host: it is the washington journal for june 10. president biden in the united kingdom for business with the prime minister and king charles before heading to the nato summit.

the future support for ukraine against its attack from russia. polling of those done in the u.s. recently mixed about the continued support of the military effort in ukraine. when it comes to further aid to ukraine do you support or oppose that? if you support further u.s. aid, 202-748-8000 is the number two: tell us why. if you oppose, 202-748-8001. perhaps you want to text us, you can do that at 202-748-8003. post on our facebook page or twitter feed and you can follow the show on instagram. the folks -- continued surveys and polls looking at u.s. support for ukraine and where it is at. their latest from june of this year. the question they posed.

since russia's invasion they say a percentage of those who say when it comes to russia's invasion the u.s. is providing and then they say various stages of support. 28% overall of those surveyed said the u.s. was providing too much support to ukraine. that was in june of 2023 compared to 31 percent who said the level of support is just about right. 16% saying it is not enough support. if you compare it to march of last year. 7% of those saying the aid was too much. 32% saying it was about right. in march of 2022 was not enough currently going to ukraine and it support against russia's invasion there. folks at the center for foreign relations of put together a chart looking at various stages of monetary aid given to ukraine. this is from january 24 of last

year to february 24 of this year. 76 point $8 billion in aid total of u.s. support to ukraine. three point 9% is humanitarian aid which includes emergency food assistance and refugee support. 26 .4 billion of financial aid described through the economic support fund and other financial support. 18.3% in training support, a weapons logistics support and other assistance. provided under the security assistance when it comes to weapons and equipment. up until february of this year. which include weapons and equipment from the defense department stock and others and then when it comes to grants and loans for weapons and equipment $4.7 billion given so far in february of this year when it comes to aiding ukraine. we will show you during the course of the morning you may

say that aid is too much or too little or may think it's about right but when it comes to overall if you support that further assistance for efforts against russia or you oppose it, call us and let us know. if you support, 202-748-8000. if you oppose it, 202-748-8001. you can always text us at 202-748-8003 and post on our social media sites as well. residents didn't interview with cnn and was asked about matters of ukraine -- president biden was interviewed by cnn and was asked if ukraine should join nato. [video clip] >> here is the deal. i spent a great deal of time trying to hold nato together because i believe boudin has added -- objective to break nato.

he was confident he could break nato. holding nato together is really critical. i don't think there's unanimity about whether or not to bring ukraine into the nato family now at this moment in the middle of war. if you did that then, and i mean what i say, we are determined to commit every inch of territory that is nato territory. if the war is going on than we are all at war. at war with russia. i think we have to lay out a rational path for ukraine to be able to qualify to get into nato. >> that's one of those discussions that will take place as the president heads to lithuania for that summit.

when it comes to support for nato and u.s. aid to ukraine, support or oppose that. 202-748-8000 if you support. 202-748-8001 if you oppose. looking at some of the weapons systems that have already been placed in ukraine for their use under the category of infantry and arm support. 10,000 javelin anti-air systems. another antiarmor systems and munitions. aircraft systems, 3000 missiles. grenade launchers, one hundred thousand sets of body armor and helmets. that's just part of that list. if you go to the air defense side of it from the council on foreign relations today they provided one patriot air defense battery munition, 12 air defense systems. laserguided rocket systems.

other missiles and antiaircraft guns as well. a large list of the technical military armaments provided to ukraine. you can see that for the council of foreign relations. it was the head of the house foreign affairs committee asked again about nato, ukraine joining nato. here is part of his response yesterday. >> it should be incremental. i think first they have to win the counteroffensive. secondly the cease-fire than negotiate a peace settlement. we cannot admit ukraine into nato immediately. that would put us at war with russia. i think what the conversation will be about is what security agreements can be put in place with ukraine as a predicate to perhaps nato ascension of ukraine. i think it's way too premature to be putting that. i think just to talk about it

against russia but we have to be careful in the way we do this. in the budapest agreement they gave up their nuclear weapons to russia and then we threw them under the bus. if we do another security agreement with nato with ukraine , it has to be one that solid, that all of nato is behind. as a security agreement. the issue is a whole -- >> the nato charter article five, an attack on one is an attack on all. after the war is over which presumably is a day that will, at some point we do unsupported meeting nato. >> it would have to be done incrementally. a security agreement with ukraine and the predicate down the road they would have to come to certain standards within nato qualifications to be admitted but i think if anything they've demonstrated the will to fight

for freedom and democracy against tyranny and oppression. we have to put it on the right path for not an immediate ascension into nato. >> that's just some of the comments on the sunday shows on one aspect, that of joining nato. you can factor that into the answer with further aid to ukraine. if you support that the numbers on the screen there. and if you oppose you can call the numbers well. some posting on social media sites already. saying a support further aid to ukraine as its money and not weapons and earmarks rendered that the financing to improve the human condition is not the continued pursuit of adversity. robert in texas texting saying i support further aid except when it comes to cluster munitions which are banned for an excellent reason. the bill does come to at some point.

the debt has to be paid off which places a burden on our treasury that may make our debt unsustainable. a viewer from her twitter feed saying they oppose this, endless war is how d.c. elites get rich and needs to end and ross in california saying about the bombs given to ukraine. when this happens you are desperate and losing the war and draws another example. let's hear from you on the phone lines. our support line, thanks for calling go ahead. >> caller: i totally support giving aid to ukraine. let me say that. but not as much as we have been doing. we have to have accountability with the money that's already been sent. we have to have accountability with the aid we've already sent over which is far above that we

can send. we have a lot of needs here in the united states that we need to focus on. i just see it going on and on. the accountability on what's already been said and at the same time by all means help them in their fight for freedom. >> does the dollar figure then need to be reduced or does accountability have to happen before we send anything else in your mind. >> we need to have accountability now. so much has been sent already that's been unaccounted for. i guarantee a lot of it has been going in other people's pockets and they don't know where it goes. there must be some accountability. we can't just throw money at it.

host: on our support line, this is joe in atlanta, georgia. caller: nice to speak to you. i cannot start without saying something about accountability issue. we probably do need some accountability in ukraine. how come i never hear anything about accountability with our own congress, the amount of money we are spending, the amount they are doing. that also you would think would be an issue. i'm absolutely in support of helping ukraine to the extent that they need. i cannot imagine people are not realizing what ramifications this incident has. the business about nato is an entirely different thing.

i cannot speak to whether ukraine should be in nato given the present circumstances. with the europe enlarging nato over and over again in the face of russia collapsing was a terrible mistake. enlarging the eu without a military alliance. now that russia has attacked i can speak, it's a different nuances. host: daniel in west palm beach florida on the oppose line. caller: i think the u.s. should not send any more money to ukraine because of the wind up in the hands of the jewish oligarchs. i think the reason the united states is against prudent is because he's the only stalwart

against these very powerful groups, the oligarchs. both in russia and in ukraine the money that goes to ukraine from the u.s., it gets into the hands of the jewish agenda all over again. >> you can continue on with your thoughts as well, counsel for foreign relations fight, they have a category how aid to ukraine compares to other u.s. spending. they compared it to a couple of things. at the bottom of the list 77 billion, but compared to the u.s. military budget in 2021 but was 801 billion. to the obama administration for the asset relief program. 700 billion spent there. interest payments on the federal

debt in 2021, that totaled 475 billion. 81 billion comparing it to the budget in 2023 for the commonwealth of virginia. they put nasa's budget at 29 billion. compared to that ukraine as far as the aid spent so far, $77 billion. that's how cfr takes a look at it. you can factor in those as well. during the course of the time there. pick the line that best represents you if you support further support of u.s. aid to ukraine or oppose it. in north carolina on a support line, go ahead. >> i support the effort to support ukraine in its efforts to pick the russians out of their land. i want to make an analogy to what george bush, he put us into

a war with afghanistan, we were in there for 20 years. no republicans ever said anything about how much money they were spending over 20 years. on a bogus mission. they got mad when biden got us out. how many trillions of dollars did we waste in afghanistan? host: how does that compare to what we are doing in ukraine? caller: if we don't help ukraine, our soldiers will eventually have to go over there and fight. we spend the money right now but we will eventually be wasting our people's blood and i don't give any reverence to anything republicans say because mr. trump was a draft dodger and

sold our country out. host: let's go to lloyd in pennsylvania. he's on our oppose line. caller: i agree with the last caller about the bushes and i think all the other wars we had were fake wars. we need to get out of wars like donald trump said. i don't know if he's a draft dodger parade i know i served in the military. >> what is it you oppose about the effort in ukraine? caller: i don't think we should be over there. that's thousands of miles away. what if russia was in cuba trying to attack america. what would we do? >> carl is next on our support line. carl is in san francisco. >> good morning. caller: i support the ukraine

but i feel that the european union and nato is not supporting enough the ukrainians. it's mostly us. and i think it should be a much stronger support by the european countries. host: when you say that, what factors into your thinking? caller: we are supposedly committed to about $120 billion and the european union in germany, france and all the nato countries are not supporting nearly that amount. we are supporting more than they are and i think it's more of great interest to all of us but certainly more to europe than to us and we cannot support the whole world. host: carline san francisco

talking about support ukraine has received in aid compared to other countries. the series of charts you can find online. 70 billion when it comes to military, financial and military aid combined. financial and humanitarian aid about 30 plus billion. the u.k. specifically providing 10 billion followed by germany, japan and it goes on from there. the list of aid in specific countries dividing aid to ukraine. what you think about this aid and if we should be sending further aid to the country for its efforts. you can let us know on the lines, send us a text if you want. you can also tweet us and post on our facebook page. it was over the weekend after the announcement from the white

house that so-called cluster bombs would be sent to ukraine and used against russia. the national security advisor before reporters giving the u.s. defense of sending those bombs and here's part of that from last week. >> we base our security assistance decision on ukraine's needs on the ground and ukraine needs artillery to sustain its offensive and defensive operations. artillery is of the core of this conflict. ukraine is firing thousands of rounds a day to defend against russian efforts and also to support its own efforts to retake its sovereign territory. we have provided ukraine with a historic amount of unitary artillery rounds and we are ramping up domestic production of these rounds. we've already seen substantial increases in production but this process will take time. it will be critical to provide ukraine with supplies while our

domestic production is ramped up. we will not leave ukraine defenseless at any point in this conflict. second, russia has been using cluster munitions since the start of this war to you tech ukraine. russia has been using cluster munitions with high failure rates between 30 and 40%. in this environment ukraine has been requesting cluster munitions in order to defend its own sovereign territory. the cluster munitions we would provide have dug rates far below what russia is providing great not higher than 2.5%. third we are closely coordinating with ukraine as it has requested these munitions. ukraine is committed to mine -- mitigate potential harms to civilians and this will be necessary regardless of whether the united states provides these munitions or not because of russia's widespread use of cluster munitions. we will have to continue to

