live on the air on the news on the day and we discussed policy issues that impact you. coming up monday morning, newsweek congressional correspondent discusses the week ahead for congress. migration policy institute president andrew seeley discusses what to expect as the pandemic era border policy known as title 42 comes to an end. the biden administration's plans for stemming migration and implications of recent proposals for -- proposed by the publicans in congress. "washington journal." live at 7:00 eastern on c-span or our free app. watch washington journal on tuesday. we will discusshe treasury secretary's warning of the u.s. beinatisk of not paying its debt as early as june first and president biden' meeting with congressional leaders in an effort to compromise on raising the debt limit or risk fault for the firs time in u.s. history. joinheiscussion all morning with your phone calls, facebook

comments, texts and tweets. ♪

♪ host: good morning and welcome to washington journal. president joe biden this week is expected to lift a pandemic

error rule -- era rule that uld cause a surge of immigrants at the u.s. mexico border it has ordered u.s. troops to be sent down to reinforce border patrol and help deal with the surge as mayorsn new york city, washington,.c. and others say resources have been stretched to their breaking point with immigration. all of this as the 2024 presidential election looms in the future. our question for you this morning, what changes are needed in border and immigration policy? democrats, we want to hear from you at (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independent you can call at (202) 748-8002. we are opening up a special line

for border states, southern border states. we want to know what you think if you live in one of the states bordering mexico. your line is going to be (202) 748-8003. keep in mind, you can always text us at (202) 748-8003 and we are always reading on social media on facebook.com/cspan, on twitter @cspanwj and you can follow us on instagram @cspanwj. once again, we expect to hear from the white house as we see the pandemic error rule -- era rule get rescinded and an expected surge of immigration from central and south america. in an interview on friday, president biden spoke about the administration's efforts to improve the immigration system and defended his decision to

send active-duty troops to the southern border ahead of next week's lifting of the pandemic era rule. [video clip] >> you are sending 1500 trips to the border, people on the left say it is inhumane, people on the right say you are not putting american priorities first and employer's around the country are saying we need more workers. have you given up on congress doing anything, is there something you can do? >> there is. we're in a situation now where those 1500 people at the border are not there to enforce the law, they are there to free up the border agents that need to be on the border and we are having another thousand people come in, silent judges to make judgments, to move things along. i've asked congress for help,

they need more agents, more people to clear, more action. farmworkers are badly needed, there has to be a pathway to citizenship. the idea of dreamers still not being treated good -- can you imagine your six-year-old kid -- you are a six-year-old kid, we are crossing. leave me here. come on. there are so much we can do and are going to do. for example, i forgot a good relationship with the president of mexico. we are in a situation our we will set up the ability for people to go into an american facility to determine whether they qualify as a refugee, qualify for asylum, qualify for a temporary work order. speeding things up. there is a combination of making sure there is a system by which

it is orderly and where employers have access to additional people, particularly farmworkers. host: once again, we want to know what you think about what is going on at the border. what changes do you think are needed in border and immigration policy? democrats (202) 748-8000, republicans (202) 748-8001 independents (202) 748-8002, and if you live in a state that borders mexico, we want to hear from you at (202) 748-8003. the new york times has a story this morning that is talking about what is expected to happen this week, i want to read a paragraph or two to you from the story. the biden administration is preparing to lift an emergency health rule that's been used to prevent hundreds of thousands of migrants from entering the u.s.

setting the stage for what could be a new immigration surge that will flame political tensions and strain resources across the southern border. barring a last-minute legal challenge, the trump policy known as title 42 will expire at 11:59 p.m. eastern on thursday. it was put in place three years ago under the premise of preventing the spread of covid-19. border agents, state and local officials and even president biden's top aides in washington are all racing for the arrival of tens of thousands of migrants in the coming days. already people have been crossing into u.s. border towns anticipating the end of title 42, which has allowed the government to swiftly expel citizens of several countries back to mexico. we want to know what you think about the border immigration policy. let us start in north carolina,

good morning. caller: good morning. you all do such a great job with washington journal. this is a great topic, because it is been bothering me so much how the republicans are saying there is an open border. there is an open border. the biden administration has set a record the last two years for border apprehensions. i think last year it was two months early, they are before the about month and they have early. it is going up 30 some percent every year, the number. so the borders more secure than ever. biden and the administration, they are evolving. it is not a static situation, it is always changing. they are doing amazing changes,

new technology they have instituted quicker. just the title 42 thing. can i say one more thing about what the cause of this is? it bothers me a little bit, the american lack of fundamental labor like farming labor and construction labor. they are all latino doing the construction work. it seems like our country is losing the ability to be able to do this fundamental labor, building agriculture especially. americans just do not do it anymore. biden is doing it orderly, that is the important thing. it has never been more orderly. before, it was helter-skelter. history is going to write the history of this, they are going to say this was miraculous how

well they are doing. host: let us go to randy in kentucky on the republican line. caller: i did not hear all of the previous caller said, i would love to agree with him. if you are looking at -- what countries in the world have the highest murder rate per capita? that is where most of the immigrants are coming from, central and south america, the highest murder rates of anywhere in the world and we are bringing them in here. i do not mind immigrants if i do not have to pay for them, this is the most expensive way you can think of to bring in and replace the population that we killed through abortions and homosexuality.

we had all these carpenters, agricultural workers. if we had not killed them off. if you do not have a population, people will migrate to the best jobs. they will not go to manual labor if they do not have to. not even illegals want to do that if they do not have to. did anybody ever look anything up about the people we are bringing in here? host: let us go to kelly in virginia on the independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. i sponsor my daughter-in-law for lawful immigration, i had to do a bunch of paperwork for her to sponsor her to come into the country. the current wave of people are not being sponsored properly. i feel that they are breaking

the existing immigration laws and they should be impeached for their behavior. we had upwards 7 million people come in through their process. that is my comment. host: a new poll shows that there is not much appetite in the united states right now for more anchor immigration -- for more immigration. this comes from a pole that was taken back on march 7. there's not much support for allowing more immigrants into the u.s. in general, or for accepting more people who are seeking asylum. the public is more likely to say the number of immigrants overall or those seeking asylum should be reduced, rather than increased. 44% say migration should be reduced while 20% would like to

see more immigrants allowed into the country. 43% say there should be fewer asylum-seekers allowed entry, compared with 24% who would like to see more people given asylum. support for immigration has faded over biden's presidency. 28% of the public supports increasing immigration in a poll conducted in march 2021, that dropped to 20% in the latest poll. only 11% of republicans favor increase immigration along with 27% of democrats. when asked specifically about immigrants seeking asylum, democrats are more likely to favor allowing more immigration while republicans have the opposite view. this is from a poll that came out in march this year. we want to know what changes do you think you need to be made at the border and immigration policy? it does not seem like anyone is

happy with the system that we have now, but what changes should we make? let us start with gary on the democratic line in massachusetts. good morning. caller: good morning. i'm going to go back a little bit. i can remember when barack obama was president, i guess the gop and democrats came together and passed a bill. i remember saying, that is how government should work. the gop walked away, you heard crickets from them. fast forward to today, the border this, so many people coming over. they had a chance when barack obama asked them. i do not understand why they are complaining, it does not make sense. host: what changes do you think should be made in border or immigration policy? how can we fix this, assuming we

had a congress that could do the work? caller: your guess is as good as mine. biden is doing a great job, that is all i've got to say. have a nice day. host: kevin in north carolina, republican line. what changes do we need to make? caller: i do not mind them coming in here legally. that is the main thing. you have people that have been here all the lives, they deserve the american dream, too. these guys are taking the american dream away. they need to stop, put the wall back that donald trump started, it ain't right. host: let us talk to herbert calling from michigan on the independent line.

what changes do you think need to be made to border and immigration policy, or do you think it is good the way it is? are you there? caller: yes. host: what changes do you think need to be made? caller: need to get the republicans first to deal with them, they use this as a political issue. i think we need to go back to where it was started. look at obama, 300 70,000 people crossed the border under him. donald trump made the problem worse, he brawled these people to the border when he killed the funding that finds drug wars dashboards in south american countries. donald trump brought those people here. his policies -- i'm 65 years old. i can remember all the way back to gerald ford. every president in history has

approved funding for drug lords of people could live there, drugs come pouring across the border. donald trump killed the funding, he's the guy that said wire we sending money to those countries -- why are we sending money to those countries? we would fight the drug wars so people could stay there, drugs do not come pouring across the border. all you hear is republicans yelling about drugs coming across the border, they never tell you who did it. donald trump made this mess. in order to fix it, the republicans have got to come in, they have to want and immigration policy. not fight it and use it for a political tool. host: alan in arizona on the democratic line, what changes do you think need to be made?

caller: there's nothing more i can really say from the previous caller, i was physically on the border years ago during desert storm, the same thing you are talking about right now. why are we still dealing with the same issues 20 years ago? the previous caller was on point. host: anything else you think should be done? caller: we increase the money to fight the drug war in central and south america. host: anything else for immigration policy? caller: it would be good for people to start telling the truth and get people in office that would be more sympathetic to our people, that would be a good start. tell the truth, do jobs the way it is supposed to be done like old boy said. host: steve from anaheim, california on the republican

line. caller: good morning. i think these guys are wrong. ronald reagan is what start of the immigration problem in this country. the lack of money to secure the border was under his administration, it's been going on from there. you want to stop this thing, stop sending money from all over the country. stop paying them $2000 per person before assistance. go back to what you were supposed to do in the beginning, secure the border. build facilities to hold them, build hospitals, build a wall. make them go to the areas where the resources are so they are not out there crossing across the desert, having us go out there and trying to find them. as far as the corruption and

other countries, romney made a good point when he was talking to the head of the agency. we cannot stop crime in this country, what makes you think we can stop crime in other countries? have seen all of the hearings. they have to fire this guy, he is incompetent. thank you. host: let us talk to curt and mount union, pennsylvania on the independent line. what changes should we be making in border and immigration policy? caller: good morning. let me tell you. first off, you are not going to get the democrats to do anything about it. you are not gonna get the

republicans to do anything about it because it is 21st century slavery. when you bring illegal immigrants over here, you can put them in jobs, they have no records to be able to say how their wages are or anything else. it is a form of slavery. they bring these people into do the jobs other people will not do and they can pay them whatever they want, because they cannot do anything because they are not protected by the law. that is why no one republican or democrat wants to stop it. it is a source of cheap labor. host: how do we change this? caller: you would enforce immigration laws, you would make immigration laws. we would stop immigration for a while to assimilate the ones we have and protect them, give them the protection of the law. they are immigrants, just like we used to do with ellis island.

they get the protection of the law. right now, they're just coming over. they have no protection. they are considered asylum-seekers, they are not sanctioned to find work that they do find work because people can pay them three dollars, five dollars an hour, as opposed to somebody $15, $20 an hour. it is 21st century slavery. host: in a recent visit to brownsville, texas, homeland security secretary highlighted the ways the biden administration plans to help migrants after the lifting of title 42 provisions. here is a portion of what he said on friday. [video clip] >> we are building lawful pathways that will provide a safe and orderly way for individuals who qualify for relief under u.s. law to reach the u.s. safely.

