>> coming up, wlook at congressional ws of the day and the week ahead on capitol hill with jason dick. then, the remaining cases the supreme court may rule on this month. we speak with scotusblog reporter amyowe. and, we preview the expected announcements from republicans officially joining the 2024 presidential cam pain playing field. washington journal starts now. host: good morning, it is monday, june 5. the president's signature on saturday on the debt ceiling deal, default is averted.

part of that recruited -- included work requirements. we are asking whether you agree with that. if you support the enhanced work requirements, call (202) 748-8000. if you oppose more requirements, call (202) 748-8001. we have a line set up for those receiving federal aid. that number is (202) 748-8002. you can text us at (202) 748-8003. we are on social media, facebook.com/cspan and instagram and twitter @cspanwj. before we get to your calls, we will show you this article from foxbusiness with the headline debt ceiling deal includes work requirements for snack. it tightens work requirements for food stops --'s --food

stamps and cash welfare. publicans demanded stricter work requirements for the supplemental nutrition assistance program, formally known as food stamps, and the temporary assistance for needy families commonly referred to as welfare. the deal admitted an earlier and more controversial gop push from medicaid work requirements, which would deny government-sponsored health coverage to unemployed able-bodied adults who do not have children. under the current criteria to receive snap benefits, able-bodied adults who are 49 and younger must work or participate in a training program for at least 80 hours a month. if not, they can receive benefits for only three months over a three-year period. it would increase the age on those stipulations to 54 and younger. the agreement exempts veterans, homeless people and younger adults who are transitioning from foster care from the work

requirements, which could mean more americans qualify for food stamps. currently, only americans who were unable to work due to a physical or mental disability or pregnancy are exempt and changes to the work requirements are temporary and will sunset in 2030. let us take a look at the gop majority leader, he was in favor of the additional work requirements. [video clip] >> you want to talk about something that will help change the culture of this country, getting people back to work at a time when everybody is looking for workers. people think it is psychotic the federal government is borrowing meant you from countries like china to pay people not to work at a time when everyone is looking for workers. not only do the requirements help strew the dignity of work, but they will help strengthen programs like social security and medicare that are so vital

to us and so important to the people who earned those benefits. when president biden started paying millions more to sit on the sidelines, to turn down work and still get over 35,000 year in benefits, they are not paying into social security or medicare. that is one of the reasons why those programs are going toward bankruptcy under president biden. host: let us take a look at the other side, this is during house debate. it is jim mcgovern who attacked the gop plans for enhanced work requirements. [video clip] >> i have a hard time understanding why we are kicking up to 700,000 over adults -- older adults off of snap. food and hunger should not be a partisan issue, it is a human issue.

but republicans do not care who they hurt. we have over 30 million people in this country who do not know where their next meal will come from and to the current snap benefit, on average, six dollars per person per day. that is two dollars per meal. the majority of people on snap who can work do work and we know that work requirements do not work. in february 2021, a report titled the effects of changing snap or reported on health and employment outcomes of able-bodied adults, exactly what we are talking about here today. it was reported that losing snap made people less healthy and had no significant change in employment status. work requirements do not work. but by the way, my republican colleagues do not believe me, they could have held a hearing. they did not hold a single

hearing on this issue, not one. they have no clue who this will adversely effect and i do not think they care. you would think we want to go into this knowing exactly how the legislation would affect our constituents, but they did not even have time for a hearing. here is the kicker. many of the people in this chamber who are trying to take food away from struggling americans are the same people who had their ppp loans forgiven. some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle received hundreds of thousands of dollars , some millions of dollars in taxpayer dollars that were used to forgive some of their loans. they had no problem with that, they shrugged it off. but they say we can't afford to make sure families have food on the table. it is ridiculous. host: we are asking you what you think of the enhanced work

requirements for federal aid, the numbers are on your screen. support, oppose, or if you are receiving federal aid, we have a line set aside for you. let us start in mississippi, good morning. caller: first of all, i do not -- one thing is bringing in the welfare. in the community, you have too many men getting food stamps and they trade the food stamps for dope. same thing with disability. you have young men with disability, when the money comes on the card, the dope man has occurred and gets the money off

the card. i am as liberal as they get in and did not support too much of what they do because they hurt poor people. the women who get food stamps for their kids need to get them. but the men, take them off three months, six months. do something right. host: in, good morning. caller: good morning. i encourage everyone who supports work requirements to take a look at a new podcast that was just issued in the last three weeks by american public media. it is called the uncertain hour, they just did an in-depth six week long study of work requirements in the state of wisconsin, up to and including the former governor who put the

work requirements in place. he became well-known nationally for doing it. what the studies show is they do not do anything to help the recipients. all they do is make them go through who to go through work related activity such as going to resume seminars. what people need to look up are the three main companies that are getting rich, millions and billions of dollars are going to them from the welfare department of each state and they are paying off these politicians. i would like to know how much mccarthy gets from these companies. host: what do those companies do? caller: they contrast with the state to say we will make sure your welfare recipients, your food stamp recipients are going

to keep their work requirements so they do not get kicked off of those programs. all they do is sign them up to do bs kind of stuff, including job fairs. they go to job fairs, what is there? low wage labor that will keep them in poverty the rest of their lives. there is no improvement to their lives and that is with the study shows. it is called the uncertain hour, a episode podcast. it was funded by american public media and it is fantastic. host: bernadette is in montana, good morning. caller: i am on federal aid, i am on snap. i am on it because i am disabled. but i only get $900 to live off of a month. if i go over $2000, i lose my

health care, i lose my medicated, because that is the requirement of the limits. if they make work requirements, they do not work. if we are thinking public federal aid is bloated, we means test everything and make sure nobody can get it. if we let them have it would cut down on everything and i do not we should have these work requirements. people who are struggling are struggling and they have to pay for other things. they should not have to pay in the way of hard labor to get the things they need to survive, that is my opinion. host: let us take a look on your screen, a review of what the work requirements are in the bt ceiling bill. older americans on the supplemental attrition systems

program have a new work requirements. veterans, homeless indidus and young adults recently left foare will be exempt and states would still be le to waive work requis in areas with insufficient jobs under the new rule, but with the right ions. there are enhanced work requirements for temporary assistance for needy families and those benefits will vary by state. john is in new york, good morning. caller: i think everybody should work. but when you can't make enough to support yourself because of inflation -- a lot of states are still paying $7.50 minimum wage. if you are not making enough, what are you going to do? you cannot live off of $7.50

some of the states. they should adjust things according to inflation. you have to raise it. if you make so much money, you cannot get anything. if i go over a certain limit, i lose food stamps. adjust that. host: you are working? caller: i am a disabled veteran. i do not have to worry about that. there are certain things about me even being a disabled veteran. if i get an increase in one thing, then take it on another end, this goes up. what i pay for certain things goes up. you cannot tell somebody you go to work at $7.50 an hour, you did not get anything.

you get people back here in poverty. what about the subsidizing they do for rich people? make it even. host: let us go to bradley, good morning. caller: i will start off by saying these companies are not paying a living wage. i've been working like crazy for the last six months. i swear i feel like i am now than i was when i was unemployed and i still did not qualify for food stamps or need help. now i am making too much money, i cannot get any help. inflation has been going on a while, the price of food is getting ridiculous.

i do not understand how corporations can pay these wages and get subsidized taxes and basically cash the guy i am talking about selling drugs for foodstamp money -- i am sure it happens occasionally, but it is not like there are masses of people out here. if anything, it is billionaires not paying taxes. host: tracy is next in south carolina, good morning. caller: i am calling about support for snap food stamps. anytime you are a democrat president -- all of this saying about cutting snap food stamps.

most of it is on food stamps, not the blue states. host: let us look at a poll about increasing eligibility requirements for snap benefits. here is how it broke down. those in favor of making it stricter worth 29%, those who said it should be less strict were 27%. and remained in change, 29%. so very evenly divided opinions on that. let us take a look at shannon in maine, good morning. it's -- good morning. caller: i think it is unfair and unjust, i do not think work requirements are required to receive food benefits, especially increasing the work requirements.

it goes on about how the clinton administration changed the way that welfare works and how it devastates americans. host: how has it devastated americans? caller: with work requirements, they were not able to find jobs that would give them the correct hours to work. it has been hard for people to get 40 hours a week. everybody has been struggling and it is sick how congress acts that work requirements are going to bring people up, it is just going to bring people down. host: there are a lot of jobs out there. when you say it is hard to find enough hours, why do you say that? caller: i feel that even out here in maine, it is hard to get a job. it has been a long, difficult process. i am lucky to even have veterans

benefits to support me, it is just not the right thing to do. it's host: let us talk to brian in florida. caller: thanks for having me on. i oppose the new work requirements. people are already working in trying to get benefits. -- and trying to get benefits. i think it was the guy from maine who mentioned the phrase working poor, i am glad i heard that. it is terrible in the richest country in the history of the world has working poor? that is not right. if a person works, they should not be poor. as a matter of fact, i think the requirements should be eased a little bit. some of these places, making the minimum wage job is seven dollars, eight dollars an hour. you work at that rate, you are poor. let us at least have minimum

wage, at least $15. i think it should be more like 20. host: i was going to ask a question, the enhanced work requirements are bringing it from 49-year-olds up to 54-year-olds, so increase of five years. what do you think of that? caller: i do not like that. i think the early requirements to talk about is just enough. if people are working in this country, they should not be poor. thank god the debt ceiling was avoided. not everybody got what they want, i definitely did not get everything i wanted, but i was supporting it because we didn't default on our debt. i just oppose the work requirements. host: here is the house speaker

talking about being in favor of the requirements. [video clip] >> when i got to meet with the president, we could not talk about the entire budget. we could not look at places we could have savings, we can only focus on 11% of the budget. not only did we give you the greatest savings in american history, there's going to be people on welfare today that will no longer be on welfare. that they will find a job. not just when they find a job, self-worth and attitudes will change. they will believe in themselves because of the vote we took tonight. host: that was speaker mccarthy from wednesday, we are asking what you think about enhanced work requirements that were part of the debt ceiling bill. connor is next in south carolina. caller: good morning.