assist no matter what given the significant use of cluster munitions already perpetrated by russia. we recognize the cluster munitions created risk of civilian harm from unexploited ordinance. this is why we deferred the decision for as long as we could. there was also a massive risk of civilian harm if russian troops and tanks rolled over ukrainian positions and take more ukrainian territory and subjugate more ukrainian civilians because ukraine does not have enough artillery. host: when it comes to what's been provided to ukraine, the chart when it comes to tanks and armored carriers. infantry fighting vehicles. 31 abrams tanks, 45 tanks. 90 stryker armored personnel characters goes on from there. a lot of specifics when it comes to weapons and munitions and the

like from the council of foreign relations. this is mary from maryland saying i don't support any war -- more weapons per they are going to lose this one, we all know it. why do we need to keep being an enemy of russia or any country? companies that make the war machine are making cash money it's time for peace worldwide. stop russia now, it's easier and cheaper than stopping them later. this is andrea from twitter saying i don't support open-ended support even those waged by her military. the president needs to move beyond ukraine flag-waving and criticize russia, what's he hoping to achieve and when? part of these discussions about ukraine a large part of the nato summit that the president is heading to, currently he's in the united kingdom, and also

meetings that have taken place with the prime minister. he's also set to meet king charles later on today. there's video from the president's visit with the prime minister. as you look at that when you talk about support or opposition to further u.s. aid to ukraine on our oppose line. we will hear from john in detroit, michigan. caller: i absolutely have been opposed to this since the very beginning. actually before 2022 when russia intervened in the east part of ukraine and i'm glad you played the jake sullivan clip because i remember back when he was an advisor to hillary clinton, wikileaks leaked is email where he said al qaeda is on our side in syria. he's always been a slippery snake when it comes to any foreign a pair and just like they were aiding and abetting al qaeda, isis in syria they were

aiding and abetting neo-nazi militias that were incorporated in ukraine. that's a sick thing. my representative, he talked about that in 2015 about those in ukraine, terrible thing. this has been going on for eight years prior to 2022 when victoria, one of our lovely diplomats did her coup. i wish you guys would play the phone call of our deputy secretary of state saying at the eu that was one part and then he's our guy and sure enough he became president after the coup in 2014. host: randy is next on our support line. caller: i'd like to start by thanking you and all the other men and women it takes to bring us this great program. i support more aid for ukraine

and my reason is as much blood and treasure as we spent fighting terrorists they didn't have an army, navy, air force or atomic weapons. i would just assume the ukrainians fight the russians so we don't have to fight the russians over here. you can look at putin's pattern. hold for a couple of years then he takes crimea. holds up for a couple of years then goes after ukraine. that's a pattern and he is not going to stop. have a good one. host: laura on our oppose line. caller: i'm opposed to further military aid. as far as ammunitions and weapons to ukraine. as far as humanitarian aid that would be ok. in this day and age war is pretty barbaric and negotiation is pretty much the way to go.

with biden pushing this latest ammunition carpet bombs i'm probably can reconsider voting for him in his presidential reelection bid. kind of like a redline for me. we just need to go another route. >> the bombs it self, that was the redline? why's that? caller: because from what i heard, i don't know whole lot about this, but what i heard it's very harmful for the environment, for people and it has to stop somewhere. it feels like there's something very sinister going on with this whole ukraine deal and it will probably come out 10 years from now. i just feel very badly about

that decision about those bombs. >> when it comes to further aid to ukraine to support further aid. if you oppose it, 8001. from michigan, this is dennis. go ahead. you are next up. dennis in michigan. forgot to push the button, go ahead. caller: i fully support us doing more aid to ukraine for the simple fact if you look at history in world war i and world war ii, we ended up going into war. the ukrainians are willing to fight and this keeps our boots off the ground and you cannot negotiate with russia if they are still inside the territory and won't recognize ukraine's. >> how long of support do you think you are comfortable with?

caller: that's a hard question. right now you can see russia really suffering so you know it's taking effect. i'm not in support of war by and large for anything but this is a position where you have to take a stand on this. if you keep letting russia or other nations just do whatever they want, where do you draw a line on this stuff? it just encourages other people -- nations to do that. host: giving his thoughts this morning on our support line. when it comes to aid to ukraine. the center for foreign relations looks at aid to ukraine compared to other countries in 2020 specifically. $76.8 billion figure being part of that in 2020 compared to the $4 billion of aid to afghanistan, 3.3 billion to israel.

1.5 billion in egypt, ethiopia with 1.2 billion as well as iraq. if you want to make those comparisons. you can call and let us know your thoughts if you support or oppose. allen in florida on our support line. caller: good morning. welcome to 1937, somebody wants to step off the plane and saying peace in our time. people should read history. you stop them now or you stop them at the polish border, the german border. trying to rebuild his soviet empire. his allies don't even support him. do i support aid for ukraine? absolutely. they are willing to sacrifice their lives. host: do you think the

ukrainians have the means to defeat russia? caller: not yet. they don't want to defeat them, they just want to bleed them what the viet cong in north vietnam bled us. during the 60's. eventually, as i said, they are willing to fight for their land and with their blood. do i support him, yes. >> next on our oppose line. caller: i want to know why every time someone starts to talk about victoria nuland did they cut them off. we started this in 2014, she bragged on how much money she spent, she bragged on everything about it and then she also said if you don't like what we are doing you can go blank yourself.

she told everyone that. why do you cut everyone off that speaks about victoria nuland? host: how does that lead to the current conflict going on. caller: because we overthrew the government and installed our puppet just like we did. you don't seem to read history about all these different little countries we have gone in. how many countries have we been in central and south america. read the book on war is a racket . he had two congressional medals of honor, he was in world war i and he comes out that rich people were getting rich off of wars. thank you. host: on our oppose line.

you can choose those lines. pick the one that best represents you. in recent days editorials taking a look at support for ukraine against various points of view. a recent editorial, they write that ukrainian officials pressed western counterparts to show dramatic results understand the political and military stakes. the key to a race -- when he unleashed troops. the russian dictator hoping to exhaust the west's patients. a stalemate in ukraine in which forces are stymied to make territorial gains. hence the mounting pressure on mr. zelenskyy and his generals with a breakthrough to show that

ukraine can win. that's an editorial from the washington post. this is from rand corporation, the ceo -- a senior political scientist there who makes this point saying a protracted conflict would keep the risk of possible escalation to russian nato war and its current elevated level. ukraine would be a near-total the canonic life-support called -- cause budgetary challenges. the global economic fallout of war would persist. united states would be unable to focus on other priorities. although a long war would also further weaken russia the benefit does not outweigh the cost. western governments should do all they can to help ukraine prepare for the counteroffensive they need to adopt strategies, a vision for an endgame that's possible in these far from ideal

circumstances. some thought when it comes to this conflict in ukraine. talking about the u.s. support there. if you support or oppose further eat aid in ukraine. a discussion about cluster bombs in support sending them to ukraine. appearing on the sunday shows in which he expressed concerns about the use of those weapons. here's what she had to say. [video clip] >> cluster bombs should never be used. once you see what's take -- what takes place. in terms of cluster bombs being dangerous to civilians, they don't always immediately explode , children could step on them. that's a line we should not cross. i think the president has done a good job managing this war against ukraine but i think this

should not happen. he had asked for waivers to do it. we have been preventing the use of cluster bombs since i believe 2010. >> when putin started using cluster bombs, the biden white house said that would potentially be a war crime. do you think that therefore the u.s. government, the biden administration will potentially be engaging in war crimes if this goes forward. >> what i think is we would risk losing our moral leadership because when you look at the fact that over 120 countries have find the convention on cluster munitions saying they should never be used, they should never be used. many of us have urged the administration to sign onto this convention. i'm hoping the administration would reconsider because these

are very dangerous bombs. they are dangerous weapons and this is a line i don't believe we should cross. >> represented of barbara lee. breaking down support for ukraine in political parties. we have in june of 23, those leaning republican saying too much support was going to ukraine with only 20% saying it's just about right. 14% saying not enough. democratic people not -- responding saying it's too much. 44% with just about right and then 19% saying not enough aid. that's how pugh breaks it down. let's hear from anne-marie in pennsylvania on our support line. good morning. >> caller: caller: i support the war simply because we were worried in vietnam about the

domino effect. this is more important than vietnam in that way. the domino effect hits all of europe. next could be poland, romania. these countries are already connected. i feel we can support this, the cluster bombs made it a dangerous thing for children and all of that. they are doing it. we have to help these people out. thank you so much. >> does that support extend to at least a push by the united states for nato to join ukraine or ukraine to join nato. >> i think they should have been in it all along. then we know that other people are behind us. we do say this 50 countries but this way that would prove it. host: gary joins us from kentucky on our oppose line. you are next up, go ahead. caller: we are at war with

russia. this is how vietnam started. it started with aid, support and then troops. i say take care of business at home and stop donating to zelenskyy's retirement fund. >> you're saying the u.s. is fighting russia via a proxy in ukraine. >> absolutely. it does look like that. in world war ii we were supporting nato. they started sinking american ships. that's how this is going to lead into that. support then comes troops. >> gary in kentucky drawing comparisons there. let's hear from edward in ohio on our support line.

good morning. >> thank you. >> you are on, go ahead. >> if you remember bosnia, we sent not only aid but we sent air force jets to make a no-fly zone and there were blue helmets everywhere. i want to know why the united nations has not gotten involved with this and send over the united nations to keep the border safe and if they attack the united nations forces then there's a reason for the world to step in and do something about russia's aggression. we need to do something more than just send aid. aid is the minimum. people are confusing vietnam with this. vietnam we sent hundreds of thousands of troops and many people died. right now russia is doing all of the killing, ukraine is defending itself and the rest of

the world should come to their aid. >> >> just to clarify, is this the united states you are speaking about. >> the united nations should be the spearhead. they're brought about to help world peace and bosnia, the united nations went in the blue helmets, established safe zones and the serbians were put in check. the ethnic cleansing stopped. the united states put a no-fly zone up and we used air force and navy pilots, we enforced that no-fly zone over bosnia, serbia. it was a terrible place and people, the warlords there committed crimes and they were finally brought to justice. boudin should be as well. it should be done by the united nations. host: the nato meeting coming up

were president biden is traveling to is ukraine will be a large topic of discussion when it comes to member countries there. at issue, this is from the washington journal saying at issue is how -- the promise they will make to ukraine over its eventual membership. nato and 2008 promised a place of the table eventually. unexpected success eroding russia's army and sparking a mutiny by russian paramilitary have emboldened the president to agitate for fast action. the president pushing back saying it was premature to call for a vote on admitting ukraine into the alliance. pushing for speedy membership. saying those that were once under moscow's thumb. the prime minister says she's been reading a history of nato expansion into the cold war to sharpen her argument. you can see some of that play out as that nato meeting takes

place. president biden's role in it. looking to c-span for comments that come out of those discussions. on our support line, you are next. >> caller: good morning. i want to comment on a few things. we are all forgetting about iraq and afghanistan and george w. bush in 2003. we deployed thousands of troops there, we are fighting a proxy war with ukraine and this is a new logistics. i think tactically speaking strategically we are kind of like the 4:00 a.m. baker's seeing how many donuts we will put out for the day. a proxy war means that russia could somehow -- we are somehow losing the game here.