we are building on the success of our parole processes that we announced on january 5 for cubans, haitians, nicaraguans and venezuelans. we saw a 95% drop in the number of encounters of those individuals at our southern border, because we built lawful pathways for them to access. that is the model that we are building upon. last thursday, secretary of state tony blinken and i announce the development of regional processing centers in different parts of south and central america to enable individuals to access lawful pathways from those regional processing centers, whether they qualify for refugee processing, they qualify for existing and expanding family reunification programs, whether they present acute vulnerabilities that may qualify them for humanitarian parole on a case-by-case basis.

we are reaching the people where they are. it is not only our security obligation, it is our humanitarian responsibility to cut the smugglers out. that is what we are doing. host: let us see what some of our social media followers are saying about possible changes to border and immigration policy. here's one person from facebook that says need a clear border, we have laws in place that people are bypassing. anyone here illegally should be identified and deported or issued a temporary work visa. asylum speakers are supposed to go to the next country over, everyone is not entitled to seek asylum in the u.s.. here is a tweet that says the best place to start is ending the propaganda campaign. this naked fear mongering. another facebook post that says help other countries build up their borders and crime

infestation, help with their economy and investors to build up their business economically. another tweet that says the border needs lockdown and those here illegally need deported. another tweet that says people have been immigrating to the united states since the country's founding, why is this always a topic or argument? i final facebook post that says humanitarian aid, more staff or processing, more regulation. they exploit the countries without providing compensation. more regulation of labor forces to prevent exploitation. once again, we want to know w changes do you think need to be madeborder and immigration policy. u can see the numbers on screen.

(202) 748-8000, republicans (28-80 independence -- independents (202) 748-8002 and if you live in a border state, call at (202) 748-8003. let us go to brian in new mexico , good morning. caller: morning. host: go ahead. caller: there are so many questions, obvious questions, that are never addressed. especially by corporate media. for example, how many americans know that since world war ii ended, the population has increased by 5000 million people, 5 billion people? nobody talks abo the actual numbers. we cannot take everybody.

the l acvists act like it is no big deal, we can let them all in. what about this question? in all of the american urban centers, we do not have enough affordable housing. why don't we ask the question, where are they going to live? how will they afford to live? where will they get health care, how can they afford to eat? the government is going to give it to them, the government has to give everybody everything. let us start asking the obvious questions that go along with letting in millions and millions of people. host: so what changes do you think need to be made right now to border and immigration policy? caller: start finding employers that hire the illegal immigrants and demand all the employers that have to have illegal immigrants or newly arrived immigrants -- make the employers pay all of the social costs that

come along with the immigrants. victim pay the health care, make them pay child support, make them pay their housing subsidies. make the employers pay the cost. otherwise all we are doing is flooding the labor market and driving down the value of average labor in the united states. that is why nobody wants to do hard work out in the sun, because it does not pay enough. it doesn't pay enough because we keep letting thousands of people into the country to do it for peanuts. we do not frame the question properly. another thing is -- i lost my train of thought. but there are so many obvious questions that never get addressed and i wish the media would do a better job of addressing everything. we cannot take everybody. we have to start talking about limits and responsibilities. host: let us talk to ted on the democratic line from hawaii.

good morning. caller: good evening -- it is still evening here in hawaii, 1:00 a.m.. not exactly a border state in the middle of the pacific, but i've often wondered watching your show why don't we do more -- there were a couple of guys that mentioned we need to reintroduce what used to be to prevent the drug dealers from having so much sway. make a safe zone for them so people can stay in their own country, it is a very difficult problem and it will take a lot of people on committees to get together and hash the back-and-forth, how to reinstate that to not have the immigrants or less immigrants? we need to lessen the pain, that is one way to do it. it will take a lot of cooperation, that is the difficulty. host: do you see this congress

being able to muster that type of cooperation to get any type of change? caller: they would have to take a lot of vitamins. it is going to take a lot. they need to try harder to cooperate. i know that is asking way more than they can probably produce, but we can hope and suggested. i have heard some great suggestions on both sides of the aisle. i am a democrat, but i've heard republicans say a lot of smart things and i've heard democrats say smart things. if we can get a lot of what came out on -- another thing i heard, why'd not the media come out, that is what your show is doing. getting the media to come out with good ideas, you are prompting citizens to come up with the good ideas and that is why your show is so great. host: david in georgia on the independent line. good morning.

caller: you have had some great callers this morning. i've been calling and about the border for over 15 years, that is here at c-span. president biden did it. host: let us go to christian calling from arizona on the republican line, another border state. what changes do you think need to be made? caller: good morning, thank you for taking my call. immigration needs to be suspended entirely. it is obvious. host: let us be specific, are you talking about immigration completely, not just southern border and immigration -- southern border immigration, but also europe and asia? ending it completely? caller: any and all alien entry,

whether from the southern border, a port of entry, visa application -- any h-1b, h2 b -- all of the immigration disproportionately impacts low-wage workers. this was pointed out by your favorite president, president donald j trump 2020, into executive orders. the previous president, your favorite president pointed out the immigration disproportionately impacts low-wage workers and he wrote african-americans in both executive orders. now, joe biden, when he ran for president, he promised that he would reverse trump's policy.

such as who is cruel and senseless policy that separates parents from children and the mismanagement of the system that fuels violence and chaos at the border. reverse trump's public chargeable in the so-called national emergency that siphons federal dollars from the department of defense. build a wall -- oh, build a wall. america, when you vote for a president of the united states that wants to open the border, you are going to get that. when that destroys your country, you are going to get exactly what you deserve. host: let us go to edwin calling from oregon on the democratic

line, good morning. caller: good morning. host: what changes do you think need to be made? caller: i am from mexico, i was raised here all my life. my dad fought in vietnam, that is how we got our citizenship. now it needs to be done is re-examine all border patrol agents all across the border, because they are the ones who are corrupted. they are getting payback from the drug cartels, i know this for a fact because i crossed the border illegally. what needs to be done, united states of america government needs to put -- you know like toll bridges for the highways here in the united states, they need to put each one down the

border. host: you said your father has his citizenship, why did you need to cross illegally? caller: because it was taken away from me. i was working on a farm and they picked us up, immigration. i told them i am an american citizen, my dad fought for the united states of america. they said that does not matter, you have to go back. on the border in mexico, where they sent us, and that a lot of americans. even american mexicans who were torn to be a u.s. citizen, they were in the military. they still got sent back. the border patrol agents on the

border are the corrupted ones. they are letting everybody through. host: let us go to eddie in los angeles, good morning. caller: good morning. we see what the preference is about the border situation just with the 10,000 haitians that landed, they were back in haiti within a weekend. it is not that they are letting everyone through, it is just particular ones. the immigration problem started as soon as affirmative action happened. reagan said that unions were bad, that was what black folks were trying to get into so we could have jobs and paid a have a home. have a vacation, pay for school for your children, college, the

whole nine yards. they protect the citizens that are paying the buttholes in washington -- host: looks like we lost eddie, let's talk about how immigration will change after may 11. title 42 will end on thursday at 11:59 p.m., what changes will be made with immigratioafter may 11? ? here's what the white house says will happen. there will be regional processing centers in guatemala and columbia, there is going to be streamlined family reunification processes for cubans and haitians. there will be expanded family reunification processes for salvadorans, hondurans, guatemalans. there will be doubly refugee resettlement from the region and

increasing of the number of appointments. those are the changes we are going to see -- some of the changes we are going to see with immigration after may 11. let us go back to the phone lines in florida, independent line. caller: good morning. host: what changes do you think need to be made? caller: the whole thing is wrappe bunch of hyperbole. just like we have a budgeting process for how we spend our money, i think both parties in congress need to come up with numbers of how many people from many we are going to let in.ow

then it is a quantifiable object ituation. the numbers are posted on a weekly basis. this nonsense is nothing but a headache. host: let us go to massachusetts on the republican line. good morning. what changes do you think need to be made in policy? caller: you have to send the military and god to protect. if they come over the border without permission, you shoot at them. here is my stage. they get sent here because they vote democratic. they will make it so communist democrats win every election. number two, they are here to replace people like me who do

landscaping and carpentry so they can take away all the jobs -- it does not affect college degree people. number theory, they are here. the communists we got in the white house, they are here to fight against republicans. they are here to destroy america. everything that joe biden has done since he became president, like shutting off the oil, saying we cannot pump no more oil, we have to have all electric cars, all electric this and that. every policy joe biden has done is to destroy america and my last point is when are we going to have the hunter biden tapes? when going to talk about when we

will impeach this communist piece of crap? host: maryland on the democrat line, good morning. caller: i think because it the emergency circumstances, the asylum program should be ceased temporarily and people taken back to their home countries. but at the same time, we arrange to do the asylum process close to them in their country, i think the rest of the immigration can continue. but the asylum is out of control , he needs to be ceased for a certain amount of time. i also think the chance of coming here as opposed to working out problems where they currently live is they have to stay there and work out their problems, they would, with help.

but the situation at the border is untenable and asylum should be temporarily ceased until we get things together. thank you. host: on capitol hill, senate judiciary committee ranking member lindsey graham of south carolina gave his assessment of what will occur if title 42 is lifted. here is a portion of what he had to say on wednesday. [video clip] >> this is a self-inflicted wound by the biden administration, they have the power to continue the policy. they have the power by executive action to keep people out of the country when they want to claim asylum. they repealed the trump policies that led to the lowest illegal crossings in december 2020 in recent history. it was a choice they made. this has got nothing to do with congress acting or not acting, this is a conscious decision by

the administration to take a tool out of the toolbox that has been effective and it will lead to holy hell, a crushing of the border cities that are already under siege and democratic mirrors are begging the biden administration to change course, we are begging him to change course. i am hoping our message will get through, time will tell. host: let us see what social media followers are saying. here's one tweet that says i am in a stay on the southern border , very few of our problems are caused by immigration. another tweet says maybe if we stopped stabilizing other countries, people would be secure where they are born. another tweet that says this is not immigration, this is invasion. but other country in the world would allow millions of unvented migrants to cross the border and

be supported by the government? another says enforced title eight, any noncitizen who crosses the border illegally between ports of entry are determined to not have a legal basis to remain will be processed for removal. a facebook post that says how about we just close it? apparently we cannot keep up with the ones that are here now and one final tweet that says stop allowing republicans to control border and immigration policy, you can solve everythi today. we want to know, whages do you think are needed to border and immigration policy? you senumbers on screen, call in now. us talk to john from illinois on the independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. caller: i have been in the

agricultural business my entire life, i these people calling in saying they are taking low-wage jobs, competing with that. we do not have people in the united states that will do these jobs any longer. this is firsthand, i live it daily. i've worked with a lot of different jamaicans and mexicans and people in my life. just telling you that we have to pay these people $20 an hour, according to government visas. the gentleman from pennsylvania said it was like slavery where we are paying them no wages at all, the process we have to go through to hire these illegal immigrants or illegal immigrants through the u.s. government, it takes 90 days. it is a long process and it costs us thousands of dollars per person to get them here to work.