i am happy kevin mccarthy is finally being honest about everything. work requirements, it goes back a long time. there is an old german proverb that says work will set you free. it used to be over all of these camps, started almost 100 years ago at this point. it was a great thing, it gave people self-worth. virtue through labor. people hope they are able to improve their situation. host: you receive federal aid, what kind you get? caller: medicaid. host: do you work? caller: yes. host: what do you think of able-bodied adults that do not have kids having to work? what do you think of that? caller: i'm sorry, could you repeat that? host: what do you think about able-bodied adults having to

work -- older adults, essentially? going from 49 to 54 years old. caller: 54 is still a young age. it just depends on the perspective, i suppose. if they are capable of working, if they can get out there and do the physical work involved, they should be encouraged to do that. host: james is in new jersey, good morning. caller: hi. ok. this is really happening. [indiscernible]

host: and you are getting federal aid? caller: medicaid, medicare and social security. host: are you working or retired? caller: look tired, i am 70. --retired, i am 70. host: john is in massachusetts, good morning. caller: good morning, i am a disabled veteran. i am retired and i think people should work, because if they can call in on this phone, they can do telemarketing. do something for this country, you are taking and taking. host: carol is next in new

jersey, good morning. caller: good morning. i agree with the woman from california that talked about the training program. before, they had apprenticeship programs and now you have to take courses in pay for ticket grants for certificate courses. these services were offered before as apprenticeship programs, now you have to pay for them in addition to going to minimum wage. then they pigeonhole everybody into certain jobs like they did in the 60's. everybody went to school for hvac, now they are going for home assistance programs for seniors. if you are on welfare, they train you for it and that is with the seniors get. i do not agree with it, it is

sad. it is sad they will not raise the wages for women, equal pay for equal work. they would not have so many women dependent on subsidies. thank you. host: let us take a look at a review of the snap program, this is the supplemental nutrition assistance pgr, used to be calledstamps. is a federal program that provides nutrition benefits to low income individuals and families used to purchase food. there are 41 .5 million particip, so 13% of the population is using snap, provides an average of over $230 each month and federal officials administer the aid but states set additional rules and manage payments often provided three debit card. let us talk to angela in massachusetts.

caller: i live in a very republican state, i am a convicted felon. i am also a registered nurse. back in 2002, and made the biggest mistake of my life and was convicted of burglary. i rose from that, i was on snap, had three kids, been divorced twice. i put myself through college, i worked at sonic. i put myself through college not once, but twice. the federal student loans, i did that. i am the minority and now i am a registered nurse.

you, these people sitting around saying they cannot do anything, they are living off snap and cannot do anything, yes you can. you can work through that. host: david is in louisiana, good morning. caller: good morning. your name is mama? host: mimi. caller: this requirement for work, i know people that do not have utilities. water, electric, such as that. they don't have cars, how are they going to get to work? they do not have clean clothes.

you want them to come to work dirty then you will call them all kinds of names. the people making these roles, the politicians, have no idea about reality. they are so out of touch, they resent people getting food stamps and assistance. they are jealous. in a roundabout way, i believe that. it is just stupid -- if you do not believe it, swing by my house and i will take you to these people's houses and i want you to tell them they have to go to work. you need money? text golf balls -- tax golf balls, the suits they wear, the watches over $300. it is just another example of politicians do not know the half from the hole. -- whole. host: let us look at a

democratic representative of milwaukee on the floor of the house talking about the extra work requirements. [video clip] >> what they insisted on, the redline, was not financial at all. it was to double down on the so-called work requirements. thank god the white house negotiations pushed back on the worst of the changes that would have saved $6 million over 10 years. speaker after speaker has insisted on denying food to poor , old women who are primarily black and brown. it seems like the pound of flesh that you get is more delicious than having savings. but just wait. before they eat them dry on this bill, you will be pushing for $3.5 trillion in business tax

cuts. watch my word, you heard it here first. host: that was on the floor of the house wednesday, we are taking your calls for the next half-hour during this segment of washington journal on the work requirements that were part of the debt ceiling bill. if you support them, if you oppose them, we also have a mind set aside for those receiving federal aid. in illinois. caller: good morning. i think what is being forgotten here is when you give money to the poor or disabled people, that money goes directly into our economy. that money is spent immediately. i agree with the prior caller that people are jealous.

elderly people or disabled people get money, it does not make any difference. the money is going to be spent, it will go into grocery stores. host: the enhanced requirements are not for the elderly or disabled, it is for able-bodied adults between the ages of 49 and 54. what do you think of that? caller: i think it is ok, because money is spent. those people would be working if they could, no one wants to sit home and take money. host: let us hear from paul next in florida. caller: ok, that was pretty fortunate for me, the less, made by her collar. this last pandemic, this proves something he said was supposed to be true. that is people want to work. we have 7.5 million able-bodied

people who are not working today. this thing where people say nobody wants to freeload, no one wants to take -- everybody wants to work was completely blasted apart in the aftermath of this pandemic. the idea that the money is going to go straight into the economy, look at what the economy is supposed to be. people are supposed to be spending money that they earned, that is the american economy. if somebody is getting the same goods but not working, what kind of economy are rebuilding? -- are we building? somebody who is sitting at home, able-bodied kin by the very same goods-- can buy the very same

goods. people not working are supposed to get a skill, they are supposed to improve themselves. let me name a few skills that anyone can get with very little money. plumbing, air conditioning, electrical. did i mention a lot of the medical areas need workers? there are all kinds of jobs. pick up the yellow pages, pick out a company and call them. ask them one question, are you hiring? i will bet you could not call more than 20 without one of them saying yes, we are hiring. can you please come in for an application? the people coming and i do not buy it, unemployment is under 4%. i do not buy the freeloaders, i am sorry. host: let us look at more information about the snap program. more tn 66% of participants are in families with children,

36 percent are families with members older adults or disabled so they may be caring for older adults or disabled members. almost 42% are in working families and a family of three generally needs to earn less than $30,000 a year in gross income to qualify. that is information for the center for budget and policy priorities. richard is in connecticut. good morning. caller: my problem with this whole debate is this is just -- every time they show some receiving food stamps, it is always a minority. it is probably more people like

the majority receiving food stamps. 7.5 million people, where they going to work? we used to have an industrial base, it is gone. the government has the obligation because they created the problem, send the jobs overseas to greet more jobs for this country. biden has made a good step forward but we need more jobs. i am tired of people saying the person receiving snap benefits and no one is addressing the problem with the defense budget. this is a republican ploy to reinforce the image of a minority receiving something free and the majority is not receiving benefits. host: san diego next.

caller: hi, how are you? if i start coughing, i will hang out. -- up. i am here in san diego, i am originally from massachusetts. the people talking about work, they have some merit. when i got injured with tsa, i could not even walk to get out of the car. they refused disability. i did not push it. i was a hard-core republican at the time. the only reason i tried was because my brother-in-law pushed me.

but at that time, newt gingrich got a lot of fire because he took governing money from fannie mae or freddie mac and now i see the light -- some republicans like to focus on the first independence day movie. host: are you able to work? caller: i am able to work, i worked security at a homeless shelter. people have different scenarios for how they get homeless and there are some guys who are 50, 54 who had been in prison, on drugs and to say they cannot get anything right now -- that would be ridiculous. the guy who called in with this perfect picture of people being able to go rights of plumbing or air conditioning, these people's lives are so complex.

because what they went through. host: what do you think will happen now that those requirements are in place? let us take somebody that is able-bodied, 53 years old, 52 years old. what do you think will happen? caller: i mean, they will find some other way, like homeless shelters that feed them and churches that do feed them. in some states they're going to be that bad. real quick, i work security and i have to fight for my pay all the time. i have to fight for my overtime every day. just because you work, you do not always get a good sense of self-esteem. he just work security, right? i had a good job working for homeland security until i got injured.

but you are looked down real bad because you are just a security guard. host: there is nothing wrong with that. caller: you have to fight for your overtime, you do not get paid and -- i do not want to sound like a pity party, but i am just saying when you work hard -- these companies try to not pay you, but these republicans do tax shelters for the oil companies and everything. host: larry is in kentucky, good morning. larry? caller: yes. can you hear me? host: go ahead. caller: well, first of all, hello. i do not know what your personal position is on this, but you do

not come office clean as you should be. i thought you were supposed to have no opinion, yes or no, but you are coming off a little no. i will tell you this much. i have been where most all those people have been. i have read classified jobs, i have had jobs i was helping people, i have had jobs rose going to be helped. i have had to help accidents because of negligence of those that had money that got away with things they should not have gotten away with. that is the biggest problem you have with it. you did not take any consideration for the people trying to get back to work, doing the jobs other people do not want to do.

you do not have a satisfactory work schedule, where the people trying to work and prove themselves or their family or how to improve society by creating something that is going to be a betterment to all mankind. host: what is your situation? caller: mine is i am well over 70 and i am considering trying to go back to work, because i believe i can be more productive , i believe there are still skills that i have that may be able to help other people in the community.

i also have seen where people did not want to hire people of a certain age, whether they could or not work. that they discriminated against them because they could by saying they did not make qualifications or were overqualified in that is ridiculous. if they are qualified to do the work and you need someone to do that particular work, you are going to stay without using those in a position for another two months or so to find someone else who does not qualify? host: in north carolina, good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. i support, especially this

generation now is out here doing nothing. host: when you say this generation, what are you talking about? caller: i am talking about people from 25 to 40. host: they are already required to work. the new enhanced requirement is just between 49 and 54. first snap, food benefits. -- for snap, food benefits. caller: there's a lot of people out here that are young that can work and just because they receive food stamps, they do not. i am saying -- look at all of the people coming in the country. they are young but they get everything free. we have to be here as citizens, we paid taxes.

we have to go through all of this and no one is ever thinking about these illegals, they are here getting everything for free. but we pay for everything we have, we have to pay and go through changes will people come in here and take everything from us. if they want to be here, they should be able to do what they do to us as americans. host: let us look at president biden, this is a portion of his speech from friday night. he talked about protecting programs like social security and medicare from cuts. [video clip] >> during my stay of the union address, there is an exchange between me and a few republicans spontaneously occurring.

i was pointing out that for years, some of them are putting poor proposals to cut social security and medicare. some of them that night took exception and said very loudly that was not true. so i asked on the floor that night, will you agree not to cut social security and medicare? would they agree to protect these essential programs, a lifeline for millions of americans? programs that americans have been paying into since they started working and provided so much peace of mind. with bright lights and cameras, the few republicans who were protesting said they would not cut it. that is how we protected social security and medicare from the beginning. health care was another priority, a top priority. i made it clear i would not agree to any cuts in medicaid,

another essential lifeline for millions of americans. original house republican proposal would have cut health care for up to 21 million americans on medicare. i said no. medicare was protected. so were millions of people most in need. host: that was president biden friday night and we are asking your opinion on the enhanced work requirements to receive federal aid like snap. numbers on your screen. support (202) 748-8000, oppose (202) 748-8001, and if you are currently receiving federal aid you can call us on (202) 748-8002. next in minnesota, good morning. caller: morning. i am not exactly sure how i feel about that.

i think 49, 50 four, if they are getting help, there must be a reason for it. i know they are tough here in minnesota. i was listening to the news this morning and they said our state lost 4000 jobs due to ai in just the last month. so i do not know where people are going to be working. we've had a robot running around walmart for the last two years cleaning, i do not know where people will end up working. host: let us talk to gary in ohio. caller: i forgot the city i am calling from, dayton, ohio. i get snap benefits and for me, they start on the 16th of the month and i've already gone through all of my money.