but we are also gaining ground. i don't seem to understand why the nato membership wasn't done prior because there was no urgency to do that. it seems to me ukraine was operating independently and all of a sudden putin woke up and said i think i want my country back. it is kind of tough to be winning a war that is proxy versus iraq and afghanistan where we deployed troops. we fought real wars there. this is a whole different animal and we have to be more strategic tactically speaking. i think we are doing everything we can to cure the symptoms but the disease has been there for millennia and that is what russia is about. we need to give them perspective. i think biden is doing as much as he can and does well as he can.

it is tough to be the guy on the others of the fence. caller: giving thought -- host: giving thoughts. baron in illinois. caller: i just think we are running into another loophole where we actually have no objective and no plan that's put in place. it just runs through a news cycle every other day. and there is no legitimate written out plan of how much aid, how long, what the objective is. will putin stay in power and we are done. that's the infuriating part is just keep sending money without giving a strategic idea and plan of what the objective is and how it will be played out every day and for the next 10 years. host: the so-called endgame is

needed. >> absolutely. there's no endgame. i think the media buys into it, they play into this hype because it's good news for them. we just continue on the same thing we did with iraq and afghanistan as well. the plan was muddy as well. it's just the same money pit that happened with iraq. >> darren in illinois on our oppose line. perspective by the united states to send cluster bombs over to ukraine for their use. it was the nato secretary talking about the upcoming meeting specifically asked about the u.s. decision to send those munitions. >> from a military point of view do you think it's a good idea, does ukraine need such ammunitions and from a political point of view do you think it's wise to send munitions that are

banned for good reason. >> nato's alliance does not have a position on the convention on cluster munitions because a number of allies have defined the convention but a number of allies have not. it is for individual allies on the delivery of weapons and military supplies to ukraine. so this will be for governments to decide and for nato as an alliance. we are faced with a brutal war and we have to remember this brutality, everyday we see casualties. cluster munitions is used by

both sides. russia used cluster munitions in their brutal war of aggression. while ukraine is using it to defend itself. the best way to end this brutal war is for president putin to stop attacking another country. that's the best way to stop all the suffering. and the death by different types of weapons on the battlefield. host: you can see that. president biden set to meet with king charles, a ceremony going on there prayed we will let you listen to it for a bit.

host: as part of the formal ceremonies there. president biden inspecting british troops. those in service to the king, that part of the ceremony takes place as the president meets king charles today. before he goes to the nato meeting before discussions of ukraine take place, ukraine being the topic for this hour. your support or opposition to further u.s. aid. william is in ohio on our support line. thanks for waiting, go ahead. caller: i support continued aid

to ukraine. our goal, i think we've announced a goal and it seems persistent that we want to stop russia from being able to defeat ukraine and be in a position to move that across the rest of the neighboring countries. it would be dangerous to allow russia to succeed. i disagree slightly with the strategy of limiting our exposure because it potentially prolongs it. i understand the strategy is based on trying to keep us from directly opposing russia with there are historical ways we've done that in the past. we loaned volunteers and we did

not have -- we had denied ability, i think that we can find a way of doing it, maybe we wouldn't have to use cluster bombs but the fact is russia is using cluster bombs so i'm in favor of continued support because i don't think this country if it's going to continue as a world leader can allow russia to succeed there and decrease our access to trade and other things that are important. >> william in ohio. the headline after the decision to send cluster munitions was made. this is the headline, the same cluster munitions banned by over 100 nations in ukraine after months of debate. karen is in texas, our oppose line. you are next up.

caller: we've alienated russia to go into the arms of china. china is the real competitor. we've got may be 21 trillion gdp versus chinese gdp is around 17%. the russians have a gdp around 1.7%. we have a bigger issue here that i don't think is being addressed. in my opinion we need to go towards a pure competitor, not russia. but unfortunately we've pushed russia into the arms of china. russia has every reason to win this war, we have to pivot away from europe if were going to survive as a nation. ukraine cannot win this with

cluster bombs. there is no silver bullet. the fact that we are supplying them with these lethal weapons that is so controversial, it's just a testament to the fact that we can supply ukraine with the weapons they need in order for them to truly win. host: karen there in texas. gary also on our oppose line in north carolina. hello. >> good morning. my opinion is whenever we occupy , anybody occupies another country, the trouble is just starting for them. you've got to imagine that these people are as resilient as they are, if they try to occupy these people and try to build some kind of infrastructure or some kind of transportation or make it part of russia, they will be

miserable like we were in every country we ever entered where we weren't popular. we have to look into the future of this instead of thinking more like in the present. when you drop these kind of weapons on the soldiers they will want to retaliate against these civilians. they will hold a grudge for a long time. helping them is probably going to be the best situation because the outcome is not going to be good. it will be a long protracted thing. looking in northern ireland in these other places, how long that's going on. you think about israel and the palestinians, we have to go against -- all in. it's just making me think the more i talk about it we have to go all in. >> a map of the 47 countries that are provided military aid

to ukraine being provided by the organization and council on foreign relations. there's the map including the countries nato members many of them and that's just an example there of the support from other countries including the u.s. asking people about where they are as far as that support is concerned. illinois on the support line you are next, good morning. go ahead. caller: aid to ukraine for a number of reasons. the gentleman and the lady both said yes, where disputants stop. do we wait till he is in poland and germany, how about when we have tanks pointed at 10 downing street what will be enough to satisfy and if you just want peace in our time, we don't know we have an invasion going on at the border. why don't we give them texas and arizona.

and new mexico. they just didn't bring their tanks. not only that, we signed a treaty. we said give us your nuclear weapons and we will defend you against russian aggression. the exact thing that's going on. and if our word is no good, what are we. i looked at the money we spend in our military budget which upsets me and that's why i'm like for this kind of money we should be doing much better. everything but troops on the ground. and telling is one kind of weapons we can send there. where does he get off on that? let's kick some but, let's put that cretin putin back in the yard where he belongs. i think given what's going on in

russia already that when putin becomes enough of a problem or this big bad decision he makes let's not forget he was the guy behind russia being in afghanistan for years and they finally left because they lost there. host: let's hear from luis in fredericksburg, virginia on the oppose line. >> it appears to me people forget the history of all of this. nobody is talking about the 90's and how five people owned 80% of russia's resources. criminals that were very much criminals and they blamed it until putin came in they actually owned russia's resources and he took their money away putting in the treasury for the people of russia and they have been wanting russia for a long time.

russia is rich in resources and they want to split it up between the cronies, the clinton cobol -- cabal. refusing to quit fighting a war. putin wanted autonomous zone. we have autonomous zones in iraq and why couldn't there be the donbas. why couldn't they be autonomous? this is a war -- this is not putin's war this is biden's war. host: one more call, mary elizabeth in new york city on our support line. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. it is very interesting that everyone has an opinion and i want to express my opinion.

i support the effort to help the ukrainians in their fight against russian aggression. -- i think we need to have a historical perspective as to what has occurred. war is a racket. we know that. eisenhower warned us against a military industrial complex. and all of those companies, the munitions companies are very much involved in people's 401(k)s and they are invested in them and so on. host: how does that relate to the efforts in ukraine specifically? caller: it has nothing to do with the survival of the ukrainians, who want to live free, who want to live under a

western perspective. they want to live in a democracy. they do not want to live in an autocracy. putin determined that he was going to realign and try and re-create the union of soviet socialist republics. the ukrainians decided they wanted to be free as ukrainians. and we have a responsibility, if they want to live in democracy, and our democracy is under that, that we should be in support of them. host: ok. mary elizabeth in new york city, finishing this our of calls. to all of you who participated, we appreciate you doing so. the senate is back today. the house will be back tomorrow. three weeks or so until be scheduled august break. and lots to do when it comes to what efforts are being made in congress. joining us next to talk about

that, stephen neukam. later on, we will be joined by jackie pfeiffer. she will talk about the recent supreme court ruling on affirmative action and how that will affect america's colleges and universities. those conversations, coming up on "washington journal." ♪ ♪ >> since 1979, c-span has provided complete coverage of the halls of congress, from the house and senate floors to congressional meetings and committee meetings. c-span gives you a front row seats to how issues are debated

and decided with no commentary, no interruptions and completely unfiltered. c-span, your unfiltered view of your government. c-span now is a free mobile app featuring your unfiltered view of what is happening in washington. live and on-demand. keep up with the day's biggest events with live streams and floor proceedings and hearings 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 "washing journal" and -- washington journal. plus, a variety of compelling podcasts. c-span now is available in the apple store and google play. downloaded for free today. c-span now, your front wrote seek to washington,

anywhere, anytime. >> the c-span bookshelf podcast makes it easy for you to listen to c-span's podcasts that feature nonfiction books in one place. you can discover new authors and ideas. we are making it convenient for you to listen to multiple episodes with critically acclaimed officers discussing -- authors discussing history and biographies. book notes plus, and q and a. listen to c-span's bookshelf podcast feed today. you can find the c-span bookshelf podcast feed and all of our podcasts on the free c-span now mobile video app. and on our website, c-span.org/podcasts. >> washington journal continues. host: congress is back this week. lots to do before they leave for the summer. here to join us and set up what to expect is stephen neukam. thanks for coming in. guest: thank you for having me.

host: the messenger, what is it about? guest: we are eight weeks in. we cover everything from politics to general news, sports and entertainment and business. our mission is timely, accurate, objective news. you can find us on the messenger.com. we have a great team. if you are interested in politics, it is the messenger.com. host: before we get to the nuts and bolts of what to expect, can you describe how much time is left in the current session for the scheduled break is expected to happen? -- scheduled to happen? guest: there is not much. there is a lot to do in the next 2-3 weeks. we are up against a deadline of the very end of july, july 28th is the last day until august recess.

host: and then the key thing that is planned or at least reported on this week is spending bills. and you describe progress that is going on and what people should be watching for as the process plays out? guest: it's interesting what is going on. the house of representatives is where this is playing out. they have to past 12 spending bills, agreed on the debt limit deal. or face a mandatory 1% cut across the board. they need to pass 12 spending bills. the issue right now is that house republicans agreed with the white house to spending levels, the freedom caucus, conservatives and the house of representatives want the budget numbers to be written even lower. and house republican leadership has, so far, agreed to that. they will take up a couple of these spending bills. they have to get them done, some of them done this week.