here, we are having all of these illegals crossing the border. we cannot hire them, because it is illegal for us to do that. but you put a petition in, you have to wait 90 to 100 days and pay a couple thousand dollars per person, than they are liable to say sorry, we will not grant that petition. the people that are calling in that do not really have a clue, they have a 9-to-5 job, they need to understand what we go through here to try to do this legally and it costs $20 an hour to pull weeds in a field. host: what type of farming do you do? caller: produce. host: we hear you are complaining about a lot from a lot of different people, that businesses and farms are hiring

illegal immigrants, undocumented immigrants, to come in and work at low wages. you are telling us you do not see that, correct? caller: yes. our community, there are many produce farmers. there are no illegal immigrants that work, there are thousands of h2 a employees in our area. when we get them, they have to stay at your farm, there are days they can come, days they can go. you have to list on their petition the exact job descriptions they are going to be doing. if my neighbor that lives a quarter-mile mile down the road from me needs work one day and i do not have work for the people and i say ok, you can go to work for him, they can arrest us and call it human trafficking

because on the petition that i submitted, i gave them my address. his address is not on my petition. so now, i can be put in prison for human, because i let these people go to the next farm to help somebody who needs help. host: why are you having to use these workers? why can't you use american-born workers to do the same work? caller: i would give nothing more than to let that happen. we have to advertise these jobs before we can submit our petition, we have to advertise the jobs here. no one calls. high school kids will not do these jobs. host: how much are you paying for those jobs, what is the going rate right now? caller: $15 to $17 an hour, but

i would much rather pay a guy down the street to come to work for me every day for $20 an hour instead of paying the h2 a people to come from mexico for $20 an hour. there are people that come from mexico and they are extremely hard workers, most of the time they are extremely good people. host: i would love to keep going, let us get back to the topic and what changes we need in border and immigration policy. let us go to new york city on the republican line. good morning. caller: our problem is with mexico. if we get mexico to close their southern border, he wouldn't have the people coming through mexico to come to the u.s. border. host: how do we get mexico to close their southern border? caller: you never hear a conversation about mexico.

host: what do we offer to mexico to make mexico close it southern border? caller: they are still fighting the mexican-american war, that is why there is no change. host: let us go to new jersey on the democratic line. good morning. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call. military is built on solving big problems in a short amount of time. my idea would be to build military style bases near the border, work with mexico and build factories so the immigrants waiting for their status to be updated to illegal immigration manufacture u.s. goods and products, it would be

a military style base. the individuals have to have an id card, they'd be provided housing like you would see on a military base, food and we would tax the amounts of money that are generated by the individuals , then they would continue to work while waiting on their immigration status paperwork. that would be my idea and also to do hefty fines for those businesses that do not use e-verify. the u.s. could even work with canada to get some of their goods manufactured, that is how i would solve the problem. host: let us go to massachusetts on the independent line, good morning. caller: good morning, thank you

for taking my call. i was listening to what john had to say a few minutes ago, i think he hit upon quite a bit, one of the problems that we have here. that is the way that we allow people into work in the first place. he was talking about how complex it is for him to try to get somebody over here and how he has to pay them $20 an hour in order to -- host: you are still on. caller: sorry, i had to turn the tv off. when john was talking, he was saying it was so costly to have to get these people over here from mexico and he would just as soon like to have people here in the u.s. work. that is the whole thing. we do not have enough people in the united states to take the lower paying jobs. the lower paying jobs now, he

was talking about how these people have so much pride when they come over. i was thinking back to the fact i've heard democrats and republicans talking this line -- it does not do us any good to blame each other. but john was talking about $20 an hour and how much it takes, i was thinking back to massachusetts and how we need to so many workers on the summer months and rely on the h1 visas to come over to do these jobs. it is a real crisis. one of the callers said one of the things they thought was maybe companies could start paying for the benefits of the people coming through the borders. one of the ideas i always thought was what about cities and towns paying. up in montana is a rich area, they cannot have enough workers

coming up to work. they've had to close all these things because they do not have enough employees. they had to bring in workers from other states just to work in their walmart. so why can't a city like montana be responsible for a bunch of families at the border and bring them up there to be responsible for those families to be part of the community to live and work? host: in a recent interview with fox news, former vice president pence expressed his concerns about the end of title 42 and what he could do with the southern border. here is a portion of what he had to say last week. [video clip] >> what is happening at the border is a direct result of the failed policies of the biden administration. i welcome robert kennedy's message on this, but frankly, the voice that needs to be heard

as the voice of the american people. you say you do not expect much change, he is going down for a couple days to visit the border. 1500 troops is not going to make a difference. what will make a difference when the american people see this incredible surge across the border when title 42 goes away to add to the 5 million people that have come into this country illegally, when that gale force wind strikes washington, d.c., things change. i, like every american who cares deeply about human suffering happening across the country on both sides of the border, let their voice be heard. a storm is coming one week from today at the southern border. host: let us get some more calls in before the top of the hour, starting with chuck in new jersey on the republican line. good morning.

go ahead. caller:? how are you? ? host: just fine, go ahead. caller: i do not know why we are still talking about this problem. who here democrats blame the previous administration, look at the numbers. the guys are lying through their teeth, biden is killing this country. if you cannot see it, you've got to be blind. we cannot even get people to work here at the hospital, and you? know what to do you know who is coming in the country? they don't know and they do not care. they should be fired. i hate to say it like that, the one guy with immigration called a little while ago and said that everybody should know who is coming in the country, a lot of people overdosing on fentanyl

and nobody is doing nothing about it. that did not even come up. host: let us go to steve in ohio on the democratic line. good morning. caller: take the three largest retailers. walmart as an example, mcdonald's and the kroger company. let us say we do a joint effort with congress, we work together with private enterprise and our government and say ok, look. a wall has got to be built to control the influx of people into the border. people get interviewed on the united states side of the gate. his company say look, we need 300,000 workers. so they go and work with government at the border and say

look, we will interview these people as they come through the gate. if we like what we see, we will commit to them. provide them with a minimum salary, around $17 an hour, provide them with housing, require they speak english so we will teach them english, we will provide them health care and provide them with a contract for five years. then the government will provide these people with a path to citizenship. they have to stay on the path to citizenship. it is a win-win situation. these people that need help come into the country, our country needs help for workers and everybody wins. it seems like a pretty simple answer. but that is my thought on it. host: from texas, good morning. caller: good morning.

thank you for taking my call. i am calling because i've been watching your show. host: turn your television down or off, you will hear an echo if you do not. turn your television down or off. caller: can you hear me? host: yes, go ahead. caller: i've been calling because i've been watching your show and i have been seeing that you always have a bunch of topics with -- can you hear me? host: go ahead. caller: i've been calling because i want to talk about --

host: let us go to pleasant valley, new york on the republican line. caller: good morning. i would like to bring this up again, as i have in the last few years. i actually found a wallet one day and picked it up, opened it and it was from a mexican fellow that had three identifications from three states. and sylvania,ork and iowa. he hadllhe free things, could get free food, housing. three different names under the same picture on the ids and we have no way to track these people, it is impossib. i would love to be able to say i am anybody, i could make money all overhe place. the government is not tracking these people, they do not know who they are and they have the

best deal living in america cause they can get money from anywhere and are sending more ney back to their country and peo they can get here. this is what is going on, the government is not tracking it and they are not. if they are, they are not doing anything about it. now we have millions more coming in, how great is that? i am thinking about going over the border and coming back by myself, making them think i'm somebody else. host: let us go to dan in new york on the independent line. caller:caller: good morning. these people on the order, which is not open, -- they are advertising, fox news is all day long showing us that the borders are wide open.

they advertise all day long about the boarding, how wide open the order is. it is not wide open. you cannot just walk across. maybe in some areas but not the entire border. but fox advertises all day long come to the border. it is wide open. of course that is going to millions of people, that is what they allege, to this country. host: we would like to thank all of our callers. next, we turn our attention to the russia ukraine conflict and the finger-pointing over that drone attack on the coming. that conversation with michael kaufman, of the center of naval analyses, is coming up.

later, niall stanage, economist for the hill, will discuss state legislatures and culture wars. we will be right back. ♪ >> tonight, on q&a, san diego state university psychology professor june 20 -- jean twenge talks about the different generations currently living in the u.s. she argues that technological advances shape generations weather and explores what impact they will have in the future. >> the tendency real divisions showing up and more people

identifying with extremes, more polarization between democrats and republicans, especially around race. it is good to know what does this really look like overtime? not just in a poll where we cannot tell what was really changed about across decades. >> jean twenge and her book, "ge nerations," tonight on c-span q&a. you can listen on our at. -- on our app. >> live today, phillipe howard on in-depth to take your calls on government and legal reform in america. he has written six books, including collapse of the common good and the death of common sense. his latest book is about public sector unions.

join us today at noon eastern on book tv on c-span2. >> c-span's campaign 2024 coverage is your front row seat to the presidential election. watch our coverage of the campaign trail, announcements, the rates, speeches to make cap your own mind -- to make up your own mind. you can watch anytime online at c-span.org. c-span, your filtered view of politics. >> washington journal continues. [indiscernible] we are --host: we are back and joined by michael kofman, russia studies program director at the neighbor -- center for naval analyses, to discuss the russia-

ukraine conflict and the anticipated ukraine counteroffensive. tell reviewers right now -- our viewers right now where we are in this conflict between russia and ukraine. guest: i think where we are is back in january, russia launched the windsor offensive, ill-conceived. russian forces were not well-positioned to conduct major offensive operations. ukraine defended in almost every place against the attacks. the russian offensive has largely culminated. the russian military has shifted largely to a defensive posture in anticipation of a major offensive. in the 0-- bakhmut, russian

forces, led by wegner, they have captured most of the city, although it is unclear what will happen with their campaign because there is a lot of infighting between wagner forces conceived russian military. the city might largely be taken over by russian regular forces. this is a transitional phase. they are anticipating a major ukrainian offensive in the coming weeks. that offensive will likely give ukraine back the initiative. the heart operation will go where it is going to be. whether there is one or several operations remains to be seen. i would think of it more as a series of operations that are likely to play out over the course of months rather than one specific event over several weeks.