i've got to go for another two weeks. host: do you work now? caller: no, i am forced retirement because -- i lost my job back in 2008 and i cannot seem to get the type of work i was working at. i'm 67 now, so i would love to work, but i can't seem to find work that i want to do and physical labor is not possible right now for me. i've got bad feet. host: is there any work you could do that would help? you are saying it is hard for you to make ends meet. caller: i had a nice cushy

office drug before i lost it. that is the only type of work i can do, someplace i can sit down and do office type work. but it is hard. pretty soon, people are going to require -- the food nazis, where they require you to only by certain foods on the card, you will not be allowed to buy potato chips or ice cream or frozen pizza. they're going to say that is not one of the legal foods you are allowed to buy. that is all i have. host: in florida, good morning. irvin? no?

lewis and north carolina that she north carolina --lewis in north carolina? caller: look, people. this is what you get when you vote republican. republicans, independents, democrat. white people, color. republicans do not care about you. everything you did to put them in office, get ready to pull up by your bootstraps because they think everybody is going to do what they do. they do nothing. they do not want you to sit back and do nothing, they want you to work. people, you have not seen nothing yet. keep putting the republicans in.

you all have a good day. host: a quick programming note, secretary of state antony blinken will be talking about u.s. israel relations during a speech at the american israel policy summit. we will have that live at 9:00 on c-span2 and c-span now, and online at c-span.org. also today at 1:00 p.m. is a civil liberty and national security policy advocate, they will discuss the impact of u.s. surveillance programs that were put in place in the wake of 9/11. that is life beginning at 1:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2, c-span now and c-span.org. we are taking your calls for the next 10 minutes on the enhanced work requirements for federal aid programs, ryan is next in

ohio. caller: good morning. go ahead. -- host: go ahead. caller: i support the work age requirements they just did. i worked all my life, i am now 62 years old. i am disabled and i cannot work right now, i am waiting to have surgery. i think this not benefit program is fair for people like myself that want to work and have always worked, but now i find myself physically disabled to the point that i cannot work like i used to.

so i support the age requirements, i think this not benefit program is fair for people like myself and others between 50 and 54. that is a good deal. most people do not want a free handout. that is all i have to say. host: we will check in on social media, these are some posts that go on facebook. if you can work, then you ought to have to. we had to work to earn money, you've been leeching off of us. stephen and michigan said people that work at certain places like walmart have to get food stamps because the company does not pay a living wage. here is a text from carlos in delaware. corporations are the biggest freeloaders on the economy. freeloaders in suits.

this is a text from david in florida, i am more worried about the wealthy and corporations who receive massive tax deductions and tax benefits. back to the phones in illinois, good morning. caller: good morning, how are you? host: good. caller: i am for the work requirements, but i retired from a corporation and the government allowed them tax breaks for my insurance and pension. i am for the work requirements and i think the government, rather than -- they should work with corporations to help people on the job that they have, whether they are low income or higher income.

help them. give them a tax break, people that work for their corporation, for their insurance and pension. you get the 401(k) and that might be volatile. but i am for the work requirement. i think it is good but i think the corporations should help and the government should allow them's a tax break to help people. rather than corporations to make money, billions and billions of dollars. host: barbara is in arkansas. caller: i am 80 years old. the only time i have had food

stamps i have had of any value was during the pandemic when i got a lot of food stamps i never expected to get. as the pandemic was winding down , things began to change even more so. of course, they cut me off completely. my rent went up 125.3% the same year. it is due to go up again this coming october. i have no idea how for up it is going to go. right now with my utilities -- i have to have cable because we do not have services here where i am at. and i need my phone. the bottom line is, when they cut the food stamps off i was getting during the pandemic, that was my lifeline. when they raised my rent and now

what i am facing this coming october with another increase means i will have no money for food. my prescriptions -- i did not know why everyone keeps saying prescriptions are going down. every month over the last 90 days, my prescription expenses have gone up. i am trying to live on about $123 a month for food, prescriptions and transportation because we do not have public transportation out here. host: do you not qualify for food stamps now? caller: no. they took my food stamps away. host: let us hear from marise in florida. caller: good morning. i just wanted to say, i do support it.

i have never had food stamps and i have worked, i understand the need for some people to have it. but the work requirement, i was wondering, why haven't we look at one thing, which is job placement? some sort of mandated job placement case-by-case. i understand when you receive the benefits there are certain requirements that have to be fulfilled. couldn't we do that with job placement based on the income need? secondly, why did we do away with the cost-of-living increase? once the cost-of-living increase stops, that is when the gap created in this country because things could go higher. it used to be a time where the increase would go along with wages.

since wages went along with the cost-of-living, you did not have so much of that. it was easier to weed out the people that wanted to work, people that needed assistance instead of people that are just trying to use -- host: this is from cindy on facebook. get your able body off the couch, stop selling your food stamps in the walmart parking what and get a job. you are robbing from those who need it. steve from facebook, why wouldn't there be work requirements? clara is in arkansas. caller: alaska. good morning. i oppose what is being discussed, i think the government should look at the

economy of what state they live in. here in alaska, everything has skyrocketed. all of the prices went up and people make minimum wage here. i do not understand why -- we are put on the snap line because of minimum wage and the cost of living keeps coming up. i live on an island here and i have lived here for 14 years.

this town is rated the second highest rate to live in alaska. i hate to cut you off, but we are out of time for the segment. after the break, congress may have avoided a default on the debt, but the partisan spending fights are far from over. cq roll call editor-in-chief jason dick as is. later, amy howe discusses the cases the supreme court will issue rulings on later this month. ♪ ♪ >> since 1979, in partnership

with the cable industry, c-span has provided complete coverage of the halls of congress, from house and senate floors to congressional hearings, party briefings, and committee meetings. c-span gives you a front row seat to how issues are debated and decided, with no commentary, no interruptions, and completely unfiltered. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. ♪ >> order your copy of the 118th congressional directory now available at c-spanshop.org. it is your access to the federal government, with bio and contact information for every house and senate member, important information on congressional committees, the president's cabinet, federal agencies, and state governors. scan the code at the right to order your copy today or go to c-spanshop.org. it is $29.95, plus shipping and handling. every purchase helps support our

nonprofit operation. >> healthy democracy does not just look like this, it looks like this, where americans can see democracy at work, or citizens are truly informed. our republic thrives. get reports straight from the source on c-span, unfiltered, unbiased, word for word. from the nation's capital to wherever you are. get the opinion that matters the most. your own. this is what democracy looks like. powered by cable. ♪ >> c-span now it is a free mobile app featuring your view -- your unfiltered view of what is happening in washington, live and on-demand. keep up with the day's biggest events with livestreamed floor proceedings from the u.s. congress, white house events, the court, campaigns, and more from the world of politics. all at your fingertips. you can also stay current with the latest episodes of "washington journal" and find

scheduling information for c-span's tv network and c-span radio, plus a variety of compelling podcasts. c-span now is available at the apple store and google play. downloaded for free today. c-span now, your front row seat washington anytime, anywhere. ♪ >> watch vid on demand anytime online at c-span.org. and try our points of interest feature, which uses marke to guide you to newsworthy and interesting highlights of our key coverage. use it anytime online at c-span.org. announcer: "washington journal" continues. host: we are now joined by the editor-in-chief of cq roll call, jason dick. let's start with the debt ceiling negotiation.

we avoided default. we did not have catastrophe. but is this house divided government going to work now? are we going to be lurching from crisis to crisis? guest: probably. not to be pessimistic about it. i prefer to think of it more as realistic. several of my colleagues describe me as the "debt doomer" in recent months. i do not see how they were going to get past their biggest differences in opinions. these are folks who have very strong views on spending and policy issues. the fact that they did get it, i think, is almost a best case scenario for what could have gone wrong. congress always responds to deadlines. in this case, they did respond. i give them credit for actually getting a deal, for sitting down, for negotiating. there are a lot of unhappy

people in washington right now, particularly senate republicans, and some folks on the extreme wings of both parties. i think what we are going to see is that for all of the good feelings we have now, not nervously checking with the markets are about to do and wondering what comes next, it is probably going to be some form of last-minute negotiation over deadlines over and over again for as long as we have this kind of government. host: what's tricky about that whole process and the votes in both the house and senate? guest: i was struck that it was so bipartisan, particularly in the house. in the senate, things tend to get rolling one thing realize their backs are against the wall. i did not expect anywhere near 300 plus votes in the house. it was truly a moment that took me by surprise, which does not happen that much. washington has a sort of theater

to it, if you will. i think it was going to be a lot closer. it was very striking to me. it's also very striking that it came together so quickly. the president, again, said, "i will not negotiate about the debt limit." then, we got these warnings from janet yellen, the treasury secretary. we are going to have to do this. the president cut his trip to asia short so he could come back and engage directly, or at least his team more directly, with kevin mccarthy and his team. it came together quickly enough, even though we got these little alerts. in time you thought you could relax a little bit, that they are back at the table, back in a conference room. we would get these notes that someone would walk out in a huff. it was sort of this "the wedding is off" mentality. then, they would get back together 12, 14, 24 hours later.

i think that is a testament to the people who the president, kevin mccarthy, and the speaker chose. these are serious people. they obviously have their own political views, but everyone seemed motivated to get this done. that was striking. we may be lurching from crisis to crisis, because congress responds most acutely to deadlines, not thinking too far in the future. but if people can engage in this manner, intelligently and articulately, and everyone gives a little and gets a little, that is somewhat of a positive, i think. host: i will remind our viewers that if you would like to ask questions or make a comment for our guest, the editor-in-chief of cq roll call, you can do that by party affiliation. republicans can call (202) 748-8001, democrats (202) 748-8000, and independents (202) 748-8002. still talking about speaker mccarthy, do you think he emerged from this stronger,

weaker? where is the freedom caucus on possibly challenging his leadership? guest: i will answer the last part of your question first. part of the negotiations for kevin mccarthy to get the votes to become speaker involved him allowing a challenge. it is called a privileged resolution it is technical, bullet basically comes down to is that you have to hold this boat and anyone can file for it. if there are enough people that don't like you, and he only has a handful of votes to spare in the majority, he could be removed as speaker, even though the chair would be vacated. that could happen at any time. that is not to be underestimated. there is this thing hanging over him, this cloud, if you will. but then the question becomes as well, who will take his place? this kidding -- this could

create an incredibly chaotic situation. it's not clear. let's say the freedom caucus says, we are going to do this. we are going to raise this motion to vacate the chair and dumped kevin mccarthy. well, who is next? it's not like any of them will get the votes, particularly from kevin mccarthy's leadership team, at least not immediately. it sounds very ominous, but it is also not clear because it is a vote of the whole house. it does not take much for anybody to make mischief, but if they are not careful, they end up with multiple rounds of voting and it isn't clear how it turns out. at least for the immediate future, that would be a move that would be very extreme. that does not mean that the most conservative members are not extremely upset about how these negotiations went. we have seen the footage of the house triangle, chip roy and so