they will mark them up. they need to go through this process. that is what you need to see play out. the difference between conservatives and the house of representatives write those bills to, versus what senate democrats right those bills to. host: what gives them the gumption to vote for that number? guest: the freedom caucus -- the house republicans have a small enough majority that, a smaller number of conservatives, when you see this process play out, they can muck up a lot of the process for the house of representatives. this is one thing kevin mccarthy has given to let the house function easier. to let them have the spending bills written at fiscal 22 levels. this is the friction between the

two. they have a lot of pull with the speaker, because they are such a small majority within the house of representatives, that they can derail progress in the chamber. that's what gives them the ability to get him to agree to do that. host: if there is 12 spending bills, have any of them been passed yet? guest: no. host: what is the deadline for passage before conservative shutdown becomes a real issue? guest: september 30. we have until july 28, then we have the august recess and then they will come back in september. cancel your september plans. everybody on the hill will probably not have anything on their schedule other than dealing with spending bills. september 30 is the cut off. they need to pass all of these bills and get them through to the house on the senate. that is the timeline. host: is there some type of plan b in place, should those bills

not happen? guest: they haven't talked about a plan b yet. because mccarthy is adamant. this is one thing mccarthy wanted to do is pass these 12 spending bills. he wanted a more robust -- a more transparent funding process through the house. they could always, i guess, bring an optimists package together and push them all in at the same time. mccarthy said he is not doing that. i think that sin democrats would be willing to do that. but that is plan b. plan c is the mandatory 1% cut across the board for spending. host: one aspect of things going on. if you want to ask stephen neukam about that, you can call (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. and (202) 748-8002 for

independents. if you want to texas, you can do that at (202) 748-8003 -- text us, you can do that at (202) 748-8003. -- pick it up and see what other scenarios there? guest: they will have to come together. mccarthy talked about this after the debt limit insight happened. he said there was going to be a need -- these chambers are going to have to talk. they will have to sit down and hash out where they can come to compromises and where they can get these spending bills across the finish line. that is the track that we are heading to hear. democrats and the senate are going to have to sit down with republicans in the house and figure this out. host: to what degree are senate democrats willing to accept a lower number to begin with? guest: we are not sure. they are marking up at the levels that they have been given. that maximum level, which is what has happened in the past

and sort of his custom he hurt -- customary. we are unsure. we have not gotten through that much of the process yet. we need to see how that plays out and i'm sure we will get to that. host: one of the things that is also scheduled to be discussed later on this week is something called the national authorization act. can you explain what that is when it comes to defense spending? guest: congress needs to pass a defense authorization act each year. it's one of the only things that is passed -- one of the few things that is passed annually. so, yeah. it funds the defense apartment, the pentagon. a lot of defense activities. what is interesting is this is usually a vehicle for other political fights. other things are usually attached to this. for example, the funding for ukraine, we will get an idea of how much republicans in the

house are actually willing to support ukraine. how much more money are they willing to fork out to the war effort they are to support ukraine? the other thing is the pentagon has an abortion policy, a no abortion policy that they will offer paid leave and paid travel for employees that want to get abortion access. republicans in the house, they want to kill that plan. that is another thing that will be tacked on. aside from spending an authorization, there are other fights that will be tacked on. that makes the process that much more complicated. host: how many get tacked on? guest: i'm not sure. we have a fantastic reporter who is much better at this than i am. you can go to the messenger.com and see the lead story on our new site. hundreds have been filed in the

rules committee this week for the mbaa. they will have to sift through those amendments and figure out what they will bring to the forefront. host: with that in mind, those of the major things to watch. what should people also be watching for? guest: you should be looking for republican oversight of the white house. when republicans took the house, they promised vigorous oversight of the white house, of the biden administration and the biden family. they have been doing that. the fbi director, christopher wray, is testifying in front of congress. in front of the judiciary committee this week. he has been getting it from all sides, from republicans. so, and then the drugs that were found in the white house last week or a few weekends ago, the oversight committee representative, james comer,

represented -- requested a briefing from the secret service about that saga. they will continue this path of oversight at the white house. host: 10:00 this wednesday is the scheduled hearing with christopher wray, the fbi director. you can see that on c-span three. follow along on our app at c-span now. you can also follow along on our website at c-span.org. stephen neukam, when you talk about the cocaine that was found in the white house, jim calmer, sending a letter. here is part of what it had to say. the presence of illegal drugs at the white house is unacceptable and a shameful moment in the white house's history. the secret service has a responsibility to maintain effective safety protocols. this incident and the eventual evacuation of staff clearly raises concerns about the level of security maintained at the white house. the committee has oversight jurisdiction over uss operations. i look forward to information

from director cheadle. guest: i talk with some committee sources. it is unclear what they want to understand from the secret service about this situation. what i got was the press release and the letter was sent to the secret service. anything that has to do -- it's politics, right? there are legitimate security concerns. there is a reason cocaine was found in the white house and it is a big story. at the same time, republicans are going to use this opportunity to sort of drag the biden white house a little bit, right? and so, i think this is sort of what this is. and they will probably get a behind closed doors briefing, a staff level briefing from secret

service about this. and then we will see how james comer, republicans and democrats come out of that meeting. host: there were attempts to have this tied to hunter biden. guest: you saw that. some were more direct and some were more explicit. -- indirect and some were more explicit. hunter biden is one of the main targets of house and senate republicans, of presidential candidates. and has a stated public history of drug abuse issues and struggles. and so, when drugs pop up in the white house, it is an easy connection to make, i think. i don't think this is something that will sort of surface officially but this is something that was said on social media,

to put it out there. host: let's hear from sal, new jersey on the independent line. sal, go ahead. caller: yes, hello, sir. i would like to ask, this judgment, this decision that they recently made concerning affirmative action, is it going to be permanent or is it still incomplete? and if not, will it become -- what are they going to do? what are the conservatives going to do to make it complete? caller: i'm not sure. i think the supreme court ruling is -- has struck at the heart of affirmative action. it was a decision i think based around harvard and unc. two schools admissions

departments. but it is the supreme court. it is pretty overarching. what is interesting about the affirmative action fight is the reaction you are going to see on the hill from republicans and democrats. republicans will go after -- democrat will go after legacy admissions and affirmative action has been a target for republicans for quite some time. democrats definitely jump on things like legacy admissions and student loan debt. host: stephen neukam on the senate side, it was senator schumer sending out a letter, talking about supreme court ethics coming into the scope of the senate before they leave. guest: this is something they want to do, especially after the reporting about justice clarence thomas's relationship with republican donors. i think it is well documented

now. this is something that democrats have really pushed. it is more of a messaging thing than anything else. it is not something that will get through the house that is controlled by republicans. but, to the extent that republicans can do messaging in the house, democrats want to be able to do that. and the supreme court is something you can hold hearings about. that is something i think majority lead schumer has in his sites. host: in texas, your next up. caller: it's baseball season, everybody going along. as far as the supreme court is concerned, i wonder if jack smith is going to interview ginni thomas on her role on january 6.

as far as secret service, those guys should be fired. i don't know how they got coked through their. -- through there. you guys have a good one. host: let's hear from another texan, also from houston, this is robert on our independent line. caller: good morning. i am curious about the estate banking and if that process will begin this week -- the state banking act and if that process will begin this week. guest: that's not something that popped up in our reporting. this is a week, in a few weeks, they will be donated by the appropriations process. i can't emphasize enough that they need to get a bulk of this done. some section of it done these next 23 -- 2-3 weeks before they leave the entirety of august.

host: is there a plan for them to do that? is there a scheduled plan for them to work on these appropriations? guest: it depends on how many speaker things he can get through in the next couple of weeks. i don't know if they have publicly said we need to get six of these through the house floor before we leave for august recess. but, you know, it is starting this week. we will see. they have to go through the appropriations, the committee process and the markup process. they have to deal with the mdaa. i'm sure they have a number they would like to read. i think they will try and knock out as many of it -- as much of it as they can. host: one of the things we saw earlier, at least a month or so ago was contention between

certain factors and speaker mccarthy. guest: i think that, you know, it is professional. they have policy disagreements, in terms of how the house is being run. house freedom caucus members want as much influence as they possibly can have. speaker kevin mccarthy has a very small majority in the house of representatives. that means they have a lot of power and a lot of the ability to have influence over the speakership. i think that this is something that you will see pop up again in the appropriations process. i don't think it bears personal animosity. it is nothing like what i can point to as the marjorie taylor greene back and forth. there seems to be a deceased --

distaste. i think they like speaker kevin mccarthy, they just have policy differences. house freedom caucus memos, at least some section of them have said we will vote against these appropriations bills if they are not written up to the level where they have too much spending. and this is something that is going to happen. and they can do that. and there is enough of them, a small amount of them, where if they vote against the appropriations bill, it can derail the entire process. host: thanks for bringing that up. they are not afraid to do that. that is what you're saying. guest: they said in the immediate aftermath of that, the gas stove bill, there was a conservative rebellion on the floor. they would not allow a vote to go forward to allow that to proceed.

they worked all of that out. they were finally able to pass the bills they wanted to. they made very clear in the aftermath of that happening that they were willing to do it again. and, you know, that the house was going to be day-to-day in terms of the process they were going to be able to make. maybe the appropriations bill gets written to the level that they are heavy -- happy with and they sing kumbaya. but it is something to keep an eye on. host: i want to elaborate on this. represented marjorie taylor greene, according to reports, finds herself outside the house freedom caucus. can you say what you think is going on or what has been reported as going on? guest: yeah. they -- the house freedom caucus does not comment officially on membership or internal matters. i think that there is an uneasiness about her

relationship with the speaker. marjorie taylor greene is close with the speaker publicly. i can't say -- we will get a better idea when everybody is back on the hill this week. we can walk up to her and ask her if she is on the freedom caucus still. and others if she is in the free to cut -- freedom caucus. i can't confirm that right now. my official sources are saying we can't comment on membership in the caucus. so, we will have to see. it remains to be seen. host: there is a viewer off of twitter. this goes to the larger aspect of what the biden administration has tried to do as far as its reelection campaign, but how many republicans are going to take credit for -- particularly when they voted no? guest: this is something you have seen the white house be

aggressive on on social media. they have been aggressive about when a republican lawmaker would take credit for groundbreaking or take a victory lap for securing funding for something in their district that the white house or the president's twitter account said they would see them at the groundbreaking and other democrats would gang up. this is a reelection thing. it is something you will see on social media with democrats pointing out the fact that there are a lot of these funding mechanisms that republicans now champion and are celebrating on twitter. and they are coming from bills that they voted against. host: before we let you go, because of reelection issues, we have seen a number of house republicans put support out there for former president trump. how much support out there for other candidates is there? particularly for ron desantis? guest: it's a good question.

people in the house are remaining, if they are not supporting trump, a lot of them are willing to come forward and say they support former president trump. a lot of them are close allies of the former president. they were in congress when he was in the white house. a lot of people are not taking a position. and that includes speaker kevin mccarthy. at the top level of the republican party in congress. almost no matter what position you take on this, if you are pro-trump or anti-trump, specifically if you are the speaker, you are only going to alienate a certain subset of your caucus. and when the house is already volatile and there is already enough division on policy matters, i think that lawmakers are holding their tongue on the presidential stuff until they can get through what they need to get through on the hill and not adding that fuel to the fire

of everything else that is going on. there is a significant amount of support for former president trump. he still has a lot of allies in congress. host: our guest rights for the messenger. you can find his work at themessenger.com. stephen neukam. guest: thanks for having me. host: we will hear from the policy centers jackie pfeffer. she will join us in 45 minutes. up until then, open forum. if you want to participate, (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. an independents, (202) 748-8002. we will take those calls on open forum when "washington journal" continues. ♪ >> c-span's campaign 2024

coverage is 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. c-span now, our free mobile video app. or anytime online at c-span.org. c-span, your unfiltered view of politics. >> c-spanshop.org is c-span's online store. browse our latest collection of c-span products. books, home decor and accessories. there is something for every c-span fan. every purchase helps support our nonprofit organization. shop now or shop anytime at c-span.org.