i hope that makes sense. host: we have heard tops about -- talks about this group this week. who are they? what is their connection to the russian army and vladimir putin? guest: it a complex not to untie. wagner started a couple of years ago as a mercenary group, had bold connections to the state. it is tied into the russian political leadership. wagner has been used excessively in russian conflicts, ukraine, syria and the east and africa. will find them off rating that she will find wagner operating largely on its own in different african countries. they are mercenaries but also a

form of the russian state. in ukraine specifically, wagner has been both operating at hundred mostly in the area where it is fighting -- operating autonomously in the area where it is fighting but also tied in with the russian airborne. it is seen as a competitor by the military. the head of weight and are -- of wagner often criticizes the russian military and the chief general staff. on the one hand, they're not able to win fights that he is not able to win fights with them because they are more politically connected. on the other hand, he remains protected by vladimir putin. you have these messy campaigns without unity of command, without unity of force taking place between wagner emcees and

the russian military is also fighting around them in the same operational area. host: another thing we heard this week was this attack on the kremlin. tensions flared between russia and ukraine after russia accused ukraine and the u.s. of what they call the attempted assassination of vladimir putin through drone attacks. the national security council spokesman, here is what john kirby said about that attack and what the u.s. had to do with it. >> we are still trying to gather information. we do not have conclusive evidence. there are a lot of questions but no conclusive evidence. i think i can tell you is the u.s. is not involved in any way,

contrary to the lies. that is what they are, lies. we have not come to any conclusions. we are going to try to learn more. but let's -- we are doing the best we can to find out what happened. my activity it in my opening statement. what -- that is why i pivoted in my opening statement. while i am interested in this, let's not lose the bigger picture. it is not like mr. putin has a to invent new reasons to kill innocent ukrainians. he keeps doing it. he uses it as a pretext is after him. -- whether he uses it as a pretext is up to him. but in the last 24 hours, he is bombing shoppers at a supermarket. host: what do know about the attack? the u.s. is now saying maybe russia did it to itself.

what do we know? guest: i do not think that their position is russia did it to itself. the position is most likely it looks like, part of a series of drone attacks taking place over the course of a week. it was probably a special operation conducted by ukrainian services designed to embarrass russian political leadership. science -- it would've been designed to shatter russia's status and in a more practical way designed to force russian leadership to pull back more air defense, perhaps concentrate on defending the capital. i do not see it it is that particular significant. host: you we expect any

escalation -- do we expect any escalation because of the drone attack? guest: i do not. (202) 748-8000 we --host: we have heard a lot about the looming ukraine offensive. how much importance should we give to this offensive? it is significantly change the balance of power in the war -- could it significantly change the balance of power in the war and bring an end to the fight? guest: the short answer is this could be a decisive phase, at least for this year. the upcoming offensive is not ukraine's only chance to the right substantial territory. but it could be ukraine's best chance. a substantial amount of western military assistance, western

training, the provision of oxley area ammunition -- oxley gary ammunition -- auxiliary ammunition. the offensive in some respects is proof of the theory of success. russian forces have entrenched themselves across southern and eastern ukraine. they have built a whole set of defensive, end minefields. -- put down minefields. but there is room to be cautiously optimistic that ukrainian forces will break through. as far as managing our expectations, the offensive could have a range of impacts in terms of what happens to the russian military, whether it has cascading effects are not, but it is not likely in and of its

end the war. i am worried that one operation or series of operations make net be able to do it. but predictions are not useful. ukraine has set aside a series of trade brigades equipped by western countries. in many respects, they will be new going into this offensive and the russian military -- we are going to see at least on operational levels, two forces fighting each other and a series of battles. these forces will look different from what we have observed previously. host: let me take one second to

remind our callers that they can take part in this conversation. democrats, call in at (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. keep in mind you can always text us at (202) 748-8003. and we are always on social media, on twitter at c-span wj and on facebook. do we know exactly when this offensive will begin? has it been announced that this will happen over the summer? in the fall? tomorrow? guest: it will happen when ukraine launches it. somebody -- or somebody knew

one, they should not talk about it. host: the media has talked about this so much. if we know about it, russia would as well. guest: russian leadership likely has a good sense of where the offensive will take place. that being said, it may not be one operation but several. it may unfold on multiple fronts. they may not know where the main effort is. i would stay tuned and suggest not to engage in guesswork. my guess is ukrainian leadership does not know either. people who know do not talk and people who talk probably do not know. host: do they need to completely

expel russia from ukraine for it to be considered a success? what a win look like -- what would a win look like? guest: great question. success is objective. the main criteria for success is probably that ukraine is able with his offensive operation to liberate significant amounts of territory. that is probably in the eye of the beholder but it will look different from the last five months of fighting. that is a fair assessment. second, russian forces have appeared to be beaten in this campaign. third, ukraine's western supporters have to see the offensive operation as demonstrative that with equipment and training ukraine

can achieve significant success and therefore it behooves them to further invest in another round of equipment and support. these are subjective measures. i do not portend to know what success looks like but at a bare minimum it is something like this. the operation itself may be a successful technically or operationally -- tactically or operationally. the end of the day, military strategy is political. host: let's go to our phone lines. our first caller is mark from ohio on the independent line. caller: good morning. a couple of questions -- one is mainstream media goes on and on

about how this attack by russia was unprovoked. this is totally provoked from what i have seen. it is almost ridiculous some of the claims on mainstream media. msnbc, cnn, fox, all of them -- constant lies. is there any way they will change that when it is over? host: go ahead and respond. guest: not sure that i quite got the meeting of the caller's initial question but if the conversation is about the origins and because of this war, the way i look at it is this is a continuation of the initial

russian invasion in 2014 and annexation of crimea. secondarily, i see this war as one of imperialistic ambition. in that regard, it is clear that russia is the aggressor. this discussion on the were being unprovoked, it is fair. i do not think history will ever be kind to russia on the motivations behind this war. host: one question i keep asking experts about this conflict is for y'all to explain why america cares about this conflict. one caller wants to know how much has president biden and the u.s. spent in ukraine? how much is the eu spent?

i will follow-up with why should we be spending this money? guest: that is a series of tough questions. we should reserve a lot of them for john kirby. i am not in the u.s. government what i can say is that this war is the most significant that europe has seen in decades. if the u.s. was not involved in a leading role, and it is not clear how european countries will be able to respond. understanding that this war could easily reshape the security architecture of your and it could shape it unfavorably. the cascade effects of this work, if russia is able to win, could be significant not just in

europe. put aside the effects this work is already going to have -- economic disruption, more refugees, destruction inflicted on ukraine. but it could reshape security arrangements in europe but in a way that hurts the interests of our allies but also the u.s. it will be viewed by other u.s. allies, in asia pacific or the middle east. they are going to draw conclusions from this conflict that we do not want. the obvious ones look be that the u.s. and zep shirking its role -- ends up shirking its role even though it claims to be involved in maintaining security and stability in multiple regions. it assumed the role in europe

after world war ii. i will add that the amount of money spent on this war is minutes go compared with the u.s. is in the past on its own works. if -- phone -- own wars. if this is essentially to end russian military power, and you and assume that the that you can assume that the cost of this work is small -- cost of this war is small. host: monte is calling from houston on the independent line. caller: good morning. my question is to get your opinion -- following up on what you were speaking on. i would like you to comment on the shift that occurred in 2016 with the republican platform. in the past, the republican

party was critical of the obama administration sending nonlethal support ukraine. two 316, we saw a shift -- in 2016, without a shift where an amendment to help ukraine was stripped from the platform. i would like to talk about that. i see it is critical to america abandoning its role. we initiated the nuclear disarmament of ukraine to avoid a nuclear conflict. we have a responsibility in being there for them to help stop this "naked agression," as bush called it. guest: i do not know why something specific was stripped from the republican party platform.

i have never been an apparatus of either political party but my view is it is clear that lethal support was first provided under donald trump in 2017. that was a change in u.s. policy. traditionally, some republican candidates like that romney -- well it remained a serious danger for adversaries. as a back-and-forth -- as a principal threat and how much they care about the conflict in europe. on the republican side, i think there is an ongoing, healthy debate about to what extent the u.s. should be more focused on the in-depth pacific and its principal competitor china and with the balance of effort is between managing this war and supporting ukraine in europe

versus focusing on the indo pacific. i personally think this war involves a fairly small investment of u.s. resources relative to their significance, it's international impact, and the potential strategic benefits of the u.s. role in this conflict. that said, it is something that can be contested. host: one of the things we have seen over the last week is this recently good pentagon documents. it revealed that the u.s. had the confidence in the ukrainian offensive. what does that leak due to these upcoming plans? what does it tell us about where top military officials are comes to ukraine's military? guest: i cannot speak much to the leak.

i have not seen it. i have seen the reporting in the new york times and washington post. tight would be careful with interpretation -- i would be careful with the of intelligence documents. you want to be cautious reading into them, because those things come with caveats and there are often disagreements and dissenting opinions. having a snapshot or a leak going back several months without knowing a lot of the context, while it is easy to enter that in different ways. in general, from what i have read in media reporting, i have not seen much that has changed my mind about this for or the bigger picture -- this war or the bigger picture. i do not want to downplay the,

but from my point of view as somebody who has been following this work, i do not see much in those leaks that overall changes my perception of the conflict. host: catherine is calling from columbia, maryland on the democratic line. caller: i would like to broaden the last caller's question and ask if you could give a short background on why ukraine was that in nato and then what has this war done for the world's view of including countries in nato? what would it take for nato to consider including ukraine in the future? guest: this is a long story.

early on the end of the cold war when the u.s. was trying to figure out what to do about the security vacuum created in europe by the departure of the soviet union, and also what should be the future of european securities in the u.s. role in that, debating different approaches and institutions. nato ended up being the structure that was already there. as a mix of interactions between the u.s. and european countries that wanted to join nato and use that as a way of managing their own security after the collapse of the soviet union, the basic approach selected was a steady enlargement of nato, nato membership meant to be open to

all countries. you've had waves of nato session. eventually the conversation came down to ukraine and georgia in 2008. this led to a series of disagreements in romania. there, ukraine chose to declare that ukraine and georgia would become members of nato but not give them a membership action plan that had them on an actual road to join nato. ukraine ended up in the worst of both worlds. on the one hand, it had a target painted on its back in terms of a statement that it would join nato but without security guarantees and without an actual path to nato membership. in retrospect, the upcoming of the bucharest 2008 summit was

unfortunate. tito should have decided clearly in one -- nato should have decided clearly in one direction or another. in the past year and a half, the conversation has been should ukraine join nato? should enjoy nader's the word is ongoing or if -- should it join nato if the war is ongoing or if there is no final political settlement? that is very much under discussion right now. i am waiting to see what is going to happen. my best answer is the situation remains fluid but there are divisions amongst nato member states, between those who want ukraine to join, to those who might not necessarily want ukraine to join, and those who

might believe ukraine is better off with a different set of security guarantees and commitments outside of nato. all that is under discussion right now. i will not write to predict where that conversation will go -- i will not try to predict where the conversation will go. host: if nader was offered never shipped ukraine, would ukraine take it? guest: ukraine would take it yesterday. host: if ukraine asks nato to join, with a listen? guest: i do not know. nato consists of many countries. i cannot predict their positions. host: rosie, texas, republican line. caller: i believe we should deport germans without any paperwork like we do the cubans. they are a threat to our government. in biden's son who went to nato

and said they wanted to join and another ukrainian went and told them they were too small to be in nato and the tanks with leading the border when the u.s. came and the ukrainian had before than going to biden and told him not to send troops over there. he left angry and said biden would not listen to him. when the tanks were leaving the border because they said they did not want to join nato, it is like new mexico joining nato. it is the united states and the soviet republic, 1970's russia. the 10th left the order -- the tanks left the border 330-some days ago. putin came on tv and sent ukraine was no longer part of russia.