forth, very upset, saying this amounted basically to a betrayal of what they had fought for when they got their initial bill out of the house in april. it is ominous, but it's not clear what will come back. i think that fear keeps everybody a little bit in check. mutually assured instruction, if you will, at a political level. so, back to whether he came out stronger, weaker, or the same. i would argue he is come out of it stronger. i don't think anybody thought in april that he could get a bill through the chamber with just his caucus. there were too many variables. but he got a lot of moderates to vote for a very conservative bill. he held his caucus together. he unified democratic opposition. and then, to negotiate this with the president, get it through the senate, avert the default, coming together like it did with that kind of bipartisan vote, i

think that speaks to a surprise. if everybody focuses on the freedom caucus, because they are very good at getting their message out and they have very strongly held beliefs, but there are also a lot of people in the middle of the republican caucus. some voted for joe biden. you could make an argument that the majority for the republicans really does run through california and new york, particularly in the last midterm election. those are folks who are not as loud, if you will, or present in social media or on tape -- on cable television. sometimes, it is hard to get jazzed about being a moderate. we are holding spending to 1%. that does not kick up the fundraising. but these are the folks who know feel empowered, i think. they saw this was the way divided government works, to

your initial question at the top of the hour. everybody has to give something to get something. that is a pretty big block of people that i think now have mccarthy's back. host: let's talk about jeffries comments democratic leader, the house minority leader. he produced a lot of democratic votes in the house for that bill. how does he emerge? is he stronger, weaker, and how is he dealing with the more progressive side of his party that was against this deal? guest: that's a good question. i think jeffries seems to have a pretty good relationship with mccarthy. they seem warmer around each other personally, which has not always been the case with minority and majority leadership. he seems to have held his conference together. the number of democrats who did support it was also a surprise to me. the congressional progressive caucus is extremely upset about

the cuts and the caps, and also the attention to defense programs that was necessary to get a lot of republicans on board. certainly, they had their counterparts in the senate as well, with people like bernie sanders. but it does not seem like jeffries is in any danger. he still has what seems to be a very quiet, but firm support from the former speaker, nancy pelosi. there was a warm moment between them on the floor during the vote. it doesn't seem like jeffries is going anywhere and he has a lot of rope. he was not engaged in the negotiations, neither was mitch mcconnell, the minority leader in the senate. being minority leader, and some ways, is a likely easier task because you don't have control over the agenda, just how you approach opposition. it seems like jeffries negotiated this as well as he

could. probably status quo on that, maybe a little more, because he got so many folks and it showed as bipartisan. i think that is something that really matters to the president, particularly as he gives of his reelection bid. he can say, my bipartisanship works. it kind of cues in with all of the messaging that the presidential reelection campaign will be forwarding. host: now that the drama of the debt ceiling over, we have september 30. the house is out all of august. so, what is going to happen? this is a headline i want to show from "new york magazine." "did we just trade a debt default with a government shutdown?" guest: i don't think so. washington tends to get in gear toward the very end. i would not expect that we are going to start worrying about

government shutdowns until september. then, things will come together quickly either on a resolution or short-term funding bill. part of this debt limit deal, if they don't sign the appropriations bill into law, there is a 1% cut that would kick in for all programs, which is a real motivator for everything, for defense and nondefense spending. that tends to focus the mind a little bit. i was talking about this with my wife in december. it seems like december is already gone, when you start claiming that kids are going back to school and we are going to visit friends. it's kind of like that with congress. i would suspect that in the time we have been talking, the house and senate are going to start scheduling their markups at the committee level for appropriations bills. they put all of those on hold because of the debt limit drama. they did not want to mark

something up that will be overtaken by other policies that were set in the debt limit deal. we have got a few weeks to go before the independence day recess. we will see a flurry of activity at the committee level. the appropriations people, especially the committee leaders, are going to be very motivated to try to get their stamp on the appropriations process. so, you never rule out congress making things difficult on themselves. but there are several motivating factors that were not there in previous years. it is tempting to say september 30 is right around the corner, but they do have a little bit through summer and august. host: they have plenty of time. [laughter] guest: they tend to stay a few extra days, especially if they have got something. host: speaking of history, i want to go back to 1996. explain what happened in that

year, because that was the last time congress actually completed all 12 appropriation bills. what happened that year and what was special? guest: so, divided government for one. [laughter] we had president clinton. he was in his own reelection bid. the republicans controlled both the house and senate. despite the way i think a lot of people view the 1990's, there was this time of extreme partisanship, and i'm not saying there was not. but after the initial government shutdown of the early parts of that first congress that took office in 1990 five, which was the 1994 elections, the speaker and president clinton figured out a way to work together. they figured out a way to do welfare. they got trains running back on time. this actually produced a status quo election in 1996. the president was reelected and the republicans maintain their

majorities in both chambers. host: let's talk to our collars now. james is first in ohio. independent. hi, james. caller: hello. i think it is just ridiculous that our government really expects to get a pat on the back for doing anything these past months. they created this whole catastrophe, they had all the american people nervous and worried about things that they created. we have to do a better job at picking our leaders, the ones we currently have are greedy and lazy. we have got to do a better job. they are not representing even their constituents. they are representing their party and that is the only thing they are interested in, period. thank you. guest: the caller has a point particularly about the debt limit, as has been pointed out by several people. we are one of the few countries

who has a debt limit where we continue to approach this catastrophic default periodically. it doesn't ever seem to be an issue when there is not divided government. actually, it wasn't even much of an issue when democrats control the house over -- under donald trump. they raised it without this kind of stuff we have seen the last few months. but one of the things that i think a lot of countries just wonder, what is this and why do you guys have this? certainly, the president was mulling. it does not sound like it got to a really serious level, of invoking the 14th amend that, which says the full faith and credit in the united states will not be called into question. that seems to be fairly straightforward language in the constitution. but the effect it would have had on the markets and so forth is not something they would have wanted to try out at this point, especially if they got a deal.

with a little bit of time to spare -- but other countries, i think the president's meeting with the prime minister's of denmark and the united kingdom, i would just love to be a fly on the wall and hear those conversations. i can't help but think that these leaders from other countries are like, what is this debt limit thing and why do you have this? you are the largest economy in the road, you have the dollar and the currency of the world. this is what everything on the planet runs on financially. host: following that, bobby is asking you on twitter, did you get white house republicans could not allow a clean debt ceiling bill? explain it to us. guest: as far as what republicans have been able to do in this round of negotiation and in previous rounds, they feel that this is a way that they can

get their own policy preferences in a time of divided government. they know that democrats will engage with them eventually on it. no one is willing to choose a hostage, to use a blunt metaphor. this is the way they can get policy changes that would not normally make their way through the normal process of passing the house, the senate, signed into law by the president. it is just something that you cannot get through with normal processes. this is the way that they do it. host: let's talk to stephen next in georgia, republican. caller: hello. host: hello, go right ahead. caller: this is going to be a changing day in your life. how do you feel about not being trusted by your wife? host: i'm not sure what that was about, but i want to ask you --

guest: maybe the summer planning, i guess? host: [laughter] i want to ask you about the biden family investigations. what are you watching? guest: right now, we have the house oversight committee run by james comer. he seems to be zeroing in particularly on the president's son and other aspects of that. i think there's going to be a little bit of overlap with the house judiciary committee with the weaponization of the government subcommittee that jim jordan chairs for both panels. i think that we are -- that what we are watching primarily is, why can't they seem to hit on a consistent theme? it seems like they talk a little bit about hunter biden, then a little bit about the president's brother, then a little bit about something else. it does not ever seem to coalesce around coherent messaging. it really is just a messaging more at this point.

-- messaging war at this point. the witnesses they have called, particularly if they don't allow democrats to cross-examine them, that sort of calls into question, what is going on here? i think whether the president's son, in particular, is indicted, it is going to be the -- going to be outside the purview of the congress. i think when people hear "hunter biden's laptop," it is's something that people can get really riled up about or they drill down on. i don't need to pay attention to this, i have heard about this thing. hunter biden seems to be pushing back a little bit more. he has a relatively new legal team that seems to be engaging on this. i think one of the things outside of congress is that they have asked to depose the owner of this computer repair shop that had his laptop.

what we are looking for is whether the republicans, particularly jim komar on oversight, can stick with one topic that seems to resonate and not bump into what the house judiciary committee is doing with its multiple investigations. most of it does not have anything to do with the biden family, but when they hear biden and this committee, it sort of all gels into one. it is unclear who this is resonating with outside of the base of the republican party. host: let's talk to patsy next. she is in louisville, kentucky, independent. good morning. caller: good morning, how are you? host: good. caller: i will try to make this as quick as i can because i have a little bit to say. part of the reason i think we are having the debt ceiling is because, like he said, everyone isn't just greedy. i know people, when covid was

on, the business got the money that was supposed to help retain workers so they could take off and didn't have to worry about getting sick, and the workers had to work the whole time. in the company still got the money. that's just the businesses doing that. another thing is, there's a lot of people -- i mean, everyone retired at 55 years old. i have been working for 33 years full-time and part-time, about half and half. my husband has been doing the same. we don't get assistance from anybody. we after pay for everything. house insurance, taxes, everything went up. our carb broke down. we got lucky and not a new one before prices skyrocketed. host: is your point about the enhanced work requirements under the debt deal? caller: excuse me? host: is your point about the

enhanced work requirements under the debt ceiling deal or what exactly? caller: i heard you all talking about the debt ceiling and stuff like that. that is what i have been waiting on. host: ok, we will get a response. any comment, jason? guest: i think with the color brings up is a good point, which is that people in the united states -- again, we have seen an accomplishment here. we have seen bipartisan accomplishment. but for them, it is narrowly averting catastrophe. it doesn't really have an effect on their life. what they're looking for is government to be responsive not just to the crises that they are engaged in, but how are they going to actually make life better for the average person in america? i think that is coming through with these two callers. they both mentioned the greed of corporations and government. powerful people in america have

an image problem. part of it stems from when they see these negotiations and drama, the first thing out of our mind is like, this will be catastrophic for the markets. but what if you don't care about the markets? what if you don't have a robust retirement program, what if you are just getting by day today, try to make car payments, homeownership insurance payments , like that last caller? host: let's try to get in one more call. this is joe from new jersey, republican. caller: how are you? host: good. caller: i just can't believe i am hearing what i am hearing from your guest. he said that they can't seem to pinpoint one person that they are investigating. the whole family are crooks. from the guy in the white house to his sons, rather's, alliance, uncles. i am one of these ultra-maga

guys. people where you are, they think we are stupid. but i have been following since 2016 what they did to the guy that i voted for. they tried to frame him. it was used by the media and the corrupt government did now, this guy is telling me that nobody cares about the hunter biden laptop? is he kidding me? host: go ahead, jason. guest: that's not what i said. i think this resonates very strongly, as we saw from the last caller for some folks, but not everybody. he described himself as an ultra-maga person. that is someone who is super engaged in this issue. i'm not try to take away from that or say it is an important. but the independents out there that are struggling to pay their homeowners insurance and mortgage, prescription drug

costs, and so forth, i don't think it is resonating as strongly with them. host: that is the time we have got. jason dick, editor-in-chief of cq roll call, thank you for joining us. guest: thank you for having me. host: still head on "washington journal," reporter amy howe will discuss the supreme court cases the supreme court will be issuing rulings on this month. stay with us. ♪ ♪ >> c-span campaign 2024 coverage is your firm proceed to the presidential election. watch our coverage of the candidates on the campaign trail with announcement,s meet and greet -- announcements, meeting greets, and events to make up

your mind. watch online at any time at c-span.org. c-span, your unfiltered view of politics. >> watch video on demand anytime online at c-span.o and use our points of interest feature, a tool that uses markers to quickly guide you to newsworthy highlights of our coverage. use the tool anytime online at c-span.org. >> listening to programs on c-span through c-span radio just got easier. tell your smart speaker "play c-span radio," and listen to washington journal daily and weekdays at 5:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. eastern cath what -- catch washington today.