>> nonfiction book brothers -- lovers, c-span has -- for you. on the afterwards podcast. and on q and a, here wide ranging conversations with nonfiction authors and others were making things happen. book notes plus episodes are a weekly hour long conversation that feature fascinating authors of nonfiction books on a wide variety of topics. and behind the scenes of the nonfiction book publishing industry with industry updates and the bestsellers list. find all of our podcasts by downloading the free c-span now app or wherever you get your podcast. and on our website, c-span.org/podcasts. >> listening to programs on c-span through c-span radio just got easier. tell your smart speaker to play c-span radio and listen to washington journal daily at 7:00

a.m. eastern. important congressional hearings and other public affairs events throughout the day. and weekdays at 5:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. eastern. test washington today -- text washington today. tell your smart speaker to play c-span radio. c-span, powered by cable. >> washington journal continues. host: again, open forum is available to you. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. and (202) 748-8002 for independents. if you wish to text us, you can do that at (202) 748-8003. some of the things to watch out for on the network side. today and later on this week, at 10:00, right after this program, the federal reserve's vice chair will be talking about bank requirement, michael barr, about the capital requirements needed for banks.

that lines coverage will start at 10:00 on c-span. you can watch on our app at c-span now and c-span.org. later on today, at 11:00, the fed is taking a look at the topic of inflation and its impact on monetary policy. this is sponsored by brookings institution. the main network is where you can see that. c-span now is the app and c-span.org. christopher wray, the director of the fbi for the house judiciary committee, 10:00 is where you can see that. c-span3, channel eight, you will be able to watch that on. as well as the app and as well as c-span. work. it was janet yellen traveling in china, but also taking time to do an interview on cbs. taking a look at potential recession, asked by the host of the interview, here is a back-and-forth on that. >> what signal should americans at home be looking for to understand the economic growth

will be back at a point, like it was before the pandemic? >> it's my hope that, and belief that there is a path to whittle inflation down. the things i have seen suggest we are on that path. >> the jobs numbers suggest a bit of a slowdown there. is the risk of recession completely off the table from your point of view? where do you put the odds? >> it's not completely off the table. but, we would expect for it to jog back to as strong as it is now. for it to be a slower pace of ongoing job gains. prime rates before participation is at the highest levels it has been that in decades. we are a strong -- seeing a strong track of workers.

if that stabilizes at a high level, we should expect monthly job gains to be coming down to a more normal level. host: that is janet yellen from the sunday shows yesterday. donald in virginia in centerville, democrats line. you are first up on open forums, go ahead. caller: regarding the biden situation [indiscernible] host: let me put you on pause. you will have to find a better place where you are calling from because your signal is coming in and out. is there a window or somewhere you can get better access that you could try? caller: not right now, i can't. host: go ahead and give it another shot from the top. caller: gun violence [indiscernible] host: i'm sorry, donald. perhaps if you can call in again

and see if you can improve that signal quality, go ahead and do so. go ahead and try again if you can. a caller in new hampshire, on the line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you doing? this open forum, there are so many issues going on. i don't know where to begin. i am disappointed. this war in ukraine, i have voted republican and democrat. i vote for the man. and america is not a bottomless pit when it comes to money. and it is almost like we are expected to give money to this war that's going on. and we don't have it. and we are not the savior of the world. we are not the greatest country

in the world anymore. because our god has become money and power. and that is obvious with the politics that is going on. when it comes to a presidential election, we don't have the best choice of candidates. we get the people that the party puts up. and they are not necessarily the best choices. i'd like to see john kasich run as a republican. i would vote for him and i'm a democrat. but he is a normal guy, he is a good guy. host: do you plan to vote for president biden again? caller: well, it depends what the choices -- if there is a republican that i like, i'd vote for a republican. because, i think mr. biden has made his life in politics. and he has never had a private job. and, you know, in my world, he

has been there too long. he's done a lot of good stuff. but, look at the millions of dollars that were spent to get him reelected -- elected when the roads in my area are terrible. there is a lot of homeless. there is no mental health facilities. and those are my priorities. host: ok. let's hear from kathleen. kathleen in dayton, ohio. democrats line. caller: thank you. i looked through your archives. excuse me. and washington journal has never done any programs or had guests on having to do with the four international reports labeling israel as an apartheid

government, having to do with their policies. there was an amnesty report, a u.n. report and a human rights watch report. and you guys have been absent in reporting about those international reports about apartheid. with regard to israel's latest incursion in the janine refuge camp, you don't have anyone saying that is palestinian, internationally recognized palestinian land and palestinians have as much rights as ukrainians do to fight for their home, their land and their lives. msnbc did one of the more honest reports. they had a soldier from the israeli army, part of an organization called breaking silence, which i recommend people go watch or go to on their computers. and you can hear reports from

former israeli soldiers on what they have been doing in palestinian homes, on palestinian land. i would ask you guys to cover those four international reports. as well as have some palestinians who can talk about the issues from their vantage. host: ok. i've been in oklahoma, publican line. your next up. caller: when are the fbi and the department of injustice going to take down biden? they received money from drug cartels. they have to smuggle drugs, sex trafficking into our country. host: you are making a lot of. what are you basing that on

? caller: the troops -- the truth. something y'all don't know nothing about. host: you said the truth? caller: as joe biden received money from crime families? host: and you based on what? caller: the truth. host: ok. let's go to bill. bill in wisconsin, democrats line. caller: yeah. i just wanted to say that i'm a democrat. i'm not in debt. i own my own home, my own property. i feel sorry for people that borrow money. the banks have just gone over the edge. i just wish people would live like me. live out of your own pocket

instead of the bankers pocket. host: what do you mean by that? caller: well, i have friends and in-laws in stuff -- and stuff. they are in debt to the banker. there were times when i tried to borrow money and the banker turned me down because they didn't like my credit. they did me a favor when they turned me down. because i ended up developing my own credit. i have a real high credit rating. so what? that doesn't mean i take advantage of it. host: one of the things to watch out for, you heard the previous guest talk about things to watch out for in congress. usa today had continued republican criticism on the president's handling of the border. title 42 would represent a strain of government security on homeland security data.

there is a decline of migrant crossing into the u.s. instead of an increase. publicans have not stopped attacking the president's border policies, warning the spike in border crossings caused by the end of title 42 might still come. there is a follow-up story looking at immigration. this is in the pages of the washington times by stephen. security opening up a new pathway for central american migrants. it says the program applies to people from colombia, el salvador, guatemala and honduras. they will be allowed to enter on a three year path, which the government can renew, rather than having to wait outside. the source says the move is the latest example of parole to admit 100,000 unauthorized migrants a month into the u.s.

-- who were pondering jumping the border illegally. that is the washington times take on it. if you want to read it there or online, in this open forum, deirdre on the independent line. caller: free palestine. thank you for the caller bringing up that point earlier. bombs are a war crime. why are they able to -- the u.s. able to send those to ukraine but the judge russia for that? caller: i don't understand when people say i vote for a candidate, i don't vote for a party. a candidate for republican party has to abide by his party or rules or whatever agenda. he has to do tax cuts.

they are going to cut social security. all the candidates talk about cutting down, raising the age or reforming social security and medicare. so when you tell me you are voting for a candidate, no. candidates are bound by the agenda of their party. this is what their party is going to do. they will take our rights, abortion, women's rights. deregulation. all they do is tax cuts. don't tell me i'm voting for a candidate. candidates are bound by their agenda. host: ok. gary in kentucky, republican line. caller: yeah. host: you are on. go ahead. caller: yeah. i'd like to address the monitors on your program. when republican callers call

them, you seem to quiz them a lot. i don't know if that is an author's job to do that or to answer the phones. when you disagree with what someone says, you hang up on them. host: i asked questions to clarify their cases -- opinions in some cases. go ahead. caller: someone is bringing up a point and you say where'd you get that from? the point is all over the news, sir. republicans don't just call and make that stuff up. host: ok. caller: people there are wondering what's even going on. host: that's gary in kentucky, calling on our republican line. you can do the same or pick the line that best represents you. we have a half hour to go. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. and (202) 748-8002 for independents. if you want to text us, (202)

748-8003 is how you do that. the washington times also, in its reporting today, takes a look at a headline that came out of reporting from the someday shows -- sunday shows. it was an interview president biden did before leaving for the united kingdom. one of the questions asked about his reelection campaign concerned is age. here is part of that discussion. >> many people say, and these are other supporters of viewers -- yours, the next thing he should do is step aside and let another generation of democrats take a baton. why are they wrong? >> it's not right or wrong. look, using the phrase again, i think we are at an intersection point. the world is changing. and i think there is one thing that comes of age if you've been

honest about it your whole life and that is your wisdom. i think we have been able to make significant positive changes in the world. i really, honest to god, do. you see what we have done in europe. europe is more united than it has ever been since world war ii. you see what we have been able to do at the indian ocean and the south china sea. we have united that part of the world, including basically 50 island nations that are participating. i think we are putting the world together in a way that is going to make things significantly -- how can i say it? more secure for people. we are uniting democracies and they have the possibility to in a way that had not happened ever. i think that whether it is safaris, nato, europe or what is going on in africa, i think we have enormous opportunities.

i just want to finish the job. and i think we can do that in the next six years. host: gary in pennsylvania, republican line. caller: good morning. i just wanted to say that i think these age limits on all politicians is a good thing. i think once they are in their 70's, they need to get out of office. they get alzheimer's and stuff. it makes it rough on the american people. i'm 66. i had to go back to work for two years because of bidenomics and make money because of the inflation. i don't understand how people can say it is better than it was three years ago. anyway, i pray that this country stays safe. and that we get out of these words that we don't need to be in. we are funding wars in ukraine and russia and they don't want to lose that because they are going to lose money because they

get paid for russia and china. they get a lot of money from these politicians. we need to change america again, make a great. god bless you all and keep up the good work. host: on another topic altogether, this is a view or texting us. mandatory federal service should be used when goals fall short. no exemptions for school, gender or other. that is a person making thoughts during this open forum via text. you can do that at (202) 748-8003. if you wish to do so. independent line, we will hear from scott in los angeles. caller: good morning to c-span. i have a complaint with you guys. this is open forum. and when -- who we want to hear from are the callers throughout the country. this is our opportunity to hear

what our fellow americans are having to say. now, i turned the program on about a week and a half ago. i timed it, it was 15 minutes of open forum. you showed asa hutchinson making commentary for all five minutes and then you read an article out of a paper, the new york times or something, that took another couple of minutes. this is extremely unfair, you guys. and while i have a lot to say about so many topics, i just wanted to waste my call on telling this to you guys. please, please have a team meeting. i implore you. we just want to hear from the folks -- we have all day to listen to these garbage politicians and hear articles that we can read all day. please, you guys. host: ok. part of the forum is just that,

letting people express things as they were. part of the forum is giving us a chance to roll in other news that we did not have a chance to do, including at the opening our which is a direct question of sorts. leslie is in pennsylvania, democrats line. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. i want to respond to the guy who says we don't feel better off than we were three years ago when trump was president. we got a president who won't insult another congressman's wife and call her ugly and disrespect a man's father like we did with trump. we have a president who will call out white supremacy and people and demonic -- evil and demonic behavior. number three, we have a president who will not make a hero out of a teenage double murderer like trump did with

kyle rittenhouse. that is why we are better than we were three years ago. we have a president who shows love and care of all people. not just to racist white people. thank you for c-span. host: that is leslie in pennsylvania. the front page of the washington post takes a look at the topic of reparations. this being made or an effort being made by native american tribes, this is rachel. writing more than 150 years ago, native american tribes sold for a fraction of its worth, nearly 94,000 acres of land to make room for the university of desoto. they said it was a start of a century long toxic relationship. and it is time for the university to pay restitution's. you have schools with tens of millions of dollars at disposal but they are not looking at ways to improve living conditions for indigenous people today.