they completely left the border over 330 days ago. host: do you have a question for michael? caller: six days, helicopters, germans came over with bidens presidential plane into attract -- attack russia. host: do you see anything respond does anything to respond to, michael? guest: i am afraid i cannot make much of that. host: eddie, new hampshire, democratic line. caller: i just wanted to say that the weird portrait in her top left corner, it looks like a jean-luc picard conquistador, possibly.

what should we do? host: who is the "we"? caller: i get stressed out when i see other people. i cannot hear this guy. in my cut off? -- am i cut o whoff? host: who is the "we"////////////////// -- we? caller: i am a democrat. i am from new hampshire. we do not get the primary anymore. where is your military experience? your expertise? what is your opinion? host: what do you think should

be done right now by the u.s.? what should be done right now by the eu? guest: let me answer the mail i like. first, that is a picture of patrick stewart, an officer from the napoleonic war period. host: he was right. it is patrick stewart. guest: it is not from other movies. i get questions about that from 10 to 10, especially -- from time to time, especially when i appear in pbs.now that we have entered the most critical question, regarding with the u.s. should do, in terms of the strategy and approach, it is put together with other western countries.

a reasonable strategy to build out a major ukrainian force in addition to the forces currently deployed to be able to conduct a major offensive operations that could span several months. in that regard, i think it is a viable theory of success. the united states has also been working to manage a lot of the long-term issues that ukraine has when it comes to availability of artillery ammunition, air defense and other capabilities like running on a treadmill. as the conflict runs on, it becomes a conflict of attrition. you constantly need to reconstitute the force and are looking for more material, additional manpower. i think the u.s. will expand these efforts over time along with the europeans.

where would i identify problem areas? a lot of us shut -- a lot of us suffer from short-termism? do they have a clear-cut plan of what they are going to do? if answer is we see, wait until we see the outcome, the reality is that what will likely follow his a period of several months of attritional fighting. that is assuming that russian forces do not completely collapsed and the war is not won in 2 to 3 months. there has to be a follow-on plan. russian leadership has to understand that this offensive is not the high point of western military assistance and not the last ager packet of assistance ukraine is going -- last major

packet of assistance ukraine is going to receive. if they did not, they will think they can exhaust resources in western support overtime. they suffer from short-termism and have gone from one package to another and a lot of it has been at the 11th hour, essentially helping him bail ukraine out of a precarious position. the package for this offensive has been one of the first real efforts with considerable leadtime behind it, but i am wary about what will or will not necessarily follow the offensive operation. host: we have spent a lot of time typing about the u.s. and ukraine -- talking about the u.s. and ukraine. where does russia stand? how much longer can russia sustain the war? where did they stand as far as ammunition and firepower?

guest: there is a lot of uncertainty. the russian defensive industrial complex is not in a great place in terms of being able to sustain this war. they conducted globalization fairly late in the conflict. they have been using ammunition in excess of what they produce. their supply has been dwindling. they have been increasing in a way that issues quality control -- that eschews quality control. the russian economy in the military can sustain this war for some period of time. it is increasingly difficult to. to the russian economy. i am always wary that as a

military analyst, we have selection bias, look for those factors that we know can count. caps the most significant question about russia's ability to sustain this war on the economic side -- perhaps the most significant question about russia's ability to sustain this war economic side. in general, they are in trouble with sanctions and export controls. i think their situation was going to become increasingly problematic but i would not be overly optimistic that russia will not be able to sustain this war this year. but i think it a fair question, one of the biggest issues under consideration. to what extent can russia sustain this war? and the question is abstract,

overtime, who is likely to be more advantaged? ukraine backed by the u.s. and other western economies? or russia? host: let's get one more caller, tim, calling from saint marcus, texas on the republican line. caller: i would like to know how deeply entrenched and how strong the russian military is in the crimea area? don't they have a large naval base in crimea? host: --guest: the shortest answer is the russian military is rather entrenched. there is a major probe that

separates russian position from ukraine. crimea is a peninsula. outside of the operation that ukraine does not have the capacity to conduct, there are only three approaches to crimea, when is a bridge. are all defended -- well defended. the question is the extent to which a military can be successful. it is possible but would be difficult. crimea is also vulnerable. yes, the russian blackfeet is based there but is also vulnerable, can be attacked from the air or the sea. if ukraine is able to break through russian lines in the south and advance, and approach the main line of communication for crimea, then they can begin

to range different parts of the peninsula. they could put russian forces in a more precarious position. they could destroy the main bridge. that would not in them and they russia's [no audio] -- by a system of fairies, but none the less, it is fair to say if ukraine was successful in an offense of campaign in the south, it could make the russian position in crimea more difficult. host: let's squeeze in one final caller, marcy from duluth, minnesota on the independent-minded. -- independent line. caller: i left the vietnam war. i do not think the russians want to watch a war again like we did in the 1930's.

host: that is the, the comment. guest: it has some truth to it but from what i have seen in russian society there is a degree of acquiescence. the truth is probably that most russians may acquiesce to the war but generally do not want to participate in it. they do not necessarily want to be involved or want their children involved, but russia has become a deeply oppressive state. the cost of contesting the regime in russian domestic politics is exceedingly high. host: we would like to thank michael kofman, russia studies program director at the center

for naval analyses, were discussing the russian-ukraine conflict and the anticipated ukrainian counteroffensive. next, we moved to our open forum where you can call in and talk about your most important political topics. democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. start calling in now. we will be right back. ♪ >> this week on>> the c-span networks, the house and senate are in. the house considers the border. on tuesday, bipartisan leadership from the house and senate will meet to discuss the debt limit.

wednesday, a meeting with pharmaceutical companies on lowering the price of insulin. later, the fbi director and ann milgram discuss their department's 2020 form budget. headed to c-span.org for scheduling information or to stream info any time. she spent, your unfiltered view of government. -- c-span, your unfiltered view of government. >> healthy democracy does not look like this -- does not just look like this. it looks like this, citizens are truly informed the republic fries. get informed straight from the source. c-span, unfiltered, unbiased, word for word. the nation's capital to wherever you are, this is what democracy looks like -- c-span, howard by

cable -- powered by cable. >> c-span now is a free mobile app featuring your filtered view of what is happening in washington. keep up with the biggest events with poor proceedings adherent -- before proceedings and hearings of the u.s. congress. it is all at your fingertips. help us stay current of washington journal and find scheduling information for c-span's tv networks and a variety of podcasts. download it for free today. c-span now, your front row seat to washington anytime, anywhere. >> washington journal continues. host: we are back and opening our open forum segment where you can call in and talk about your

most important political topic of the day. democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. text us at (202) 748-8003. and we are always on social media on twitter and facebook. let's jump right in with nancy from el centro, california, democratic line. caller: thank you. i love your programs. employment because i wanted to comment on the coronation yesterday -- i am calling because i wanted to comment on the coronation yesterday. it was a great ceremony, beautiful music.

the church service was lovely but you know -- they all look like they were suffering -- princes and -- princess anne rode on a horse and looked like she was having a ball. i taped it and looked at it later. then i went and did my shopping and i came back and turned on the tv and there i saw this horrible texas show. height: the american daily murders shall -- i call it the american daily murder show. they call this guy a shooter. i thought it was murder. they talked about shots but never bullets. i always wondered about that.

i do not think there is any answer to that question. host: tim, detroit, republican line. caller: good morning. i am going to be 62 this year and i have never seen a country in such turmoil. donald trump, as much as people hate him, he has given us a peek behind the curtains at how things work. your last segment regarding the war -- it is funny how the media does not quite line but just gives one side of the story. the media is in bed with the politicians, security agency is on a president, changing elections.

we have a war in ukraine that was started by us. he blue update nord stream pipeline. -- we blew up the nord stream pipeline. host: how did we blow up the nord stream pipeline? caller: if the media would do their job, the new york times journalist has read about this in detail -- has written about this in detail. joe biden said it on television. he was asked how are you going to stop the pipeline? he said, "we've got ways." the media would get on board, you are in the constitution, you protect the people but you are in for you with the powerful

people. all these billionaires that want to below what the world order. every institution is upside down. nobody trust anybody anymore. host: sandra, tennessee, independent line. caller: god for c-span. -- thank god for c-span. our representatives and politicians should watch c-span and they do not. when you call their office, to get their gatekeepers. they say they will pass it on. everybody goes out of their way to make you vote for them but once they're in office, they do not give you the time of day.

it is imperative that these representatives should see exactly what the people think. i also feel that the supreme court has too much power. nobody polices them. when it comes to important matters, the nine justices should not dictate what the people should and should not do. important issues should be put on the ballot. let the people vote. thank god for your show. i feel that politicians should start answering their telephones instead of the gatekeepers. they get nowhere. host: rachel, virginia, democratic line. caller: it is hard to believe we may have an insurrectionist as

president but as long as the king sits there, these cataracts will blind us. he was referring to latin america. we do not talk about americans' world and many of those countries in overthrowing the government and putting a puppet regime in place, as well as assassinations. why can't you put somebody who represents americans in latin america to have a counter weight -- a counter voice? the major problem is the european man. host: we have heard it referenced a couple of times this morning but another shooting has happened in the u.s. the story is from the new york times this morning.

a man opened fire at a mall outside dallas on saturday, killing at least 8 and injuring seven before a police officer killed him. this turned a busy afternoon shopping into a tragic scene. saturday night, brian harvey, chief of police in allen, texas, did not identify a gunman but said the person acted alone. the police officer on an unrelated assignment at the mall at the time of the shooting heard gunfire and tell the.net -- killed the gunman. a spokesperson from the hospital treating victims said the injured range from ages 5 to 61. according to the new york times, at least nine are dead, including the gunman eddie

shooting at a texas mall. i wanted to make sure everybody knew what callers were referring to. tom, illinois, republican line. caller: good morning. thank you for letting me speak. i watched bill clinton the other day apologizing for the treaty with ukraine and russia to give up nuclear weapons. part of that was we were supposed to give them short range nuclear weapons during the obama administration but he stopped. joe biden comes on the scene. his son is on the board of ukraine's gas company and getting paid for doing nothing. joe biden had -- they had

prosecutors who wanted to investigate that company because they wanted to know where the payments were going. the money was going to hunter biden and joe biden. bill clinton was getting money from the chinese. these democrats, for the last two or three presidents, have been compromised by foreign countries and are being paid off. host: raymond, colorado, independent line. caller: good morning. thank you for letting me voice my opinion. i was watching the news yesterday on the gun violence. we have been violence that is off the charts. we are going back to the wild west where people are wearing guns on their sites.