c-span, per by cable -- powered by cable. >> nonfiction book lovers, c-span has a number of podcasts for you. on q&a here wide-ranging conversations with nonfiction authors and others who are making a change. we regularly feature authors of nonfiction books. we take you behind the scenes of nonfiction publishing with podcasts. find these wherever you get your podcasts. >> a healthy democracy does not just look like this. it looks like this where

citizens can see democracy at work. get informed straight from the source on c-span, unfiltered, unbiased, word for word from the nation's capital to wherever you are because the opinion that matters the most is your own. this is what democracy looks like. c-span, powered by cable. >> washington journal continues. host: welcome back to washington journal. i'm joined now by amy howe. she is the cofounder and a reporter at scotus blog. let's talk about the term, the 2022-2023 term that is wrapping up. anything that surprised you? guest: we are waiting on all of the verge -- on virtually all of the big decisions, so it is

really too soon. we are still waiting on 27 cases to draw any conclusions about what this version of the court will look like this term. host: we will talk about some of the cases we are waiting on. touchy brown jackson was new this term -- could tonja brown jackson was new this term. what did you expect from her? guest: she has been a very active justice, may be one of the most active new justices. that is not surprising. she spent most of her time as a judge, a trial court judge. she was the only one in the courtroom. she is very active. she has a lot of questions. she is often working with the other two liberal judges to present a liberal point of view. they are outnumbered.

they are all quite active. host: we will be taking your calls on the supreme court and the cases they are looking at. if you would like to call in, you can do that for the next 40 minutes. the lines are by party affiliatio. republicans, (202) 748-8000. democrats, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. let's talk about affirmative-action. guest: there are two separate cases, one involving the university of north carolina, the other involving harvard college. there are challenges to those universities consideration of race in their admissions processes. in a previous case, the court ruled that the university of michigan could consider race in its admissions process.

that was a 5-4 decision by sandra day o'connor. in the decision at the end, justice o'connor wrote that "in 25 years we would hope that the consideration of race would no longer be necessary, because universities would be able to achieve this diversity through other means." it is 20 years later. the court is a different court been the one we had in 2003. students for fair admissions brought this challenge to unc arguing that unc could have a diverse student body without considering race, and against harvard saying its consideration of race discriminated against asian american students in favor of black, hispanic, and white students. the lowered courts ruled in favor in both cases, and the

supreme court agreed to weigh in and heard oral arguments at the end of october. it seemed unlikely that -- the question is what exactly is the supreme court going to do? we are waiting on tenterhooks to hear. host: this is about race being either one factor or the determining factor. here is the exchange with chief stice roberts. [video clip] >> bei african-american, or being hispanic, or in some instances being asian american, n ovide one of many, many tips. >> you will have to concede that it provides one of many, so it will be determinative. we're talking about race as a

determining factor for admission to harvard. >> for some highly qualified applicants, it could be the determining factor just as being an oboe player in a year in which the harvard radcliffe orchestra nes oboe player could b a tip. >> wdid not fight a civil war against oboe players. we fought a civil war to eliminate discrimination that is why it is a matter of concern. it is important for you to determine whether giving a credit based on skin color is rooted in stereotype when you say this brings diversity of viewpoint. host: how big of a change with the speed college admissions? guest: this exchange makes a couple of points. the first is that the concession from seth waxman that race does play a role for some students in the admissions process, and the

second one is the response from chief justice ron bought -- justice john roberts. some people think of him as being one of the "sw3ing judges -- swing judges." in another case relating to race, he wrote "the way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." this is something he feels very strongly about. what is the impact? justice elena kagan spoke aut the importance of this. she talked about what the impact could be not only on admissions to colleges but on society more broadly.

college is a pipeline to positions at businesses. if you do not have diversity at colleges, you are less likely to have diversity in businesses. host: let's talk about student loan forgiveness. there are challenges to president biden's plan to forgive certain amounts of student loans based on other factors. what sense did you get from the arguments about how this would go? guest: there were two separate challenges by some attorneys state general, and to borrowers. one borrow -- and two borrowers. one of them has federal loans but would, not benefit to the fullest extent. they are challenging the program as it is drafted.

the first hurdle that both plaintiffs have to clear is standing whether they have a legal right to sue because not everyone can go into court and say "i don't like this policy." you have to show you are injured by this policy. if one of the borrowers are injured, than the challenges can go forward. the way it looks like the case could go forward, is missouri set up an agency to hold them to service student loans. the argument is that if $400 billion in student loans are canceled, they will not make as much money, and they will not be able to contribute to the state's university plans the way it used to. it opens up the doors for other challenges, but if they can let their cases go forward on this

narrow ground, they are not opening up the doors in the same way. then you have the substance of the challenge on the merits. the biden administration relied on the heroes act, which allowed the secretary of education to waive the student loan program so student borrowers are worse off because of the national emergency. in outlining this debt relief program, the secretary of education relied on the heroes act. in the initial student loan payment pause in the trump administration, betsy devos relied on the same statute. the secretary of education relied on this law but the challengers are relying on the major questions doctrine. under this name it is relatively new at the supreme court.

the supreme court relied on it in a case called west virginia versus the epa on the clean water act. if the government is going to pass -- the states are saying yes, the heroes act authorizes changes to the student loan program, but congress did not have $400 billion worth of changes in mind. the biden administration counters that this is exactly what congress intended to do with the heroes act. it was a national emergency, and we want to make sure borrowers are not worse off because of it. the justices seemed skeptical, particularly because the covid-19 emergency ended on may

11. we will have to wait and see what the justices do, what grounds they rely on. host: i want to get to calls, that before we do that voting rights. there was merrill versus milligan.this was around the situation in alabama . this is a complicated case involving voting rights. section two of the voting rights act of the voting rights act bars racial discrimination in voting. alabama passed a new congressional map. every 10 years, the state has to draw a new map to respond to the changes in population. they have seven seats in congress. alabama has a 27% black population. one of the state's seven congressional seats was a majority black district. the challenge to the map says you could have drawn a second majority black district. instead, you packed a bunch of

black voters into that one district, and then you moved, dispersed other black voters into multiple districts when you could have put them all into one district, and created the second majority black district. that is a violation of section 2. the state of alabama has 2 arguments. they said "if you are going to allege that there is a violation of section two of the voting rights act you have to show that we intended to discriminate against black voters." that did not fare well with the justices, even with the conservative ones. the justices could rule on a narrower ground, but it would still set a relatively high bar for people who want to challenge congressional acts under section two of the voting rights act. host: let's talk to callers. brian is next in farmersville, ohio, republican.

caller: good morning. i wanted to ask a couple questions, and then a comment real quick. i'm curious why everyone is making business decisions about color? 10% of our dna is dedicated to our race. at that point let's go ahead and commit the other 90% to the human race. i don't know why that is such a factor in this world. it shouldn't be. we are more alike than we are dislike. on college tuition, i think it is disenfranchising to a lot of people who make business decisions about "i am going to send my kid to school whether i can afford it or not." it would be nice to know if we will get state assistance, or any kind of assistance, colleges, tuitions go. that is what i do for a living.

i build the dormitories and colleges. shouldn't miss jackson recuse herself from anything that involves a human because she does not know the difference between a man or a woman? guest: a lot there. thanks for calling. host: let's go to skip in waterbury, connecticut. caller: since the supreme court has overturned roe it is amazing how much distrust of their is in the supreme court. host: what do you think about the level of trust in the supreme court? guest: i think the caller is referring to recent polling on the trust level of the supreme court, which is at historic lows. there's no getting around that. it is something that concerns the chief justice, but the

decision -- there is not much they can do about it. host: let's talk about the ethical issues. a lot has come out around justice thomas and other justices. has that affected the workings of the supreme court? guest: it is hard to know. we see so little of the supreme court. many of the pro-public articles about justice thomas came out at the end of the term. we only hear about them when they release decisions. they were already pretty far behind on the speed at which they were releasing opinions. i think that has less to do with ethical issues and more to do with the fact that they have a lot of complicated, high-profile cases, in which they are likely to be divided, and when they are divided they have main opinions,

dissenting opinions, concurrent opinions, and that takes time. there are rumors of new security procedures after the dobbs opinion. it might just take longer for them. we have seen the chief justice john roberts talking about the ethical issues. they are very much on their minds. host: we have a short clip of chief justice john roberts talking about ethics. [video clip] >> i am committed to making sure we adhere to the highest standards of conduct. we are looking at things we can do to give practical effect that commitment, and i'm confident there are ways to do that that is consistent with our status as an and departed -- as an independent part of the government. host: why has there not been a more forceful response and a

binding code of ethics for the supreme court? guest: it is hard to say because we are not in their deliberations. there is probably some internal debate at the supreme court. this came from a meeting of lawyers and law professors in washington dc. one of the interesting things about these remarks is they came after the justice's reaffirmation of the fix and a restatement of principles, it came attached to the chief justice's response to an invitation to a peer to testify about ethics. these are very vague statements about with the justices may or may not be doing. back in march of 2019, for the pandemic, justice elena kagan and justice samuel alito appeared before the senate

appropriations -- house appropriations committee to testify about the supreme court's budget. that is the rare opportunity for members of congress to question the justices about their pet projects, by cameras in the courtroom, ethics, and at that budget committee hearing, justice kagan said they were considering an ethics code. that was four years ago. it does not take that long to draft an ethics code. [laughter] host: do you think there should be one? guest: i think they need one. these questions are going to continue. even with one, it will still continue to have some issues, because they are going to be the ones who enforce it against themselves. that is part of the problem right now is that the justices individually decide whether or not to recuse in a particular case.