it goes onto say that colleges and universities across the country are facing a reckoning from native communities and scrambled to find ways to make a men's. cornell university has embarked on a research project. it goes on from there. on the topic of reparations, that is a story that you will find in the washington post this morning. camille in montana, democrats line. hi. caller: good morning. i want to say thank you for c-span. i want to talk about the hypocrisy of the republican party. they are against free speech. you know that? they say they are for free speech. but if you look at them right now, look at the mantra of liberty. one of them quoted hitler. and a lot of republicans are cheering her because she did that. host: what quote did she say and

which republican made that claim? caller: it was the mantra of liberty? host: who made the claim as far as republicans supporting it? caller: i saw it on twitter, self proclaimed republicans were supporting that. and they are saying it is ok and not speaking up against it. it is a general thing republicans are doing. it is hypocritical of them to say they are all about free speech when they are supporting people who actually are quoting a guy who is against free speech. -- was against free speech. i would hope people can wake up and smell the roses that the republican party is not our friend. vote for joe biden or a third party if you have to. you not vote for republicans, they are not your friends. host: angela in massachusetts, independent line. hi. caller: good morning and thank you very much for c-span. i am angry about our foreign policy.

we have had 600 ships. currently, we only have 300. china is massing around taiwan with many ships. we are low in our u.s. servicemen. we don't have enough. a lot of people are returning to the army, the navy. we have a deficit in our service. and i am really scared about china. people don't realize that if they ever get a hold, they have police stations in this country. they had the balloon going over, getting all of our equipment from bases around the country. this is a scary time. i think joe biden is very derelict in his duty as far as --

this is a scary time for us to be living in. i'm 87 years old. i grew up during world war ii. my uncle served in the service. i remember standing in line with my mom. this is the worst time in my life. right now, i am $800 less in my living expenses than i was under president trump. i never imagined gas being this high. groceries, eggs, five dollars. i want to ask your people that are listening to you, are you better off today than you were 2.5 years ago? host: ok. dennis is next in iowa, democrats line. caller: the woman who just called, yes, i am better off with biden than trump. when trump was president, the state fair was canceled. biden is president and we have crowds there.

businesses were closed in my hometown. now, we have businesses opening up in iowa. host: how does the state fair relate to the president at the time? how would you clarify that? caller: ok, when trump was president, -- it was opening up at 8:00, closing it 7:00 at night. now, biden is president. we have two supermarkets. they open up at 7:00 and close at 9:00. it gets a lot more business. we have minor-league baseball in iowa. when trump was president, a lot of events were closed.

people who support trump are just as dumb as he is. host: dominic in virginia, manassas, virginia. republican line. caller: good morning. my comment is this. i have listened to a number of your callers the last 20 minutes. everybody that calls in on the democrats line seems to want to blame trump for everything. they forget that when the president takes over a bureaucracy, you inherit the people that are there. for instance, fauci, who is leading the cdc effort to find out the origin of the virus. two, argued for shutdowns. second, the man who just called in was complaining about the iowa state fair, that is a fallout of the cdc words to lock everything down and have masks.

they ignored science. democrats might now have killed the economy worse. i was in the navy during jimmy carter. had i known reagan was going to get elected, i would have stayed in. it was pathetic with the number of ships, the lack of training dollars. that is my comment. host: that is dominic in virginia. cnn reporting that chuck schumer is calling on the u.s. food and drug administration to investigate the high caffeine content of prime energy drinks which he says are being targeted to children as one of the hottest drinks for kids. the cans of prime energy contained twice the caffeine of red bull and six times coca-cola. the company does not recommend the drink for anyone under the age of 18. mr. schumer said marketing for the beverage is tempting for minors.

let's hear from bernard in elk grove, california. independent line. caller: pedro, i want to saymy thing is that donald trums making a fool out of these people in america. king is a threat to our national security. the one thing i want to say is, he keeps going to these values and saying things like who killed ashli babbitt? people need to stop playing with this guy and growth. tell that guy to grow up and say you did, because you sent her on a suicide mission based on a lie. he is a threat to our national security. host: how do you tie her to all

gross -- former president trump? caller: he's always saying, who killed ashli babbitt? he did. host: when you say he sent her, what do you mean? caller: when he came up with the stolen election thing, she was one who believed him. he knew it was a lie the whole time. that is how you send somebody that you have influence over to do something should not be doing. host: in west virginia, democ rat line. caller: good morning. it's been a while since i've called. give me a couple of minutes.

i've been listening to prior callers and they've got a lot of venom, especially on the republican side toward democrats. there that takes a differently -- as a group out there that takes a different league, but i consider you a very responsible, fair and balanced program. you don't only question the republicans and, with articles -- come up with articles and legitimate answers, but you questioned the democrats from where they recieve their information -- receive information.

you're not biased. i enjoy watching cspan. when i'm eating breakfast in coal country, i'm a former umwa coal miner, and a historical area -- but i'm not going off subject. you guys do an excellent job. all of your hosts do an excellent job. kudos to c-span. [indiscernible] -- host: thank you for the complement. i will extend it to all of our hosts. thank you. james in austin, texxas.

--texxas. republican line. caller: the last color, i don't know what channel he is watching because i'm a longtime watcher of c-span and i will say this. you're wuick -- quick to question anybody who wants to talk trash about joe biden or democrats. but you odn't do it when democrats bash trump. i've looked. it's very seldom. please be fair. you do lean a little. host: you must have the call a

couple of minutes ago, i questioned those. finish your thought. caller: i think reporters, journalists as a whole need to reevaluate where they are and get back to the basics of journalism. no matter what channel you go to, left, right or anywhere, they are not truly reporting honestly. keep up the good work but be fair in who you question and how you question them. host: in austin, texas, this open forum. plenty of you are dissipating and we appreciate you, calls, texts and emails, it is the lifeblood of the program. we averaged 60 calls on this program day after day. 60 of your opinions on various things, through the open forum segment or interview segments.

we appreciate the input we get. we would take the time to take a look at what is going on in 2024, it is soon upon us and is already started, to look where candidates are and what is happening. joining us is alexandra omer of reuters -- ulmer of letters -- reuters. guest: thank you for having me. host: give us a sense of the lay the land. guest: trump went to iowa, rick scott went this weekend and that is a turning point for a event this weekend. it is a controversial desk influential youth group. there are a lot of questions

about how and whether trump can revive it. a lot of eyes will be on that. host: yesterday in interviews, he made the claim that it was media coverage impacting that. where's the truth of that? guest: sure. he was saying all of the negative mainstream media coverage he is getting was an attempt to wipe about -- him o ut. this is a misstep of what he and his team have done. there's a video that his campaign shared that was accused of being homophobic. he seems wooden on the campaign trail and does not have that touch. host: when it comes to former president trump himself, he put out a story. you could talk about his situation and others, where is

the money going and who does it benefit? guest: desantis raised about $20 million in the campaign as last quarter. was in the running for six weeks. that is a strong showing. trump raised $35 million in about twice the time. desantis is doing well. a lot of people are desperate for an alternative to trump. desantis is the best bet. his problems seem to be on the campaign trail. there was a grassroots support that is still high for trump. host: there are reports coming in about nikki haley and ramaswamy.

can you elaborate? guest: yes, he is mostly self-funded. nikki haley started running fairly early compared to other candidates and is linked to some moderate republicans supporting her. she is lingering in the polls so maybe having a order time making her case with donors who are eager to have this. host: there was just announced that the iowa gop caucuses will took place january 15 of next year. what does that mean for the players involved? guest: that is early. it is important for desantis as campaign, the states that come after iowa, that appeared to be less favorable to him.

he is really banking on getting the evangelical conservative vote in iowa to dent trump momentum out of the gate. you can see him trying to move to the right of donald trump. he is hoping to make a strong showing in iowa. it could be a make or break. host: when it comes to this, we talk about a lot of republicans. president biden was hitting the road talking about biden onyx -- bidenomics. guest: his team is trying to push the idea that they are doing a great job. they are touting jobs numbers. republicans are pointing out that inflation is still high. it does not appear that the team has managed to change the narrative around the economic situation in the united states. that will be an important part of the campaign. host: is there consensus of how contentious this campaign is for

other candidates, robert kennedy junior, cornell west, marianne williamson and what that might do as far as taking support away from him? guest: i don't think there is a huge amount of concern. a covert republicans and not democrats so i'm not the best placed to answer that. we do see contraction on some of the cases perhaps. bitcoin, the founder, those who appeal or are interested in the anti-vax position. but beyond that, i don't think they would pose a major challenge to biden. host: another republican related question. the republican party in florida asking for a loyalty pledge for those who are interested. can you explain what is being asked of these candidates and what response there is? guest: sure.

it is also to ask who the republican nominee will be. that is important. this is an important step. there is been ambiguity in terms of how the candidates have responded and they have sidestepped the question. but that will be important. you can expect candidates to be asked about that. host: i suppose you ask all of this about former president trump, his legal concerns and the hindrances that might prove. where is he with that and where to seek go depending on the outcome of various cases and legal issues he has? guest: it is important to remember that trump has an estimated 35% of rocks out of -- rocksolid support of the publican party. then there are people who are never trump's or think that

there should be some one else. we have seen a lot of people pull back toward him, because they think these are targeted probes into him. the hope on the side of democrats and his rivals is that details, especially of this documents case start to trickle out, opinions might start to shift on what he is done. i don't need to tell you there will be productions that have not materialized in the past. host: what are you watching for in the weeks ahead? guest: a huge one is how desantis affairs. a lot of people are still on the fence and they want to see how he does in the debate in august. if he can show himself to be dominant and rise above and show his campaign has life and he has a viable candidate, that would come down -- come along way. and there could be fears out of

the candidacy. trump is pulling about 30 parents --points ahead of him. host: reporting on 2024 politics, thanks for your time, we appreciate it. a couple more minutes of open forum before we go to our next guest, this is joel in idaho, independent line. go ahead. caller: i just want to give a big shout out and thank you to the cdc for clarifying what these projections are for. it is almost like we are living in alice in wonderland. where right is left. i want c-span to do a program on the support for this debacle that the cdc have fabricated. host: brad in columbia,

tennessee, last call, democrats line. caller: good morning. i would just like to end the program on a thought -- i want to praise c-span. i watch c-span every morning and it is unbiased and you bring in factual information for the c allers to understand where they are. but i will say this. four years, four years president trump served in office. most of the time he played golf. it took him eight years to turn the economy around and handed over donald trump. in four years, republicans give him more praise than any other president. i'm trying to figure out what are they thinking?

