed the transaction in the first place. brian duffy is the head of the law from, the one that purchased property. he has given to democrats over the years. in my view and the view of many people, the fact that he has given to democrats over the years does not mean it is not inappropriate for him as the head of a law firm that appears before the supreme court frequently to engage in a land deal with a sitting supreme court justice and not have that be disclosed. the fact that he gave to democrats before does not mean that is something that should be

omitted from the disclosure form. i would just point out also in the hearing yesterday one of the things i did notice and thought was good that even as they decry the hearing itself as being a partisan affair, republican senators like lindsey graham, like chuck grassley said they hope the court will impose beefed-up ethics standards upon itself. they said they will not support some of these pieces of legislation that democrats are offering in the senate that would impose it on the court but that they did hope the justices would impose stricter requirements on themselves. and in saying that, they are going farther than what chief justice roberts has said himself. because in that letter he sent to the committee that you read from a woman ago, a chief justice tried to convince everyone the existing standards are enough. they had a three-page letter signed by the justices saying these are the rules we look to and try to follow even though none of them are binding. so he said we have discovered, don't worry about it. here are all the citations of

the existing authorities we refer to that will have to make judgment calls. republicans joined democrats yesterday saying we hope the court goes further. now we are not arguing about whether more should be done but whether it should be voluntarily done by the court or whether congress should step in. i think democrats would agree with republicans that if john roberts showed an inclination to impose a code of ethics on themselves, the democrats would cease to offer these bills. the problem is the court is not doing that so that is why democrats are saying we need to pass them. host: let's talk to william in harrington, delaware, democrat. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i always wonder why we wait until the horse is out of the barn before we start dealing with these problems. in my opinion, i am about 68 years old at this point, and i have seen a lot of what goes on with the approval of these folks that sit in their ivory tower on the supreme court thinking they

are above everything. we don't have that in this country. this country is supposed to be made for accountability. these folks do not have any of that. as far as i am concerned, the rock that exists far and wide in that institution is the responsibility lies in the people who were federalist society folks. they groomed them specifically to get on there. they are corporatists that do not represent the majority of people in this country. what is happening now is proving my point. they think they are ab ove it all. if they get investigated, i hope that happens because they are sitting in judgment for the rest of us and coming out with these wacky judgments regarding the abortion issue and all kinds of things. guest: so the caller invoke the

federalist society. this is a group that operates on the political right. they are a group that tries to influence judicial selections under republican presidents. and one of the main reasons for the formation of the federal society was because the founders of it started to get frustrated that republican presidents were putting justices on the bench who then went on to call it as they saw it and oftentimes had a hand in decisions they viewed as liberal. john paul stevens was a republican president's nominee and he went on to be one of the leading liberal justices of the last 50 years. justice souter was elected by president bush, 41, and he went on to be a reliable vote for the liberal block on the supreme court. this frustrated people that formed the federalist society

because they believe about what is the point of winning presidential elections if when we get the opportunity to pick justices, we are picking people up holding a woman's right to choose or people that are upholding the consideration of race in college admissions. so there was quite an impressive infrastructure and apparatus that draws hundreds of millions of dollars in contributions from social conservatives that oppose the right to abortion, business conservatives that help prop up the chamber of commerce interest before the court, and they created this filtering so only certain types of people get considered anymore by republican presidents. sure enough, when donald trump was running for president in 2016, he released a short list of people and he promised he would only consider people on that list and that list was from people in the federalist society. host: up next, the republican line. caller: thank you for taking my

call. this might be related to your previous answer. can you explain how justice roberts became due from justice -- became chief justice being the most junior justice on the supreme court? secondly, has there been any analysis? it seems like some of these decisions when they are a right-leaning majority, it tends to go the other way, kind of giving the impression he is being a straight shooter. leslie to mimi -- lastly to mimi, from one of to another, gobble gobble. guest: ok. the position of chief justice of the united states, and that is the title by the way, that is a position a president makes a nomination for that spot on his own or her own. it is not just a position you arrived at because you have the

longest tenure on the supreme court. if something happens eliciting chief justice, the president gets to nominate somebody for that seat, however they want. he or she can decide to either elevate a sitting justice to the position of chief justice or pick somebody from entirely off the bench and nominate that person to chief justice. if i am remembering my history correctly, senator o'connor decided she was going to retire because her husband was ailing and president bush announced he intended to nominate john roberts who was the head of a big d.c. litigation firm who appeared before the supreme court frequently for that seat. within about two or three months, chief justice rehnquist passed away so they became two vacancies on the court at the same time. president bush said he would switch john roberts to be donated for the chief justice seat and then he nominated alito for the seat o'connor had held.

host: all right. well, that is getting us to the end of the program. brian fallon, demand justice cofounder and executive director, thank you for joining us. guest: thank you for having me and thank you to the callers. host: that is it for today's "washington journal. we will" be back tomorrow at 7:00a.m. eastern live on c-span. now we will take you to testimony on the biden administration's 2024 budget request for the environmental protection agency. that is happening before the senate appropriations subcommittee beginning in just a few minutes. you will hear from the administrator michael regan. we will be back. now it is time for the senate. have a great day. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2023] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]