this was a point that was made in the statement that the justices released last month. they also talked about how concerns about security could trump the need for transparency and disclosures about travel and accommodations, but i think they need one. host: let's talk to david in chicopee, as choose its, independent -- chicopee, massachusetts, independent. caller: a lot of women and liberals will say, men have nothing to do with that. they should not have any decision in that. yet in 1972 the only people on the supreme court were men, and apparently they had no trouble with men deciding that. the second thing i find to be bothering to me is the loans for students. i took my loans from my house. i took my loan for my car. i took my loan to pay off my

college debts. why do these people think they should have their loans paid off? i cannot believe that. what is your opinion on that? guest: chief justice john roberts made a similar point during oral arguments. he talked about people who graduated from high school at the same time, one person took out loans to good college, and one person took out loans to start a business. one is getting their loan forgiven and the other is not. host: i want to ask you about lgbtq rights. what is the back story on that? guest: some of your viewers may remember in 2018 there was a case involving a cake maker in colorado who said "i am christian. i don't want to bake cakes for same-sex couples because i believe marriage should be a union between a man and a

woman." the supreme court ruled for him, they do not decide the issue at the heart of the case, which is how do you balance the rights of lgbtq people and his religious rights? they ruled for him on a narrow ground. they said administrative agency was hostile to his religious beliefs. that same question is back in the case of a colorado website designer. she does graphic design. she says she wants to do wedding websites but only for heterosexual couples. i don't want to do same-sex couples because i believe peerages between a man and a woman, and i want to put a sign on my website that says i do not to same-sex wedding websites, but i would run afoul of colorado's antidiscrimination laws. she went to court seeking a declaration that she would not get into trouble for doing that. it is the question, how do you

balance the rights of lgbtq people and business people with religious beliefs? the supreme court at the oral argument in december seemed ready to roll for the website designer. a question that comes up is her case. how do they decide other cases? on multiple levels how do they decide other service providers? you have a wedding website. that is clearly her creating speech, but what about a musician who does not want to play at a same-sex wedding ceremony? what about the invitation designer? the cake maker? the limo driver? where do you draw the line in terms of service providers? where you draw the line in terms of other people who are protected by the antidiscrimination laws? can someone say "i have my religious beliefs. i don't want to provide services

to women or minorities"? how exactly do they write the opinion? guest: let's -- host: let's talk to john in east hampton, massachusetts. caller: one of the things i just heard you say is what would happen if there was a christian wedding and they wanted a jewish person to cater it. that wouldn't be all right. people say kevin mccarthy had to give up a lot to get this speaker should. i wonder what biden had to give up to the crazy libtard left to get his position? host: let's go to kathy in albuquerque, new mexico, democrat, good morning. caller: i don't think people trust of the supreme court lately based on some of their decisions that are inconsistent. they also used two specs a

long tradition -- use to respect a long tradition. when you bring up dobbs and brewer, the gun and to bashan -- the gun and abortion debate, they wanted to regulate abortion, but when it came to braylen, they were ok overturning new york gun licensing. that is what the conservatives -- i wanted to see what you thought about that. guest: i think the public perception of the core is a real concern for chief justice john roberts. that is why we see him speaking out about ethics again, because he probably realized that the initial effort with the justice's statement reaffirming their shared principles about ethics did not satisfy people.

he. is returning to it agai he is . it is something they have within their control. we talked in 2012 when the decision came out in the health care case about chief justice' s. it is something -- about the chief justice's concern for the institution. host: ann is a republican in virginia. good morning. caller: she failed to mention that the heroes act was meant to help soldiers who had to quit school to join the military during the 9/11 effort. the entire nation benefited from these young people who had to quit their education and still had loan payments due.

i don't know how anyone is equating this loan forgiveness bid by biden. you used the word equitable. taxpayers do not benefit. only the student is benefiting. they can avoid homes, cars, educations. i would like that as the media talks about this, they should circle back to the point of why we have the heroes acted to begin with, and why it has been conflated by all political administrations in order to gain favor. guest: i didn't mean to gloss over it. i think you made the point very eloquently. host: let's talk about another case, which is moore versus harper. guest: this is a fascinating case. it is potentially a very far-reaching case, depending on how the court rules. there is also a question of

whether the court will reach the merits in this case. this is a case out of north carolina, once again involving redistricting. again, north carolina drew a congressional map. the north carolina supreme court throughout the map. they said it -- court through out the map. they said it was the product of gerrymandering, and it violated the state constitution's promise of free and fair elections. the republicans went to federal court, and they argued that the north carolina supreme court's actions in throwing out the map violated the independent state legislature theory, and that is the idea that the federal constitution gives state legislatures near complete

control over federal elections without interference from state courts. this is not a theory that a majority of the u.s. supreme court has endorsed yet. several justices in bosch versus gore -- bush versus gore outlined it in a concurrent opinion. this is not a theory that a majority has endorsed yet. the supreme court agreed to weigh in. they hurt o -- heard oral argument on the case. it did not seem like there was a majority that was ready to go full throated states can never interfere in a state legislature's actions -- full throated "state courts can never interfere in the state legislature's actions."

the court went from a democratic-controlled court, because they have elections, the state supreme court, to a republican controlled state supreme court. the republican-controlled state supreme court this spring threw out, reversed its earlier ruling and said "we believe the supreme court cannot assess these partisan gerrymandering claims." the supreme court asked for more briefing from everyone involved on whether or not it can consider this case at all. there is -- is there a dispute anymore? guest: what about the independent state led-- host: the independent state legislature theory, what would happen if it was implemented? guest: it could be a massive shift in how our elections are

run. the u.s. supreme court a few years ago said there is no role for the government in partisan gerrymandering claims. the state courts would not be able to have any say. they could enact many other rules regarding federal elections for the house of representatives, for the senates and state courts would not be able to step in and play any role if they violated the state constitution. host: let's talk to sheila in st. petersburg, florida, democrat. caller: one question i have on the reversal of roe v. wade was n't it based mainly on a no

privacy right? host: was it about privacy? is that why they reversed it? caller: that was the main basis for being able to reverse it. guest: that was one of the reasons. they said the constitution does not say anything about a right to privacy, right to abortion. if you look at the history, there is no history of this being a right. host: the thing else regarding abortion coming up before this supreme court? anything happening? host: we are way -- guest: we are waiting, for the fifth circuit which is based in texas which is a conservative court. they heard oral argument last month in the battle over the availability of the abortion pill. we are waiting for the court of

appeals to rule on that. either way i would expect that to wind up at the supreme court in the upcoming term. host: we have been talking about things we are expecting to come down. what about some of the decisions that have already happened for this term? guest: we have had a couple of big ones. we had one involving the clean water act recently. wetlands are protected by the clean water act. the court unanimously ruled that an idaho couple's wetlands -- it affects this couple but could affect the regulation of wetlands much more broadly -- unanimously agreed that this particular couple's property was not wetlands but split 5-4 on what the test should be.

the court decided on a test that would be hard for the epa to meet. i has tot be a continuous connection to other waters has to be a continuous connection to other water. if there is some sort of daikon the way, then -- sort of d ike in the way, then they are not wetlands. replacing justice ginsburg with amy coney barrett, if you have a 5-4 court, the liberal justices only need to pick off one more to get a liberal result, but it is much more difficult for them to do. host: there is an article that outlined this. "the majority of americans favor affirmative action in colleges.

63% of americans do not think the supreme court should ban affirmative action and college admissions." caller: guest: -- guest: there is often that disconnect. i think we saw that with the decision on dobbs and the new york gun case. the justices, i think they would tell you their job is not to take polls. the conservative judges say they look at the constitution and do what it says. host: any issues around immigration the supreme court may be taking up or has been taken up? i think there was a decision, new mexico versus mayorkas. guest: we are also waiting for a decision in the united states versus texas, which is about the

by mid administration's -- the biden administration's prioritization for enforcement. the biden administration has prioritized some illegal immigrants, and some states have flack that is being inconsistent with immigration -- flagged that as being inconsistent with immigration law. the biden administration has said congress has not given us the resources to catch and keep and deport everyone who is potentially subject to deportation, so we are prioritizing who we want to do that for. we have the discretion to do that. that is the case before the supreme court. it could be decided any day now. host: going back to religious

rights, we talked about lgbtq issues, but there is also the pending case, which is grounds. -- which is groms v. dejoy. guest: it is about a mail carrier who does not want to work on sundays. host: there is no delivery on sundays. guest: there is amazon. when the post office contracted with amazon to deliver on sundays, it became a problem. he offered to work on saturdays, on holidays. there is a decades old decision that interprets the federal employment discrimination laws. how far does a employer have to go to accommodate an employee's religious beliefs?

under that standard interpreted by the supreme court, the answer was very little. you only have to make -- they do not require you to do anything more than the minimum amount of effort. goff came to the supreme court asking them to overturn that decision. the justices did not seem inclined to overturn that decision, but at the same time to say employers do have to do more than the minimum amount of effort. host: the last thing i want to wrap up with, asking you about packing the court. guest: yes. host: people on the left were justifiably upset about what happened to merrick garland at the end of the obama administration. what are your thoughts about that? how would it work? guest: i am a reporter, so i

don't really have thoughts on whether it is a good idea. my response has always been with the division in congress, it has been and continues to be a nonstarter. i cannot really see a scenario in which congress is going to do it. there are arguments for it and against it./ ironically, i think it is something that is easier to do than changing term limits for justices. term limits would require an amendment to the constitution. it is such a nonstarter right now with this congress. host: mary is calling us from las vegas, democrat, good morning. caller: a few comments. we have a problem with the supreme court. they have been purchased by

extreme right people -- harlan crow, leonard leo. you have a coup-plotting wife for justice thomas. roberts and thomas are supposed to disclose their income. that has not been done. with regards to roe v. wade, they all agreed that they -- yet they overturned roe. why don't they keep religion out of government decisions? there is supposed to be a separation of church and state. as far as student loans go, you were talking about $10,000 or $20,000, not a $150,000 school loan. we cannot all have a makeup billionaire donor like justice thomas who makes $285,000 a

year, pay for his relative school loans, pay for his mother to live rent free in a house. he literally flies high in the friendly skies. a 100 million dollars worth of vacations and private yachts, and these people are making generational changes, decisions in our lives. independent state legislature, let's talk about what it really is. it is talking about taking away your voting rights. they are going to say "we have the majority. have the majorit ." they will overturn what the majority of the people want. i don't know if i am explaining that clearly.

guest: there are many people who share your views. host: that is all our time. guest: it went by so fast. host: amy howe is the founder and editor of scotus blog. thank you for joining us. guest: thank you for having me. host: more of your calls after the break. we go to open for amid a look ahead to what to expect on the 2024 campaign trail this week. you can call ahead now. the numbers are on your screen. stay with us. ♪

>> c-span campaign 2024 coverages your front row seat to the presidential election. watch our coverage of the candidates on the campaign trail with announcements, meet and greets, speeches and events to make up your own mind. campaign 2024 on the c-span network or anytime online at c-span.org. c-span, your unfiltered view of politics. ♪ >> weekends bring you look tv featuring -- book tv featuring nonfiction authors discussing their latest books. david quammon will be our guest. his latest book is "breath

less."on afterwords, keith ellison offers his thoughts on how to stop the cycle of police violence with his book "break the wheel." he is interviewed by laura coates. find a full schedulen your program guide or watch online at booktv.org. >> c-span shop.org is c-span's online store. browse through our latest collection of c-span products, apparel, books, home decor, and accessories. there is something for every, c-span fan and every purchase helps to support our nonprofit operation. watch now -- shop now or anytime at c-span shop.org. >> washington journal continues.