donald trump took an economy that was bringing in 244 -- two to $34,000 a month, jobs a month. he took that and rode with it. and now republicans seem to think as though everything was great when trump was in office. he was writing the 44 economy. that is all he did. and he took credit for work another president did. republicans need to get off of this vote. -- bo. that man will break democracy. you will regret it. host: that is in tennessee, final call on the open forum. thanks to those who precipitate. the supreme court affirmative action decision in college and universities, what will be the impact for students on campus and administrations as they have to deal with that?

that will be our next topic, jacqueline pfeffer merrill will join us and we will have it when washington journal continues. ♪ >> for bigger copy of the 118th congressional directory at c-span shop.org. it is your access to the federal government with bio and contact information for every house and senate member. the federal agencies and state governors, what are your copy today or go to c-spanshop.org. every purchase helps support our nonprofit organizations. ♪ >> if you are enjoying book tv, sign up for our newsletter using the qr code on the screen.

to receive the schedule of upcoming programs, discussions, book festivals and more, book tv every sense -- sunday on c-span2, or go to c-span.org. television for serious readers. >> the up-to-date on the latest in publishing with the book tv's podcast about books. with current nonfiction book releases, bestseller lists and industry news and trends through insider interviews. find this on c-span now, our free mobile app, or wherever you get your podcasts. >> if you have ever missed any of c-span's coverage, find it anytime online at c-span.org. videos of hearings, debates and other events feature markers that guide you to interesting news and highlights. these markers appear on the

right-hand side of your screen when they play select videos. it makes it easy to get an idea of what was debated and decided in washington. spend a few minutes on c-span's point of interest. >> a healthy democracy does not just look like this. it looks like this. where americans can see democracy at work, where they are truly informed, get informed straight from the source. on c-span, a unfiltered, unbiased, word for word. from the nation's capital to wherever you are, because the opinion that matters most is your own. this is what democracy looks like. c-span, powered by cable. >> washington journal continues. host: our next guest is jackie pfeffer merrill, she is here to talk about the supreme court

decision on higher education matters. thanks for joining us. guest: thanks for having me. host: a little about the free special project. guest: we work with republicans and democrats find the best ideas in both parties to promote opportunities for american families, immigration, housing. we will continue to do that in the future if we don't have new leaders with the -- we work with colleges and universities to promote skills. host: as far as what colleges should bring to the table to prepare graduates, what should they do? guest: we need to give hearing to both sides of that case. the skills today unfortunately are going up increasingly, they don't know many people whose

viewpoints, new -- resources, -- and that is true after the pandemic when students were zooming in from school. so they don't know how to talk to people whose ideas are different from their own. host: i imagine, in light of all you have said, that the affirmative action decision of the supreme court on a legal matter is one thing but it affects the campus community as well. guest: absolutely. i know you had jeff from the wall street journal talking last week and he noticed the feelings were running very high in the court in the decision was being read. you can imagine what it is going to be like in college campuses, where it will have an impact. so we know that students are going to bring their ideas to college campuses.

and students are going to hear things that make us feel like they don't necessarily belong. let me be specific. some african-american students may hear -- students got him because of affirmative action, that will be the case going forward. asian american students may hear, to borrow from the headline and the affirmative action, they are being used as allies for whites process. you see that on social media, and regular opinion on public opinion. they will say things that tend in that direction. it will be important for resident advisors, student affairs leaders to be able to break into those conversations and say hold it. that might happen on social media. that is not how we conduct

ourselves on a college campus. host: if you are and a ministry in her of the college, what are the best practices to start as far as preparing not only faculty and staff but the students who will be impacted by that? guest: you made the point at the top, this is a question for college presidents. they have to show leadership and i'm expecting they will do that. i'm looking for three things from college presidents. number one, we've already seen a statement about the decision and looking for them to work with their teams about revising their policies and working with student affairs. i had a college president tell me it is the most nonpolitical job there is. that is especially true when many people distrust colleges, they are worried about free expression, whether admissions are fair. college presidents are looking

to make sure they communicate and are in touch with how they are feeling about this. host: they have to clarify how the process works on their individual campuses and how it will be impacted. guest: i do think college presidents will have an eye on the public. on-campus opinion is divided, off-campus public opinion is divided. researchers at stanford, harvard , the university of texas found that 69% of the public, the majority of democrats, republicans and independents favored the decision. it will be important for college presidents to say they are committed to diversity as a campus value. but there are a few presidents who have criticized the decision. they will be wanting to communicate the risk class and they will comply. host: our guest is with us, if

you want to ask about how college campuses can be impacted by the decision, students, faculty and the like, call at (202) 748-8000 for democrats, (202) 748-8001 for republicans and independents (202) 748-8002. if you are a student or educator, (202) 748-8003. you can also text us about that decision and to what level it gives you comfort as far as what is to come and the discussions taking place. host: -- guest: they will -- i'm confident in the responses because this has been a widely anticipated decision. we have a lot of experience in the last 25 years or so where it is already a requirement that there be no race conscious

decisions. there are nine states like oklahoma and nebraska, blue states like california and washington state, and they have had a lot experience trying to craft admission policies that build a diverse class while operating under the requirement that there be no race conscious admissions. host: on nbc, the incoming president of mount holyoke college was asked about what to expect on campuses. i want to tell you a little of her response and get a comment. >> i think what justice jackson pointed out in her dissent, and justice sotomayor, was that racism was an important part of american life and for many people it plays a negative part in their life. kids k-12, significant resegregation of our public schools and it lack of resources in our schools, and the lived experiences of those students,

black m otieno, native american and native hawaiian students. there is a significant negative impact from many of those experiences on the potential to compete for college admissions at places like harvard, university of north carolina. justice jackson says the majority has a let them eat cake obliviousness about the reality of race in the united states. i am becoming president of mount holyoke college tomorrow. i can tell you at places like mount holyoke at others, this will cause a major disruption in terms of admissions and the feeling of belonging for students on our campuses. host: that feeling of belonging, let's start with that. guest: i do congratulate the president on her new role. the general public strongly supports and agrees that it is important to have a diverse

college campus. in a washington post george washington university paul, the decision about the court, it found that's -- that 63% of the public hoped that the decision would be that it would be overturned. 64% said they support programs that increase the diversity of college student bodies and the four justices with that decision, justice roberts and his majority, and the three justices who had concurring opinions, all wrote they understand the importance of a diverse student body. what the majority and the general public thinks is that they don't want to check the box to achieve a student body that is diverse.

but the public recognizes it is important for our country. host: jackie pfeffer barrel. keith in denver, democrat line. caller: good morning. since you are a bipartisan policy analyst, who are -- i have a couple of questions. who is the primary beneficiaries of affirmative action so far? we should know this data. host: -- guest: well, the finding of the court was that students of color and especially black students had benefited from affirmative action. it also found that race had been a negative and asianams at harvard, unc.

that is a reason why they found the ways in which these policies were implemented and these schools did not need this scrutiny and were used as a negative stereotype. host: todd in ohio. caller: hey pedro. the previous person to call was talking about who benefits from it. my own question is this. i thought it posed significance, it showed belief that they thought race was significant when the majority decision -- opinion rather, where he wrote the essay was the place where you can address race when you talk about how it affected you. that summarizes it. i want to know, do you think

that is significant and it should be part of the what qualifies in a diverse population? because the decision overall concerns me, but when i read that part of the opinion i thought ok. they are not lost. they understand it is an important thing. guest: yeah. -- i want to recommend to readers -- i think they're going to widen the net. they are going to find ways in which they can recruit students at schools with populations that have been disadvantaged. so the university of virginia is

going to be targeting 40 schools in particular, some are going to be using the landscape program to identify students, neighborhoods and schools that have high populations that are historically underrepresented on campus. i think there will be a continued pressure on act, sat optional policies and we will see it many of those become permanent. i think there will be questions about whether or not colleges should continue legacy admissions as johns hopkins has done, they just discontinue them. you are pointing to the question of ethics. justice robert said that colleges can elicit individual essays how students backgrounds have shaped them. there will be a lot of focus about how these can be posed. justice roberts did write it can

be written in such a way as to achieve what was unlawful today. but that essay question is a real focus of what admissions officers are paying attention to. one thing that is not being done by colleges and universities, the elite schools, it's less -- let's whine the number who will not admit more students -- part of being in the school is this. host: shirley in indiana, good morning. caller: good morning. i'm calling because of the federal law that protects yellow students. beginning in the first grade, white kids and black kids are discriminate against -- this law

states that if english is a second language, they are not to be discriminated against, which they're not. but that same law discriminate against black and white students whose begin bush. if a child that is an esl student fails, they are not allowed to fail them for the first eight years that they are in america. but black kids and white kids -- which means that those kids get to go on for the first eight years of their life and get a special consideration, where the other kids are held back and not given that consideration. the person on this line that is talking right now, the speaker, is she aware of that law that black kids and white kids in grades one through eight are

held back if they don't achieve the goal and other kids are moving on duck up -- moving on? host: thanks for the perspective. guest: thanks so much. my salute to all of the math teachers out there. i am not familiar with how this law would intersect with the decision we are discussing today. but what is important is the quality -- some of the viewers may have tuned in last week. they agree that you need to do more on k-12. we saw on the nation's report card, it came out recently and found that math and scores fell

during the pandemic and the racial gap that already existed between black students and white students increased for math in particular. today we are talking about college admissions and that is important. that is just one moment and they k-12 college and postgraduate studies, employment, trajectory. i think addressing that k-12 quality and achievement in his address and what happened to herod. host: -- higher ed. host: treas a report about a senior at cal state long. she said she was one of the few black students in her bootable science -- politicance courses who feelsreure to maintain high-grade so other people don't question that she

has a right to be there. she is now considering historically black universities to apply for a doctorate, where she will be welcome. how does that play out as far as other students who may be grappling with these emotions? guest: you raised this question of belonging and i think that legacy of race conscious admissions and affirmative action have raised these questions and will continue to do so. this reflects the experience that justice thomas had of having his qualifications questioned. other students feel they belong less and there less likely to see fewer students who look like them because of that is why it is so important -- these conversations will come up.

i will think of a programming advance and being ready for when these conversations go sideways. they may say i'm in college, we engage with one another successfully. host: are there programs other colleges have used? guest: one thing i've seen in a number of colleges and universities is talking about open inquiries from the moment that students arrive on college campuses. purdue university, depaul university, they have orientation around freedom of expression and they say he might have been told only impolite people are religious, but that is what we hear at a nosh that is the excitation because our purpose at college is to be

independent speakers. one practice i think is very good is these orientation programs for matriculated students. host: on the republican line from georgia, hello. caller: how many graduations did harvard have this spring? host: -- guest: i am not certain about the number of graduations harvard has had this spring or in other years. host: are you still there? caller: yes. host: how does it relate to the topic at hand? caller: because they had segregated graduations, correct taco -- correct? guest: i don't know that that is the case. i do think there are schools where alumni associations and groups have separate

celebrations, not actually graduations showing a variety of divinity -- affinity groups. but i don't know anything about this practice in particular. host: in california, we will hear from cliff. the head. -- go ahead. caller: yes. i think there is an 80-20 situation going on, we are spending 80% of our time talking about 20% of the problem. the guest speaks about harvard, stanford, usc, etc.. but most college students are going to state colleges and state-funded universities. they are a different animal than private colleges.