i was in the grocery store, saw a gun on his side. i have thought about this and have come up with a semi-proposition. anyone who commits gun violence and shoot someone that does not have a weapon should in three days have that gun hand chopped off. a public execution with no medication, showing their hand on the chopping block. there is too many assault weapons in america. there is no way that if given they passed the ban, weapons will still be out there, but there is nothing we can do with a person determined to kill. but for those people doing

drive-by shootings, taking ar 15's into the grocery store, the days after they use the ar 15, the gun hand should be chopped off and three fingers. leave them two fingers that they can recalibrate to learn to eat. i think gun violence would go away, not completely but it would be a deterrent to host: all right. rather cologne in there. let's go to russell, calling from massachusetts on the democratic line. caller: good morning, how are you folks? host: i'm doing fine. caller: i try to make it quick. i -- as a native american, i can simply tell you this. history is repeating itself. for any other nationality, anybody else that did not think

it is not your government, we have to ask ourselves why do people need to join nato to feel protected? what about removing the dictators? just listen to some of these conversations like the gentleman just said. three days. we are due the constitution of the united states. the only way to prevent gun violence is to arm everybody with a gun. i never saw a victim with a gun on the side of them become a victim. let's arm everybody. gun for guns, knife for knife. host: let's go to roberto -- alberto in california on the independent line. caller: good morning, how are you doing? i need less than a minute to say what i have to say. i am an independent. i am a hispanic american out of stockton, california.

i believe they should build the wall to stop the fentanyl. a large part of my family is from texas. host: ok, keep going alberto. caller: ok. i will leave it with this. once again, i am a hispanic american. i thought that one caller who called that we need to regulate who is coming in, he said something -- like it has always been, on the border. all hispanics on american soil should have immediate amnesty, should not be hiding in the back of home depot or standing in the front. host: ok. let's go to jerry, calling from fork river, new jersey on the republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. no matter how many guns and laws they make to take away guns from law-abiding citizens, it is not going to stop all the people

that get them illegally. they get them illegally all sorts of ways. how do you stop a bad man with a gun? it is a good man with a gun. that is how you stop a bad man. taking guns away from law-abiding citizens is not going to do anything to prevent all the shootings and killings that are going on unless you have good men, legal, law-abiding citizens, that can protect themselves. now, the laws now, they let young men go with -- that of been arrested with guns. then, they just let them out. no bail, no nothing. i think our gun laws should be stronger against the illegals. the men and women who are handling guns illegally that are permitted to have a gotten. why won't they let us know all

these murders, all these mass murderers, about the people that committed them? host: there are still ongoing january 6 insurrection trials in washington, d.c. while a major one ended earlier this week, i went to bring you a couple paragraphs from the politico.com story. prosecutors seeking the most severe sentence yet in connection with the january 6 attack on the capital. a 25 year prison term for the founder, leader of the far right oath keepers militia characterizing it as a necessary punishment to deter future attacks against democracy. the justice apartment says steward rhodes and his allies were among the most significant drivers of the violence that unfolded at the capital, amassing a stockpile of weapons nearby in virginia and dressing in military style gear in a way

that asked -- exacerbated the january 6 mob that a revolution was underway. in seeking the sentence for roads on a rare, seditious conspiracy conviction, prosecutors said -- are necessary for the survival of american democracy. "as the court is well aware, the justice system reaction wait -- reaction to january 6 -- whether janeway six becomes an outlier or a watershed moment." "left unchecked, this impulse threatens our democracy." this is the justice department talking about why it is seeking such a severe sentence, 25 years to the founder and leader of the far right oath keepers militia, who was involved in the january 6 insurrection. it is open forum, you can talk about whatever political topic

you want to talk about. let's talk to hank, calling from for deposit, alabama on the democrat line. good morning. caller: yes. hello? host: hank, turn your television down and go ahead. caller: yes. ok. host: i think we lost hank. let's go to john calling from rockville, maryland on the republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to respond to some of the comments i have been hearing and have heard in the past. about a lot of the problems facing this country, are probably caused by white europeans and so forth. i just wanted to put out there that people need to check their history, because no other people on the face of this planet did

more to end slavery than white americans. we outlawed slavery as soon as we became a nation. slavery only prospered when we were a colony. we were colonized in 1808. i mean, in 1776, we became a nation. in 18 oh wait, we outlawed the transatlantic. no one said -- we all knew slavery was wrong. everybody knew. the problem was, how to emancipate the slaves that were already brought here? out of all of the slaves taken from west africa, 95% went to the caribbean and brazil and latin america. only 5% came to america. we fought the bloodiest war to end slavery and we did the most to stop it. we went overseas with our battleships and stop the portuguese slave vessels. there was a lot of things americans did once we became a nation. once we became a free nation of

men, everybody said slavery must be abolished. all men are created equal. that is all i would like to say. host: i do not think his facts about american slavery were exactly correct. let's talk to frank from minneapolis, minnesota on the independent line. caller: good morning. i want to say another chokehold for another person is just also will -- awful. i come from a state where that man was chokehold to death, now we have another one? when is this going to be outlawed, chokeholding people? it is getting ridiculous. i do not like this anymore. in my state, there is a lot of crime. this chokehold stuff has got to end. i hope the guy who goes to jail -- he certainly should not be getting away with it just because he served in our forces. that is what i have to say. host: all right.

the hill newspaper has a story this morning about president biden and his reelection and a poll of americans and what they think about president biden. -- president biden's mental sharpness. this is from the hill newspaper this morning. about a third of americans in a new poll said they think president biden has the mental sharpness to be effective in his role as he campaigns for another four years in the white house in 2024. the washington post, abc news survey found 32% of respondents said biden had the mental sharpness it takes to serve effectively as president. 33% said he is in good enough physical health for the job, too. by contrast, 54% said former president trump has the requisite mental sharpness and 64% said he is in good enough

physical health. a third of respondents also said trump is honest and trustworthy, while 41% said the same of biden . biden kicked off his campaign for another term as president last month, joining trump in the race for what could in up being a rematch of the 2020 presidential election. this comes from the hill newspaper. we are in our open forum segment. you can talk about whatever political topic you want to talk about. let's talk to edward, calling from connecticut on the democratic line. good morning. caller: good morning. i just got one question. were any of the fbi agent's arrested that caused problems in their? any of them? host: that caused problems where? be a little more specific for us, edward. caller: on the white house

grounds, there were a lot of fbi agent's they're causing big problems. going, going, going. host: ok. i think you are talking about the january 6 insurrection. i assume you mean, were there any fbi agent's on the grounds of the capital, not the white house, right? caller: capital, yes. there was a lot of fbi agent's there. you got that guy, ray, he is a bum. when trump put him in there, the first thing i said is, no good. he really is. he gets up there, ask him a question, he never answers. he should be demanded to answer questions. we have a right to know what is going on in this world. in the united states. this -- you know what i mean. i was independent. i said, let me try a democrat. now that i am thinking about it, that guy is so old. he cannot even put his sentence

together. the first election in his basement, i would have bet my house, my money, that trump would have won. they fixed the game, so. what is her name said, why didn't they do it for me, hillary clinton? there is a another winner, huh? host: let's go to luke, going -- calling from california on the independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. i just wanted to say that, what is up with the people that have not been arrested that were there at january 6? just wonder we should have another republican no matter what, another person should not be prosecuted for anything. for everybody there at the capital. host: let's go to tina calling

from north carolina on the independent line. caller: my main concern as a woman is the abortion laws being forced through the house and the congress nationwide. the language is wrong. when a woman is pregnant, she is not pregnant by herself. the media constantly says she is pregnant and they need to say, they are pregnant, the man and the woman. that also would tie it to a father accountability act. host: all right. we would like to thank all of our callers who called in for our open form. coming up next, niall stanage

will be here to discuss the role of state legislators in the so-called culture wars in the united states. stick with us, we will be right back. ♪ >> weekends bring you book tv featuring leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books. on in-depth, attorney and author philip k howard will be our guest, taking your calls and talking about government and legal reform in america. mr. howard has written a half dozen books including his most recent, not accountable. heather mcdonald and her book, when race trumps merit, argues the pursuit of racial equity by progressives is leading to needy equity in amecan businesses and institutions. if it's for speaks about her efforts to ship out native america is viewed in her photos. she is interviewed by a university professor. watch book tv every weekend and

find a full schedule on your program gui or watch online anytime at book tv.org. ♪ >> watch video on demand anytime online at c-span.org and try our points of interest feature, a tool that uses markers to quickly die due to newsworthy and interesting highlights of our key coverage. -- quickly died in you to newsworthy and interesting highlights of our key coverage -- quickly guide you to newsworthy and interesting highlights. >> listen to "washington journal" daily at 7:00 a.m. eastern, important congressional hearings and other public affairs events throughout the day and weekdays at 5:00 p.m. and nine a clock p.m. eastern, catch washington today for a fast-paced report of the stories of the day. tell your smart speaker, play c-span radio. c-span, powered by cable.

♪ >> tonight on q and a and her book, generations. san diego state university psychology professor talks about the differences between six generations currently living in the united states. the silence, baby-boom owners -- baby boomers and the polar spirit she argues technological advances shaped generations more than anything else and explores what impact it will have in the future. >> you can see a real division showing up with more people identifying as the extremes of ideology, more polarization between democrats and republicans on various issues especially around race. i think it is good to know, what does this look like overtime? not just in april at one time where we cannot tell what has changed, but look at this across

decades. >> tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span's q and a. you can listen to q and a and all of our podcasts on our free c-span now cap. -- app. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are joined by niall stanage, a white house columnist for the hill newspaper to talk about controversial issues are playing out in state legislation. good morning. guest: good to see you. host: you recently wrote a column in the hill newspaper talking about how the culture wars in the united states are playing out at the state level. tell us a little bit about why we are seeing this. guest: it depends on the specific issue. abortion has been a culture war issue forever. clearly, that has been moved to the states by the supreme court decision 11 months ago.

then, you have other additional issues like so-called crt laws, which have come to the force as a matter of debate more recently. in addition, you have some politicians presidential ambitions caught up in this. ron desantis from florida has been asserting himself into some of these debates. abortion ban, so-called anti-woke act. host: why are we seeing this being built in state legislatures rather than in washington, in congress at the white house? why are we seeing this coming up in the gubernatorial and legislative at the state level? guest: a couple of reasons. one in relation to gun laws, very salient this morning for very sad reasons. there have not been a lot of federal action on that area.