host: it is open forum. i will be taking your calls up until the end of the program at 10:00 a.m. eastern, so i am interested to hear what is on your mind regarding anything public policy. speaking of things happening in d.c., i wanted to draw this to your attention this is from the assocted press. "no survivors found after a plane that flew over d.c. crashes in virginia. the faa says the cessna flew over d.c. and crashed in virginia, leading to a fighter jet to leave a sonic boom over the capital."{ her is information on what is happening overseas in ukraine. the washington post says this. "nato is training ukraine." the article starts "when

ukraine's long-awaited counteroffensive begins, the fight will be led by brigades armed not only with western weapons, but also western know-how, leaned from months of training aimed at -- gleaned from months of training aimed at turning ukraine into a modern fighting force." we will go to your calls now. faye is first going from boone hills, virginia. caller: good morning. i have a short question i would like to ask and a short comment. i listened to the republican last night on cnn, and i think she did an excellent job. as uci am a democrat. i think she did an excellent -- as you see, i am a democrat.

i think she did an excellent job. i would encourage the people to listen to her closely. kamala harris, the only thing i know that she does is to break a tie in congress. why can't they send her to the southern border, let that be hurt only job for the rest of her term -- be her only job for the rest of her term? it is nothing that cannot be taken care of if people want to. these are people who are just like us. they want to work, they went to live. they are not all criminals as we make them out to be. i think this would be a great answer to a terrible problem we have in the united states. thank you for taking my calls. host: it is open forum.

i will remind you of the phone lines that is by party affiliation. republicans can call us on (202) 748-8000. democrats, (202) 748-8001/ -- democrats, (202) 748-8001. independents, -- independents, (202) 748-8002. you can text us at (202) 748-8003. here is a article in the hill about the debt limit deal that was struck saturday. "manchin says democrats miscalculated on waiting to negotiate the deal. he casts blame on democrats for waiting to start negotiations,

and pushed back on the argument that republicans were hostage takers. 'i think it is harmful'he told margaret brennan on cbs when asked on face the nation how much of a miscalculation it was for democrats to wait to negotiate, he says 'it shows these far left was pushing -- the far left was pushing so hard not to negotiate, just "hold your ground, hold your ground." that is not who we are as americans.'" caller: good morning. i wanted to commend you on the other day when you had someone on to discuss africa and our involvement. if you could s buyer to have a

whole week series on it -- aspire to have a whole week series on and show us where our money is going, i think that would be great. our money is not accounted for half the time. the cia budget is opaque. the other thing is, the other day someone called in and asked about the information about the new world order. i have a website where they can get actual books on it. it is cccpublishing.com. the last thing is, what is your opinion, or maybe you have someone on about this, the fact that nobody in the house has brought up impeachment, about the fact that our borders are open, we are unprotected, and

that the president is not enforcing the laws? are we supposed to wait for the reign of another literal king? you are doing a wonderful job. thank you. host: scott is in texas. good morning. caller: i want to comment on. a couple of things. -- i want to comment on a couple of things. the democrats were upset about the segment you had this morning about work requirements. you take this work requirement on the snap program, 42 million people are on that program. if you just take the $151 billion and divided between the 42 million, that would come to a

little over $500 a person. i hope the outrage gets more than this today. host: let's hear from mary next in north carolina, a democrat. caller: i want to talk about the debt of the united states. if we close the borders, how much is it taking to support all of these people with phones, close, medical care -- clothes, medical care? these people coming through, god bless them, they are not immigrants. they are illegal immigrants. i m and immigrant of 60 odd -- i am and immigrant of 60 odd years. until they go through naturalization, they are not immigrants, they are aliens, illegal. i would like to see the borders

closed and all of these people paying for their own debts and working like i have had to do. thank you for listening. host: anna is next in wisconsin, independent line. ed? caller: i am here. host: go ahead, ed. caller: when you read senator manchin's speech, it was political, and he is just lying actually. he was just being political. you know, it says something to me. biden should get credit because he taught the republicans how to negotiate. they did not have a plan, and that is why he did not meet with them. he had a plan, but the

republicans did not have a plan, and therefore he waited until they got a plan so they could negotiate both plans, and see who comes out, how it comes out. a give and take thing. they do not realize that the republicans did not want to have a plan and negotiate a plan. they wanted to pick apart his plan, and he would not cooperate . that is all i have got to say. host: robert is in tuscaloosa, alabama, democrat. caller: i am african-american. there are three people in the united states. the native americans and the europeans. someone should tell the white people you are immigrants. there were no borders. there were open borders. african-americans were brought here as enslaved people to till

the land and take care of europeans who could not survive in this part of the world. you are immigrants to just like those other people, and some of those are migrants. they were on this continent before you were here! stop talking about these immigrants coming in here. white people, you call yourself, you came in when there were no voters. some of you weren't the best people coming in from europe. not all of you were good people. let everyone come in who wants to come in and help stow want to build this nation like african people did. we got nothing from it but oppression into discrimination. they want to keep us from voting and they want to keep us from getting an education. host: let's go next to the republican line, warrensville, illinois, annette.

caller: a woman called a couple calls ago, saying she wondered why there were no articles of impeachment that were introduced against president biden for the abnegation of his duty to keep our nation safe and execute the rules already in place. laws are already in place to keep our border regulated. there have been impeachment articles introduced on may 18 of this year, and they are pending against both president biden and mayorkas for his abnegation of his duties as well. just to respond to the last caller who acts as though conservatives do not want immigrants here in this country, almost invariably we do want immigrants in our country, but

we want them to be screened and able to be -- for our own citizens and immigrants already here to be protected against terrorists. when we are losing track of millions of people entering our country every year, we are allowing people coming in without any kind of protection, any kind of screening. we do not know if these people are the next 9/11 terrorists. i'm not saying all immigrants are, at the tiny fraction of people coming across who may be criminals are not being stopped because we are not obeying our own laws. yes, there are articles of impeachment that have been started, and i cannot believe it is not front-page news, because this is major. this current administration is majorly corrupt, and there are big problems with it.

host: jim is in cairo, missouri. caller: good morning. we have 10 million jobs going unfilled in this country right unfilled in this country right now. we put all of those immigrants coming to the southern border to work we would still need more people. once these people start working they become taxpayers and that would support our social security system moving forward. the answer seems obvious. we need people. the republican party is so afraid, the previous caller, may be one out of a 1000 is a terrorist. we do not know but they are afraid of what they do not know. they are afraid of everything. good day.

host: we will all pause open forum for a few minutes, we are going to talk to a reporter but if you are on the line, stay on the line. we will get back to your calls up until the end of the program. we are joined by the national politics and government reporter for bloomberg news. mark, welcome to the program. guest: thank you. host: we will talk about campaign 2024 and what we are expecting this week. a couple of announcements are expected. i want to start with former vice president mike pence. it looks like he will be announcing his bid for the vice -- for the presidency in iowa. what are you expecting him to say? guest: he is planning to hold a big announcement event outside of des moines on wednesday kicking off his campaign. he has been laying the

groundwork for the presidential bid the last years of visiting early primary states, giving speeches. gearing up to run. we're expecting him to focus heavily on iowa. the former vice president thinks his path to the nomination is to do very well in iowa in those first republican caucuses. the former vice president thinks he can appeal to the evangelical voters in iowa who participate heavily in the caucus and will also appeal as a midwesterner. the issue for pens is he's going to have to try and distinguish himself from donald trump who his former boss who leads in the polls at this point it is a clear -- and is a clear frontrunner. pens trying to take credit for good things, in the trump-pence administration.

while distinguishing himself from the former president particularly on january 6. president trump asked the depends reject electoral college results for joe biden when he presided to certify the election. pens and his hard-core supporters in the party have never forgiven him. he has to thread this needle of appealing to trump supporters who like the policies while not alienating the voters who still haven't forgiven them for january 6. host: if we can pull up a pole from real clear politics. showing from very far ahead.

desantis at 22%. followed by scott at 2% and kristi at 1%. going back to what you were saying and differentiating himself from trump, at the time his whole candidacy is candidate -- he it can just be i'm different than january 6. guest: issues on looking backwards, pencil argue that the elections are about the future. also differentiating himself from trump on entitlement programs. trump has said we shouldn't touch social security and medicare. wanted to reform the program for

future generations. pens has tried to run as a classic reagan conservative. arguing is the only one in the field who has the core conservative values that were espoused by president ronald reagan. he criticized ron desantis for attacking disney in his fight there in florida arguing it's not what a conservative republican should be doing. has the republican party moved so far beyond reagan conservatism that there's any appetite for that campaign. host: you mentioned evangelical voters, is there a possibility they would shift alliance to pens? -- pence? guest: that's what they are hoping will happen.

hoping that they look and say he has too much baggage. and they'll find pence appealing as an alternative who works on the core policies that the trump supporters like but may be the baggage. the question is will pens be the kind of candidate who appeals to those voters rather than a ron desantis or nikki haley. host: another person expected to get into the race tomorrow, what are you expecting, what will be different from the ran -- the last time he ran? guest: he sort of bet the election on winning new hampshire. , christie is set himself up as

the cte willing to most foly and dectly criticize and attack donald trump. sankey can be the nominee. but the question is is kristi just a candidate in the field to attack trump. where his sole purpose is to take down trump. christie says he would not run if he didn't have a strong path. but there's a question about what is kristi's path to the nomination but there's a great expectation for what impact kristi could have particularly in the debates. a skilled debater.

in 2016 he almost single-handedly tookowmarco rubio's presidential campaign in te performance in new hampshire. there'd be a lot of people watching to see how he handles trump on the debate stage. if we see a trump on the debate stage. the first one is in milwaukee and trump suggested he would not attend because he doesn't want to give oxygen to lower polling candidates and doesn't think it's important for him to debate. host: i was going to ask you about the debates. at this point according to a -- the polls, trump would have nothing to gain from debating. host: that's what he is saying. guest: does he lose anything by not appearing. guest: there are some suggesting he will ultimately debate because he doesn't want to devote -- avoid being in the limelight.

he has skipped debates before and not necessarily punished for it. there will be -- one of the things he's not wanting to do that would keep them off the debate stage of signing a pledge that would require him to support the eventual nominee if it's not him. he said he will only do that if it's the right nominee. >> another candidate expected to join is doug burgum. he is announcing on wednesday in fargo, north dakota. not really well-known nationally guest: he is interesting guy. he has a businessman. he tk over a software company that he eventually sold to microsoft in a $2 billion deal and went on to become governor.