some of the problem could be solved if other states would do what california and texas has done for over 100 years. we have a great system of junior or community colleges. they are just about absolutely free. anybody can go and it is not cost anything. then you just pay for your second two ears of another college. but it is somewhat of a conundrum when we talk about having a society based on merit. a meritocracy. on the other hand, we are talking about giving somebody an extra boost.

the two are not compatible. guest: i will respond in two parts. you are exactly right, it is not really an 80-20 problem. but many students and undergraduates attend schools that we think of as pre-highly selective, they slept only 25% or fewer applicants. and that kind of school, a small fraction of the 4500 higher education institutions, those schools are where the affirmative action case will have any impact. the research institute at the university of california los angeles finds that more than half of students who attend public universities attend university within an hours drive of their home. one thing that can be done if we are concerned about equity in

the long run is that employers can do more, not just take students from the top 10 or 25 schools but to recruit broadly from a wide range of colleges and universities where students are attending. but you have to make a point about community colleges. 40% of students enrolled are at community college today or started their education at one. we had an imposing for leaders of community colleges and i was able to see what a terrific job they were doing to prepare conversations across boston community college that's awesome can unity college. they bring together students to discuss texts like homer's odyssey and learn how to have open conversations that they

take into their education and communities. host: from virginia, the democrat line, you're on with our guest. caller: real quick to my sister who was talking about esl students, esl students can be black too, but not only that, they're not talking black students are having opportunities. you can also be failed. i work with students and i had a student fail because they almost failed three classes and they were going to hold him back. if uva is going to be reaching out to diverse students or whatever, are they going to fix their policies and address all of the history in the past, including thomas jefferson, and i think it is ironic that we have a white woman talking about affirmative action. have a good day. guest: we have seen schools like

georgetown in washington, d.c. think about the ways in which slavery has had an impact on their history and tried to address that through conversations and scholarships. it is a hard question and we are grappling with those things as a country and as code campuses. that is why this particular topic and affirmative action in this case has feelings that are running so high. we want the colleges to be ready when students come back in the fall, for when these conversations will be taking place. host: the new york times put out a survey about where the public stands on these kind of issues. they were asked about private colleges and universities, saying they should not be able to use race as a factor in admission and 69% agreed. that translates to how these

discussions will take place on campus come the fall. guest: does. it was not 69% over all only, but a majority of republicans, democrats. there is broad support. we know there might be the case there is more support for race conscious admissions in college campuses and among admissions officers. but if they are ready to say all hands of things, the washington post quoted in georgia tech, asian-american students lustful who were speaking about decisions, saying students are afraid of being canceled. we want to make sure the number one job of a college is to have open conversations. we want students to support -- to express support or opposition

to this decision. i think the justices model that. you can tell reading the decisions it was deeply personal. there are going to be some students who agree with justice roberts that the way to eliminate this is to limit all of it. there will be those who agree with justice sotomayor who agree. you can organize meeting groups, discuss these positions, and how the justices -- but philosophical, moral, legal arguments that are personal on which they disagree. host: you have to deal with free-speech issues a lot of the

time, but how do you allow the conversation to happen? guest: leadership starts at the top. it is terrific when we see college presidents, whether at baylor university, university of richmond, they have president speaker series where the president brings in speakers and moderate the conversations that may have different points of view and are challenging to the campus community. but i think it is also important to have panels with lots of different points of view and it begins in classrooms where we get to have a little historical move on some of these conversations. so we read about the constitutional debate. or we can read frederick douglass, or any number of the

federalists and learn about the principles that are still informing this kind of decision today. host: charles on the independent line, in maryland, you are on with jacqueline pfeffer merrill. caller: thank you, good morning. as an african-american graduate of a state school, a local school, it informs my comments. first to the gentleman who said who benefits the most from these type of affirmative action programs, i believe everyone does. because you are exposed to different cultures, different people and in my experience 50 years ago, it informed how i managed to navigate the corporate world. in addition to that, i think the private schools, the affirmative action decisions and how it affects the private schools is

that a lot of our great leaders that manage the country, that lead the country corporately and politically comes from these organizations or colleges. so if we are not in the room, there is less diversity in what is going to be represented in the future. those are my comments. host: thank you. guest: i could not agree with you more. i was a college professor for years and i know that diversity is part of what makes a college classroom successful. having students with all political points of view, urban, rural students and students who are lacking, latino, white, immigrants to this country, think about what justice powell said in the original decision,

the first of these cases, he cited a brief from harvard university. it said it might be more important to bring in a farm boy from idaho then one more australian and likewise, a black student will be able to bring a perspective that a white student will not be able to bring. having a diverse group of people on campus is mission-critical. you have a wide range of viewpoints in our discussions. host: sergio in order, republican line. go ahead. caller: good morning, how are you? guest: good, thank you. caller: i have a couple

questions. how does affirmative action and higher education impact my different universities, but african-americans want to improve upon their education, do you think this is a good move by president biden to do this properly as well? how do you think the democrats and republicans coexist on that? guest: my belief is that florida is one of the nine states where there are already rules against race conscious admissions. this is a question of how the states implement these decisions. they go around the particular school systems, they have to study the case, some schools already decided they have read the case to mean that race conscious scholarship decisions

will no longer be possible so the university of missouri, which includes four public universities, more than 7000 students a year. the university of kentucky have decided on their reading of the case, that race will no longer be a plus factor in the awarding of scholarships. on the question of president biden and others weighing in, it is important for universities to build in. we are waiting for college leaders to think about how we design a college class. host: what you think this will do as far as campus discussions on connected admissions -- admissions duck boat guest: --

admissions? guest: there will be tough to say. i don't think many going to revisit legacy. it is race neutral at space but in fact it overwhelmingly benefits white students. there are some schools that have given up legacy admissions. johns hopkins has done so and it was tied to a large gift from michael bloomberg who gave that gift contingent upon them giving up legacy is. this could be more pressure to give them up. but just like we did not hear them say no we are admitting more students, now we are going to have legacy admissions, we will ask them to favor legacy admissions overwhelmingly unpopular. host: in pittsburgh, democrat

line,. caller: i'm actually in college right now and i have spent some time in a state school and i transferred to a private university. so i feel like i have been able to kind of see a little of what a modern university is and i don't know if i -- growing up in high school before i was going to college, we are very aware of what schools are looking for. what is crazy about race conscious admissions is it is literally this conscious admission that your race matters. and in the same way that volunteering has washed -- there is a conscious expectation. it looks better on your

application. so a bunch of students were doing volunteering work but they don't care that much. but they are doing it because they think it is going to help them. they're going to follow through and we have seen the same thing happen with race in a weird way. i think part of our cultural divide is that we have been asking kids around 14 and 16 to be aware of their divisions with each other. schools matter a lot to people. for some more than others. but when you make something matter that much it also tells them by the way -- i had a conversation in high school with a teacher -- and i will finish soon -- but he is hispanic and he asked me, we were having a conversation about race conscious admissions and he said would you give up your spot to someone who you have the same

credentials but they were black or whatever? would you give up your spot? when i was 16, that shook me a little. i felt like why should i consciously be stepping down? that should not be my choice. i don't think it is fair for that choice to be determined by the color of our skin on some level. it should be determined by the merit of our work. host: i want the guest to respond. she was to respond to you directly. guest: thanks very much for that. i'm wishing you the best in your studies. i know how high feelings run when one is applying for college. my eldest child went through that last year. i know personally how to tense

one feeling -- one's feelings can be. it is hard because college admissions are a game. if someone gets in, some alleles does not. on this case, what we saw in the argument is that there are intellectually and morally serious arguments on the case. i love that your teacher asked you to think about that question. and to deeply engage with that question. that is what we are going to see on college campuses, people wrestling with what is this americans of the decision, how's it going to be implanted practically, how did they incorporate that into their understanding of the meaning of a college experience? host: this is going to be a topic when he returned to college, how do you think it will change the culture? caller: i don't know. i think it will be better in a sense.

i am jewish, white. i have had friends who are black explain -- express the same, you get into a program and you feel is this because i'm black, because i'm white, the same way that i did not get into a fair amount of schools when i applied for some high school. -- first in high school. not trying to be a evil human being and be considerate of everybody. but i cannot help but have this sense -- this gnawing voice, is this because of the color of my skin? that is a thing i thought of. it is cut sideways through merit because it is that conversation with my teacher. when he was trying to say was, i think, i'll have to go back and talk to him. but he was telling me, you want

your spot -- is someone is going to have my spot, i want to know and trust they are better than me. host: thank you for the perspective. guest: i think one thing that is important, you mentioned working with community college leaders, are excellent opportunities for terrific education, whether it is regional, community or public university, community college. one thing in the country, in the business community, it is making sure they are in talks with institutions. host: brian, independent line. go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. you got one heroic call center guy answering the calls, this is

not working, it is not rational, you got to get more people answering the phones. my point, a raise. it's irresponsible to talk about affirmative action. you guys are very factual but affirmative action is not just disqualifying people into these college admissions. affirmative action addresses is because of other affirmative action for rich people is that they have this they are already getting preferred treatment because their parents and their grandparents going to these colleges and they have generational wealth area african-americans coming out of the jim crow and slavery did not have property for generations. affirmative action means a lot of qualified african-americans couldn't get into the college based on the preference.

that's what it addressed. it was not there based on just the color of the skin but it's that a lot of qualified african-americans could get into colleges and that made it predominantly white and a lot of unqualified white people getting to college based on the generational wealth. host: we will let our guest respond to your comment. guest: i appreciate the perspective. when you go back to the pole that was done by the washington post in george washington university, even though about two thirds of people and almost half strongly say they hope they would overturn affirmative action, two thirds also said the support programs that make student bodies more diverse. people support those kinds of programs but they don't like to just check the box to achieve that so i think there will be support for other types of

programs that achieve having a diverse student body and do them in a different way than we saw at issue in this particular case. host: bipartisan policy.org is the website and you can find the work of our guest right there. thanks for your time. guest: thank you. host: that's it for our program today another issue of "washington journal" comes your way at 7:00 a.m. tomorrow right now we take into discussion taking a look at the federal reserve and particularly the safety and health of banks as they keep from having instances you heard from earlier this year. we go to that discussion in progress already. [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]

>> under two minutes, folks. thanks for waiting.

>> federal reserve vice chair michael bar is set to talk about capital requirements for banks. he is speaking at the bipartisan policy center here in washington, d.c. and the event is expected to get underway shortly, live coverage on c-span. >> one minute, folks.