the pro-gun control groups have increasingly focused on state legislatures and have by their likes made some progress there. that is one part of this picture. i think also, there is the fact of our politics have become increasingly nationalized. these big issues that excite such passions have become dominant even in state level races and as you say, gubernatorial races and sometimes at a more hyper, local level. things like school board elections are being fought on crt issues and things like that. host: is this a good thing, or is this bad these are going on, the same conversation going on in different places, likely coming two different solutions? is this a good or bad thing? guest: one of the experts i spoke to suggested this was a good thing. his argument was, it is in a sense the job of the states to

experiment a little bit more. he put it that the federal government is a guardrail if things go crazy. state legislatures and other state audience can deal with these issues at a level by its nature closer to the people. a law you might want in alabama is not necessarily the same kind of law voters in vermont are going to support. having those state level disparities is not necessarily a bad thing. host: does that, especially when it comes to hot button issues like gun control, abortion, does that mean that americans face different laws in different states and may or may not know what jurisdiction has which law? guest: i think that is a really important point, particularly on those two topics of gun laws and abortion laws. we really see very dramatic differences, obviously on the gun question there are all sorts of questions around reciprocity

and whether one states law should be recognized in another state. in the abortion question, prohibiting -- a nation of this size prohibiting or completely prohibiting it. the northeast taking a view going out of their way to protect reproductive rights. does that contribute to the since we are in some ways to separate nations? possibly, but it is also reflective of voters in those places. host: speaking of the voters in those places, there are some people who say that there is a national move, a national group that is manipulating these state legislatures by trying to push through the same laws in different states using lobbying, using their political power. are we seeing these shadowy, national groups pushing through

laws that states may not have moved on their own? guest: i want to be careful in answering that one. i think the different laws in different states reflect different political cultures in those states and different views on the parts of voters. that said, if you want to variously affect things -- the variously -- nefariously affect things, you can get more bang for your buck in state legislatures or localized areas, those races do not typically come with big budgets attached, certainly not the way a presidential election does or a senate race. you can impact state legislatures and school board elections if you wish to do so, much easier than you can do on the national level. host: are we seeing more lobby money from larger groups focusing on state legislature? i think we can both agree, congress is pretty much deadlocked. you are not going to get anymore

controversial or big-name issues through congress. do we see these groups moving their money away from congress and towards state legislatures where they can get changes they may want? guest: in broad terms, we do. we are seeing that increased focus and increased recognition of the importance of these issues or matters. you look at something like the debate over critical race theory. 18 states now have passed some form of restriction or prohibition on what might broadly be called crt. defining crt is another battle, as you know. abortion, we talk about 13 states with almost total world missions, 14 dependent on how you characterize it. about the same number with very tight restrictions. i think those typical issues do encourage groups with interests to involve themselves to a greater extent. host: i want to get a little deeper into some of these issues. i want to remind our callers they can take part in this

conversation. we are going to open up our regular lines. democrats, you can call in at (202) 748-8000. republicans, your line is going to be (202) 748-8001. independents, you can call (202) 748-8002. keep in mind, you can always text us at (202) 748-8003. we are always reading on social media, on twitter @cspanwj and facebook at facebook.com/cspan. i want to dive in more today about gun laws in the united states today. we had that tragic shooting yesterday in austin, texas. we have seen different states with different gun laws and we have seen a whole plethora of gun laws trying to be pushed through in several state legislatures. what is the landscape we are seeing right now? guest: i think there are a

number of states that have actually passed more stringent gun laws pretty recently. you look at michigan, where the governor recently signed something that basically increases the storage requirements for guns. in washington state, the governor there signed an actual assault weapons ban and a number of other restrictions. colorado governor -- the point i would make of those, those are all democratic governors. we are not seeing those kind of moves made in places like texas. despite these catastrophic events, the uvalde massacre as well as what we saw yesterday, there has not been traction for gun control efforts in texas. in fact, you remember the last gubernatorial election, we had governor abbott who is a strong advocate of the second amendment quite easily defeating beto

o'rourke, the democrat, who had been pushing for much more stringent gun laws. host: how does one state's decision to be more stringent on gun laws affect the next state across the border? four, are these laws -- or are these laws -- on themselves? guest: they are affected in a fairly nebulous way. often, they affect the general perception of what may be politically possible. for a long time, there was this perception any mention of gun control was bad for democrats and good for republicans. that has been eroded in a number of these states. it is not a universal rule and there are these big differences between states that are much more resistant to gun control laws and those that favor them. does it have an impact? it has an abstract impact, but not always a concrete, specific one. host: you said earlier state

legislatures and state laws are -- have a greater chance to experiment. especially when it comes to these hot button issues. then, don't they have the supreme court and the entire court system looking over their shoulder saying, well, i know you want to do this in your state, but it is against the constitution? guest: they absolutely do. they also have state courts that sometimes intervene to take a very obvious example, we were just talking about the six week abortion ban in florida. i'm not sure the media has done a great job in pointing out that is not in effect yet, because the courts in florida are looking at how it comports with the state constitution. you have the supreme court, pretty short distance from where we are sitting now, that can weigh in on a number of these matters and declare state measures on constitution. host: let's let some of our viewers take part in this conversation. let's start with the mark calling from florida on the

democratic line. mark, good morning. caller: hello, good morning and thank you for taking my call. since we are talking about culture wars and the role of state legislatures, what does your guest know about the culture war your texas state representative's little upset there? guest: not very much is the honest answer to that. i do not know if you want to enlighten me or otherwise, but i am not aware of mr. slayton's activities you are alluding to. host: i think he may have dropped off. all right. let's go to -- i actually do not know what he is referring to, as well. we will look and see what we can find. let's go to gary, calling from livingston, texas on the republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. i just wanted to correct what

you said a while ago. the shooting that happened yesterday was in allen, texas. and not austin. thank you. host: i do not think so. anyway, it was in allen, texas. let's go to lewis, calling from kansas city, missouri on the independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. could you discuss the difference between -- and the influence of forces with congressman? guest: that is a great question. that could be a long discussion. the influence of money in politics is something that has been an issue for decades.

but, seems to be intensifying as an issue. at what point is the purchase of influence illegal? there is no say, the thing that is scandalous what is legal rather than what is illegal. a lot of politicians of both parties are pretty dependent upon getting financial donations. they would argue universally that does not affect the votes they cast or the positions they take. i will leave it up to you to adjudicate whether that is true or not. host: one of the things we have seen, especially as it comes towards the next presidential election, we talked about earlier that some governors seem to be using these culture wars at the state level two, let's just say, increase their national standing.

one, is the democratic party, the republican party or any party, particularly benefiting from having these local, state level culture war battles in their state legislatures? does that give the republicans an advantage, does it give democrats an advantage? guest: i do not think it is that clear cut. i think there are some areas in which it does benefit republicans. to your point about presidential ambitions, we mentioned governor desantis earlier. he very clearly has used his state powers legitimately to promote or gain prominence for a particularly conservative position on these culture war issues. but, those are ultimately -- does that ultimately benefit one party or another? i would argue -- for gun control has more success at the state level and locally.

not the issue on the liberal side, issues like abortion has primarily benefited conservatives. host: one issue that has popped up on a local level that we have not talked about yet is the gender affirming care issue and the transgender issues we have seen all of the sudden that seem to be talked about in quite a few state legislatures. where do we stand with that? guest: there are a number of legislatures either considering or trying to pass bills on that. that actually gets back to your previous point about which issues benefit which party. it is notable there was a poll a couple of days ago in the washington post that broadly speaking, the american public favor -- well, the more republican or conservative position, that was a poll that found a majority of americans believe that gender is determined by the sex assigned at birth and a large majority of americans were opposed to trans women or girls being come --

being permitted to compete in sports with the people who had female sex assigned at birth. i think in that issue, that is one where clearly it seems to me , the left, progressives, whatever term you want to use have got quite a -- where the american public is. host: you mean, the left is -- guest: not in step with where the american public are. yes. host: how does that affect where we are on the state level? does this mean republicans can try to pass laws that will put them at an advantage in their next upcoming election? guest: yes is the short answer. i think that is because you can use laws at the state level in the literal sense of trying to prohibit things or encourage things. what -- you can also use laws at the state level two promote or amplify a particular issue.

on that issue of what we might broadly call trans rights, if republicans calculate what seems to be correctly looking at the data that the public is broadly sympathetic to their position, they can push these bills in state legislatures as a means of keeping the national spotlight on those topics. then, there is political advantage to be gleaned from that. host: let's go back to our phone lines and talk to richard calling from verona, missouri on the democratic line. richard, good morning. caller: hey, just wondering. i talked a while ago. the guy was wanting to know about bribes. you do not think he has bribed a supreme court justice, it makes you wonder sometimes. another thing. these guns and abortions in texas. it is a republican deal i guess,

guns and abortion now. i was old enough to remember when abortion was illegal all over and women went to back alleys and places like falling down steps, taking coat hangers and stuff like that. you can pass laws, it is not going to change peoples way to do things. there is guns and abortion. i hope that will be the death of the republican party is coming up election, because i am tired of it. i am afraid to go to the little mall in springfield. i am scared i'm going to get shot. the church, who wants to go to church if you are going to get shot? it is pretty disgusting now. it has been a long time living, seeing history like these people are talking about, i have lived through that history. things were a lot better now than they ever have been, i will go that way.

thank you, sir. guest: i think richard raises a number of interesting points there. in relation to the supreme court, the current controversy around justice thomas is adding -- to the cause for there being a code of ethics for the supreme court, which there is not at the moment. on the point of abortion, the point you raised about how things were in the past when abortion was illegal is an important one. certainly, there are republicans , more moderate republicans who have expressed concern about the party as they see it pursuing too hard a line on it. congresswoman nancy mace from south carolina had suggested or required -- demanded that the party should try to find some middle ground on that issue. we will have to see if those calls are successful. host: let's go to rachel, calling from forney, texas on

the independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. i was listening to someone on c-span the other day. they was talking about what the bill expired that can sell military rifles. right after that, the cartels were able to get military rifles. that is when we started having problems with people coming over from mexico and we had problems with illegals coming over here. this time they were going to let this brady bill expire, over 80% was against military rifles being sold. then, fox news and conservative radio lied and said the sale of the military rifles was going to help the iraq war.

that is the reason why so many people allow the brady bill to expire. why isn't fox held accountable for the lies? guest: i am not exactly sure quite in relation to iraq. the assault weapons ban did expire. there have been calls from president biden himself to try to resurrect that ban. there are not immediate signs of that happening in congress anytime soon, but it remains alive political issue. just not one with much of a chance of instant action on. host: since the caller brought up fox news, i am wondering how much effect does the state wide and local media have on the laws and coverage? does their coverage affect these issues being fought at the state and local level, the way we see congress and covered by the national media?