he elected two terms and is going to try and run a campaign as a republican businessman, midwestern values guy who can appeal to voters who are looking for an alternative to donald trump. then main question or problem he's facing is nobody knows who the -- nobody knows who he is. laying the groundwork for the campaign, visiting the early primary states getting your name known to early-stage voters in particular. governor burgum also very wealthy and spend millions of dollars on gubeatorial races in north dakota and expecting he's willing to spend a lot of money on a presidential bid. his path would be through iowa.

can appeal to iowa voters in and if you can manage to place highly, that would be a springboard competing for the nomination. host: one more governor to ask about his glenn youngkin of virginia. he seems to be flirting with the idea of entering the race. guest: we are not sure what he is up to. he flat out said he was not going to run for president this year, emphasis on this year while he focused on the legislative race in virginia. trying to keep the virginia house and flip the senate there for republicans. the possibility he could run in 2024 next year if there is an opening or it looks like there is some fluidity in the race, there would be an opportunity for him to do well. but then he's been releasing videos recently, national type

sweeping videos comparing himself to ronald reagan which sort of lead people to question is he rethinking entering the race next year if that's what happens. so far what he's saying for public consumption is he's focused on virginia and the commonwealth and getting republicans elected to the legislative race. we will have to see. host: mark is national politics and government reporter for lunenburg news. thank you for joining us. guest: thank you. host: we will get back to open forum and take your calls up until the top of the hour. a couple of programming notes to be aware of while you're calling us and that is today at 2:00 p.m., homeland security officials will testify on the expiration of title 42 which allows migrants to be turned

away at the u.s. mexico border. you can watch that live at 2:00 p.m. eastern on c-span three. it's also on c-span now or online at c-span.org. also at 3:00 p.m. this afternoon, former government officials reflect on the emergency aid relief plan and its impact over the last 20 years. live coverage of the event hosted by the bipartisan policy center begins at 3:00 p.m. eastern on c-span two. also on c-span now and our -- online at c-span.org. we will go straight back to the phones. sharon is in atlanta georgia, independent. good morning. caller: good morning america. i want to say that i worked all my life and i live off of social security because i'm disabled.

they were offering me $20 of food stamps. young women who have never worked, never put anything in and they get thousands of dollars with the food stamps. you need to give those food stamps to the senior citizens that have worked and put in time, money. host: offering you $20 a month? caller: yes ma'am. $20 a month. i've been a nurse for 30 years. i've seen the good, the bad and the ugly. i think it's very -- but i'm telling you they need to give those food stamps to the needy, not the greedy because a lot of those women that get those food stamps they are building a nation of obese people because all they do is by

noodles, sugary drinks, sugary cookies. nobody's eating vegetables. host: let's talk to ralph next in washington, d.c.. independent. caller: based on your last conversation with the political -- you know the problem with the election is so polarizing and right now if desantis was to take in tall seat at it it is -- as his vice president prayed this is not unprecedented where you take the opposing party. tulsi gabbard was the most researched candidate after the first debates and then all of a sudden google shut her down. saying it was a mistake. i'm sorry. they only selected the polls that showed she did not have a 5% which was a minimum for debate.

she brings the middle. and then for the left wing zealots it's all skin color and genitalia, she would meet that category. if desantis wanted to guarantee a victory bringing in the right, the middle and her bringing in the middle and the left they would be undefeatable. host: miguel is in texas. good morning. caller: just more of a statement. i consider myself a moderate republican. this is a statement to every other moderate republican bird the governor for new hampshire and -- every liberal republican needs to get behind him. he may not have a chance in the primary with a mock debate for trump. help him in the open primary states. open primary states were

independents can vote. get them to hop in, support chris sununu and don't allow donald trump or ron desantis to win. we cannot allow maga to keep winning. maga people are acting like four-year-olds and the moderates are acting like parents. it's time to tell them to stop playing around and be respectful. get behind chris sununu if he jumps into the race. host: i want to show you something from the washington times. this is about the situation you might've heard about, a destroyer tests u.s. nerves in taiwan straight with intimidation tactics. it says this in an apparent intimidation tactic a chinese destroyer twice crossed the bow of the u.s. navy destroyer at high speed as the latter translated -- the taiwan straight. command said the chinese ship

executed maneuvers in an unsafe manner in the vicinity of the american destroyer on saturday. the incident was filmed from the bridge wing of the canadian frigate accompanying the u.s. vessel and shared on youtube. the footage from the canadian ship shows the speeding chinese destroyer overtaking and crossing its bow at about 150 yards, forcing the american ship to drastically reduce its speed to avoid a collision. the chinese destroyer repeated the maneuver. sam is next in mansfield, ohio. good morning. are you there? caller: yes i am here. host: go ahead. caller: this country needs to

take care of their own before they go out giving all of our financial stuff away. i was group to say you take care of your own and if you get more you can take care of other people. we have people in this country needing health care, all kinds of other things and we are giving all of our money away. thank you very much. host: let's hear from constance in chesapeake, virginia. caller: we are not giving everything away. we are helping ukraine so that it's not right here in our back yard. that little person is a very selfish person. i'm very disappointed in the so-called christian people of this country. if it is cruel it cannot be right. they have forgotten that.

they have forgotten the words of real jesus and lost their way. they are following republicans in this so-called ronald reagan they talk about broad cocaine into our lives in government. i'm sick of their little games they are playing. we all have to get sick of it. it is ridiculous and it is cruel and mean and trying to beat up on gay people is mean. a group next door to a little boy like that and had to take care of him. it's ridiculous to go against human nature like this, it's mean. people the way they are they are born that way and can help it. i'm tired of people, i'm heterosexual but i have patience for other people because i don't go to church. unlike those churchgoers that

just thump the bible and then do racist and fascist things. host: let's talk to brad in minnesota, republican. caller: your last caller is just off the boat. all of this is leading up, you especially on c-span are afraid of trump but more important people are afraid of trump are the fbi and the cia. what's happening is you'll never see in your life so many people getting canned and i'm having feedback on my line from your side. the people in the government are actually so afraid of trump right now is if he gets in again. there's going to be a lot more of the call me -- leaving the

house. they to be done. this is just a scare tactic. truly it really happened. operation mockingbird. we got a big problem with our cia and our fbi today that are basically in the democrats pocket and are doing the will for them and just look at joe biden right now and his son. they should both be, one should be impeached and one should be in jail. host: let's talk to carolyn next in tucson, arizona. caller: can you hear me? host: yes we can, go ahead. caller: first i would like to say i really appreciate the open form you people offer, just a voice venting for the public.

i do feel though that the press is off track in that we have broken the code of truth now in the way we've presented information to the public. it wasn't you guys who instigate it. the upcoming election, of the debates will be really tricky because we don't have journalists anymore but goes specifically after the truth. you're just kind of parroting what is trending with the public. making the anger. if you could choose to pursue the facts when people are presenting misinformation so that and without passion so that there is not anger so that people understand what this

misinformation is doing. same with the future of our country, the energy exchange how we are trying to transition instead of going after the costs and the horrors and the black cooperation between parties -- lack of convert -- cooperation between parties. how about interviewing corporate heads and if they won't be interviewed than expose how much money they are misguiding. again, try and show what the positive aspects of the new energy is. show people carbon recapture. show people wind power in practice. so that there is no cloud of mystique about it. and we can feel good and

encouraged about the future of our country. host: got it. jim is in illinois, independent. caller: i been thinking about immigration a long time. and our politicians keep telling us the system is broken. don't tell us the system is broken. tell us what's wrong with it and also tell us how it should be fixed. then we have the illegal immigration. how do we stop it? if you come here illegally you'll never get citizenship, you will never receive any kind of welfare and you will be expelled from the country. it's about time that our

congress discloses to the public all of the provisions of a bill in congress before its past so that the public can make comment on the provisions of every bill and the related cost. i thank you for your time. host: i want to correct programming note from before about this event. this is actually tomorrow. you'll hear from homeland security officials testifying on the expiration of title 42 that allowed migrants to be turned away at the u.s. mexico border. that's going to be live before the house subcommittee 2:00 p.m. eastern tomorrow on c-span3, c-span now and c-span.org. it is open form for the next few minutes. basil was calling from north hollywood, california. republican, good morning.

caller: just wanted to say most americans especially where i am believe that the political class here has been completely corrupted. there is a thing called elite capture the chinese had used recapture politicians and get their way. same thing with media outlets and also universities like harvard and yale. media outlets will not criticize them because they are getting paid by china through advertising and so on. same thing with politicians. mitch mcconnell has a gigantic billion-dollar business in china with headquarters in china, there's not any kind of criticism of china at all. president trump would -- is the outside of the most americans want and still want for president. most americans believe the election was tremendously rigged and corrupted by not only fbi, cia officials as we see with the

51 intelligence -- the no retribution has done to them and they put him in solitary confinement. and the guy who did it now gets a job on endowment -- gets a job on msnbc. he is now an author and people who committed this horrible sin against america and president trump now blocking -- locking the j six guys up without a hearing. those are first charged with trespassing because they walked into the capital which is the people's house. i believe the united states is -- extremes in christian revival through the candidacy and presidency of president trump. host: let's get in richard in tampa, florida, democrats line go ahead. caller: i just want to chat about this narrative that we talk about with regards to

ar-15's. i was watching the cnn town hall with nikki haley last night. she said if we dan ar-15's next week we will have an ar-15 incident. the point about banning ar-15's is more so about what happens in a year from now and watching them get confiscated and broken down and getting them off the streets and then in two years from now they will pretty much almost be gone and it continues that way and the accessibility of these weapons decreases over time. it's not a solution that happened overnight. that point about it's going to happen next week it doesn't make any sense. i just wanted -- host: let's try to get maria in

quickly in new jersey. caller: i watch c-span quite a bit and i get so aggravated when i hear wonderful joe biden is doing this and that. why hasn't someone demanded a physical and mental evaluation on this man. you don't have to be a genius to see he is not fit to be president, he walks, he talks and looks like the living dead. he looks worse and worse every time i see him and now he fell again. but you never see that on these channels. host: maria that's all the time we have for today's washington journal. we will be back again tomorrow morning.

live here on c-span. have a great day. ♪ [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2023] >> congress returns for legislative business and votes. the house gavels back in ano eastern. lawmakers will consider several bills today later in the week they're expected to work on several bills tolock the biden administration's proposal on gas stove regulation. the house is expected to vote on legislation to increase congressional oversight of the rules making prague- process. e u.s. senate is back in session tomorrow tuesday at 3:00 p.m. eastern. it will work on the executive and judicial nominees including

aclu director for southern new york. the senate on c-span two. you can find all her congressional coverage with c-span now or online at c-span.org. watch a video on-demand anytime online and try our points of interest feature. using markers to quickly find you newsworthy highlights. use points of interest anytime online at c-span.org. c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we are funded by these television companies and more including comcast. >> its way more than that. comcast is partnering with community centers so students from low income families