does the same relate exist at the state level? guest: probably not, for a reason we will find discouraging. at the state level, the media has been hobbled out to a considerable degree. one can look across the nation how many fewer correspondents there are, whether it is with state newspapers or state broadcasters covering what goes on in these legislatures. i would argue that those to the other point you raised earlier in our conversation about whether lobbyists and money interests can affect things in state legislatures. broadly speaking, we both know the media has its faults. we are not perfect. broadly speaking, the less scrutiny there is of anybody in power, the more liberty they feel to do shady stuff. i think that is a bit of a problem. host: four our viewers, we did

not forget. our wonderful producers have found this story on yahoo.com i want to read to you about the lawmaker that our first caller asked about. a house committee in the texas state legislature on saturday recommended the expulsion of state representative brian slants and, who reportedly fired a 19-year-old intern with alcohol in his part in, had inappropriate sexual misconduct with her and gave her a loyalty test to try to pressure her to stay silent. that was the lawmaker the first caller was talking about. we did not forget about it. we wanted to be sure we brought it to you. do you have anything you want to say about this? guest: i do not. i literally was not aware of that allegation until you read about it. my working assumption is that he denies he did those things. host: that would be my assumption, as well. guest: i do not want to get too far ahead of what the facts are. if those facts were borne out,

that would be reprehensible conduct. host: are there national groups who specifically push legislation at a state level that we can look at and see? these are groups that are pushing this, these hot button issues at state levels? are there groups that specialize in that? guest: i think that our -- there are groups that are increasingly concentrated on that. on the liberal side, you would cite the pro-gun control group. it has in combination with an organization has very much emphasized the capacity to change laws at the state level. now, on the conservative side, there are a number of groups that clearly concentrated on that. there were a number of groups i think affiliated with what used to be referred to as the coke brothers.

there is one coke brother particular active in these things anymore -- they clearly saw purpose in pushing laws at the state level. host: let's go back to our phone lines and talk to michael, calling from sterling, virginia on the democratic line. michael, good morning. caller: hello, there. thank you so much, c-span, for taking my call and providing this forum. also, i would like to mention my respect for mr. stanage and his willingness to take on an issue like culture wars, which i am sure is wide open and quite frightening from your perspective. i wanted to go back to something you said about the difficulty in determining where the line is when we try to determine whether

somebody is fundraising or actually being influenced i money. -- by money. i never thought about it much. when you talk about it, you cause me to think of something. i wanted to ask you to expand on it some. how crazy is the idea to completely pull public -- not public, but free money out of elections and debates and that type of thing? and just purely have it be taxpayer money to pay for that stuff, maybe possibly require some of the media forums to provide some space. also, to have taxpayer money ensure that journalism is clear

and transparent and upright. i just want to know how crazy is the idea to fully disallow any kind of money into campaigns and just make it taxpayer money. these people are working for the taxpayer, anyway. you know? i will just take your answer off-line. thank you, sir. guest: thank you for the kind words. it is not a crazy idea. problem is, you need to get lawmakers to vote or them before it becomes law. there are all sorts of examples in the world of public funding of elections and the banning or severe restriction of private funding. but, can you get such a law passed here? that is the question. you also raised the point of journalism and transparency in journalism. that it's into your -- that gets

into a tricky area, that gets into government funded journalism and people will have understandable concerns with that. host: at what point do these state movements or hot button issues turn into constitutional issues, where states are now involving themselves in things that the federal government should be doing? the biggest example i can think of immediately is the border states and immigration and their complaints that washington is not doing anything, so they have to do something. but, can they? guest: that is a great point. immigration until now --there are real serious constitutional issues there, because it is the responsibility of the federal government to make immigration law. then, you have states including texas that say, well, we just cannot tolerate the current

situation of thousands and thousands of people coming across the border. in that issue, there are clearly constitutional issues. there are clearly issues of federal power and the federalization of the system here. when you have governors like governor abbott sending people to the border, state forces to the border, then you get into constitutionally deep waters on that one. host: but, when the same thing go for gun control, for example, since the second amendment, the interpretation of the second amendment is in the constitution? guest: i guess the scenario there would be one in which as state legislatures passed a very restrictive gun control law, could gun rights groups protest against that and take it to the supreme court?

yes, they could make a compelling case that it actually violated the second amendment. of course, the supreme court right now is currently constituted as a clear, conservative majority. in that hypothetical scenario, those gun rights groups might find a favorable hearing. host: pino several -- i know several of these hot button issues sometimes go to states with an expectation that a conservative state will do this, a liberal state will do that. sometimes, there is a surprise like what happened in nebraska and south carolina and their attempts to pass more stringent aboard june -- abortion laws. talk about that. based on what they do in presidential elections. guest: nebraska and south carolina, there was an attempt to restrict abortion in both those states that failed in both those legislatures despite the fact they are conservative states. i think that goes to this really

complicated and knotty question on the politics of abortion. we have seen that almost as soon as the supreme court struck down roe v. wade. you might member there was a balance initiative in kansas, the liberal or pro-choice side won. we have seen a pattern repeated in a number of places on the same day as the midterm elections last year. there were ballot measures on the ballot in five states related to abortion. the liberal side won all five, including in kentucky and montana, states that are not renowned for their liberal leanings. host: is that the state legislature not being where it's constituents are, or maybe trying to get ahead of where its constituents are? guest: can be, it can be the whole scenario we see over and over again in politics of politicians warning about a primary challenge.

sometimes, we will see politicians propose these bills that happened in south carolina, that was a near total abortion ban being proposed. actually, the reason that failed was one, two or three slightly or moderate republicans who said, i am personally conservative, but i cannot vote for this. that was an interesting development. host: let's go back to our phone lines and start with tom calling from redford, michigan on the republican line. good morning. caller: good morning, gentlemen. i have a comment about uncontrolled -- gun control. you did bring up how governor whitmer just signed into law the new gun control laws for michigan. about storage and stuff like that. with michigan, it seems prosecutors are not enforcing the laws we already have on the

books. the shooter in this last -- he had a concealed weapon by the police and went through the process of going through the court and everything. then -- they ended up charging him with a misdemeanor, illegally carrying a weapon in his vehicle rather than a felony guns charge. because of that, he was able to purchase guns that he then years to do the shooting in east lansing. if we have all of these laws, it is all well and good but we are not enforcing these laws to begin with. it seems like the criminals that appropriate these guns will end up not following the laws, anyways. i would be curious to hear your thoughts on that. guest: i think that is a valid point. one that comes up a lot. there is clearly on the liberal side a push for all kinds of gun

controls, you do not need me to repeat them. you know the various measures we are talking about. often times from something tragic -- when something tragic, with it often does with a present degree of frequency, people do not often know some of these changes do not seem to match up to the actual nature of the shooting. would a certain change in the law prevent what happened in east lansing, what happened in allen, texas yesterday? that is, i think, a valid point, even though i think people of valid concerns with a sheer number of firearms in this country and ease of availability. the point about laws not being enforced and so forth seems to me a legitimate point to make. host: we have seen a list of culture war issues show up in state legislatures like reproductive rights, gender affirming care. you do not hear as much about crt, it is still out there, and

gun control. as we move toward the presidential election, do you see any other culture war issues you expect to see pop up at the state legislature level? guest: i think you have hit most of the main ones and what you said. we are talking a moment ago about immigration. immigration in a sense is a culture war issue. it does to people sense of security and to people's sense of changing american culture. there are all sorts of different strands within that debate. there is clearly a big divide overall between liberals -- how liberals and conservatives see that issue. the main ones are the ones you mentioned, the abortion debate, the gun law debate, the crt debate. governor desantis is in a battle with disney, i am not sure -- it is national because it is a big case, but i am not sure other states are going to start attacking mickey mouse. host: ok.

let's go to phil, calling from illinois on the independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. ok. i find it incongruous that the state legislatures want to protect the life of a fetus up until its birth. but then, they do not want to protect that same life by allowing high-capacity, semi automatic guns to be owned so that those same children now can be killed in school. guest: yeah, i wasn't sure if you are adding more to that. that is a point i think is rightfully raised a lot. the sanctity of life is something that is cited all the time by opponents of abortion. there was not much sanctity in life in texas yesterday,

unfortunately. i think that is a valid point to raise again. i think you used the word incongruous, i think that is something politicians primarily on the democratic and liberal side raise on that particular topic a lot. host: we have seen more of these culture war issues play out in the state legislature. we also see more state legislators protest and take action inside their state chambers, like the tennessee three, zooey zephyr and montana. do you expect to see more of that as these hot button issue start showing up more and more as these -- at the state legislative level? guest: i think so. i thought the tennessee three case was particu important and emblematic of some of these bigger issues. it started off as a debate about gun control.

that is what sparked the original demonstrations from which those lawmakers were then expelled and subsequently reinstated. the fact the two lawmakers expelled were black clearly played into that discussion, as well, in a state that has -- how would i put this tipple medically -- a checkered case of relations in that states history. i think that was a point where you saw these explosive strains in american life of issues of racial equality and issues of gun control and violence come together in a combustible -- that is why this particular controversy got so much national attention. seemingly coming from nowhere. to be the central, national storyline, i think we could see that happen again in the future. host: ok.

let's go back to our phone lines and talk to kay, calling from houston, texas on the democrats line. good morning. caller: good morning. yes. i was calling, the guns need to really be more stronger. host: more stronger on what? tell us more about what you are talking about. caller: if this governor has weakened the law to have all of these people in this state -- it is like it is the wild, wild west again. it is maddening and out of control. guest: you were talking about gun laws. is that what you are referring to, the wild, wild west? caller: yes, yes i am. guest: right. yeah.

i am in a tricky position here, i am not here to express personal, political opinions. rarely, there are a lot of people who share your feelings. at the same time -- clearly, there are a lot of people who share your feelings. i would note in the wake of other shootings in texas, there have not been restrictions on gun laws. in fact, i think it was in 2021, there was a permit list carry law passed in texas. you are absolutely entitled to the beliefs you hold and those beliefs have not recently carried the day in the texas legislature or the governor's mansion. host: we are going to run out of time. i want to ask this question. we talk about these culture war issues going down to the state legislative level. we have talked about crt inc.

taught -- fought at the school board level. do we see these issues going to county councils, town councils, city councils? do we see these entities adding ready to make their own judgment on these culture war issues? guest: we do. i am trying to think of examples. i read about instances having council elections being fought on things that policy councils do not have much control over, things like crt issue or abortion or things like that. where those issues that are not really within the legislative field of influence of hyper local races become central issues in those races. i think that is part of what we are talking about earlier. the nationalization of our politics, it becomes less about do we think jane or john are going to be people who can fund the school properly and it becomes more about where they stand on trans rights or something.

that is competent -- has complicated those hyper local races by a lot. host: this makes it more important to participate and vote. we would like to thank niall stanage for being with us this morning and talking about how controversial policy issues are playing out in state legislatures. thanks for being here. guest: my pleasure, glad to be here. host: we would like to thank our guests, viewers and social media followers for a another great "washington journal." we will be back tomorrow at 7:00 a.m. stay safe, washed her hands and have a great sunday, everyone -- wash your hands and have a great sunday, everyone. ♪