, former -- nicholas dujmovic, former cia chief historian and director of the intelligence studies program at catholic university discusses the bay of eggs invasion. washington journal is next. ♪ host: another mass killing in the united states on friday has the community reeling and americans wondering what and be done to stop the violence. even before the latest deaths in indianapolis a gun violence memorial was up on the national mall honoring the 40,000 people who died from gun violence in the united states each year. the shooting at the fedex facility in indianapolis is a grim reminder of the problem facing the country and bringing us a question -- the question to our viewers with all of the

recent mass shootings what is the solution? we are going to open up our regional lines. if you are in the eastern and central time zones you can call (202) 748-8000. if you are in the mountain and pacific time zone your telephone number is (202) 748-8001. you can always text us at (202) 748-8003. we are always reading on social media, on twitter @cspanwj, and on facebook at facebook.com/c-span. let's start by talking about and hearing from you on what your possible solutions would be to the recent mass shootings in the united states. i will bring you the story from the washington post this morning describing what happened in indianapolis. the gunman who carried out a

massacre at a fedex sorting facility, killing eight people before shooting himself, was a 19-year-old former employee with a shotgun seized by authorities. indianapolis police said friday. the shooter left seven injured and it came during shift break at the facility and left bodies throughout the parking lot and inside the campus warehouse just after 11:00 p.m. thursday. authorities say they were investigating what might have mowed the killer who identified as brandon hole. he appeared to have fired his rifle at random and the attack lasted no more than a couple of minutes. relatives of those who worked at fedex waited to learn whether their loved ones had lived or died. once again, this is only the latest in several shootings that have happened -- several mass shootings that have happened in the united states over the last few years. we want to know from our

viewers, what could be a possible solution? yesterday, president joe biden came out and talked about what he wants done about gun violence in the united states during a white house press event with the japanese prime minister. he was asked whether he would change his legislative priorities, given the shooting in indianapolis and the shooting of a 13-year-old latino youth in chicago. here is what president biden had to say. pres. biden: i've never not prioritized this. no one has worked harder to deal with the violence used by individuals using weapons than i have. i'm the only one ever to have passed an assault weapons ban, the only one that got a 10 year ban on assault weapons and clips of more than 10 bullets. immediately upon coming into office i had the attorney general put together things i could do by executive order including dealing with new guns that could be made, you can buy

in pieces and put together, and other initiatives. i strongly support the universal background checks, which i continue to push. congress has to step up and act and the senate has to act. i strongly support and i have never stopped supporting a ban on assault weapons and magazines that have no more than 10 bullets. it doesn't mean i can also be working at the same time on the economy and on covid. it's not a question of my being able to set the agenda in the senate as to what they will move to first. i continue, and i strongly urge my republican friends in the congress who refused to bring up the house passed bill to bring it up now, this has to end. it's a national embarrassment, it's a national embarrassment what's going on and it's not

only the mass shootings. every single day there is a mass shooting in the united states if you count all those who are killed out in the streets of our cities and our rural areas. it's a national embarrassment and must come to an end. the folks who own weapons, folks who own guns, they support universal background checks. the majority of them think we should not be selling assault weapons. who in god's name means a weapon that can hold 100 rounds? or 40 rounds or 20 rounds? it's just wrong, and i'm not going to give up until it's done. host: here are some of the executive actions the biden administration is suggesting to put in the place to curb gun violence. they want to close a regulatory loophole to stop the pull up -- proliferation of ghost gun's.

those are handmade or self assembled firearms that don't have serial numbers where they can be tracked. they want to clarify statutory restrictions on stabilizers and braces and high-powered pistols. they want pistols -- they want to make sure pistols are not modified to be more dangerous, meaning owners will have to register and pay a fee for any modifications. they want to publish model red flag legislation for states, and they are looking for $1 billion in grant programs for the community to combat and prevent gun violence and they want to require the justice department to issue an annual report on firearms tracking. those are executive -- firearms trafficking. those are executive actions possibly brought by the biden administration. what we are seeing on this terrine is the gun memorial violence. that memorial is honoring the

40,000 people who died from gun violence each year with 40,000 of those flowers. that memorial first went up on wednesday before the shooting happened in indianapolis. let's go to our phone lines and lets talked our first caller from akron ohio. good morning. caller: good morning. what i wanted to talk about where the unpublicized causes of violence. one of them is what we eat. when animals are in agonized pain, terror, and anger at the slaughterhouse they sickly -- they secrete adrenaline. some of it remains in their fresh -- flash even after cooking and it causes violent feelings in humans who eat it. a second thing that causes violence is antidepressants. the fda has required that they

have a label on them saying they could cause homicidal or suicidal actions. a third thing that causes violence is steroids, which are known to have side effects like anger, irritation, and so forth. host: do you think any of those things are what are causing mass shootings in the united states? caller: i think what is causing the mass shootings is also the constant saturation of violence in tv, the fact that children are taught to hunt and stock animals in the woods when they are little, that people are taught to kill in the military and we have more military ventures than other countries and that we have states that allow for the abuse men of children --

and that women are subjected to violence, there is a culture of violence towards women and there is a terrible culture of violence towards black drivers and black men in general. host: that's a long list, what's the solution? caller: i guess the solution begins in the heart of each of us. that we make changes, that we no longer eat all the food we do, that we stop eating murdered animals and their stolen products and that we make nonviolent thought and that we oppose war and we oppose executions. host: let's go to diane who is calling from albany, new york. diane, good morning. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. caller: hello? yes, i think we need a lot more stricter gun laws.

we need to get rid of these ghost gun's. we have to stop being able to buy these things via tv. i would suggest that only gun shops be allowed to sell guns. i would also agree with the first lady that we are saturated with guns and more guns and knives on tv shows and it's hard sometimes to turn on the tv without finding a show with more violence. that needs to end. i don't know if i said this, but i think only gun shops should be allowed to sell guns. host: you will probably hear someone say later on in the show that there are plenty of gun control laws on the books now, they need to enforce the ones already on the books instead of coming up with new laws.

what would you say to them? caller: i would say we need stricter enforcement. that is really, i come from a family of hunters. they went to a gun shop, they bought their rifles. and some of them had pistol permits. i really think we need stricter laws and more enforcement. host: let's go to bob who is calling from north carolina. bob, good morning. caller: good morning to you. hope you are doing ok and appreciate you putting this on. one thing i would suggest is. i agree with you and what you are talking about as far as stricter enforcement of existing laws. the other thing i'm going to relate to is that it had to be about a year and a year and a half ago you had a fellow on tv

and he was talking about different things and different violence associated with guns. one of the things he said is everybody should get some training on it and make it a mandatory education rep wire meant from grade school or maybe high school as far as what guns do and how you use a gun and the responsibility you have when you do have a gun. host: are you saying that everyone who has -- who is licensed to have a gun should be required to go to some type of gun safety course? how does that stop the people who are not licensed to have guns? caller: i did not say that people who are licensed should go through a gun safety course. what i did say is that it should be a mandatory requirement for people in grade school and high school.

begin with the training of those individuals as far as what guns can do and responsibility with having guns. like i said. there was an individual on your program, had to be at least a year or a year and a half ago and i listened to him and he had a lot of good ideas associated with this. i cannot recall the man's name. i think he was from new jersey are one of those states. he had some good ideas on it. host: to make sure i understand, you are saying train all students? not just the ones who want to own guns? train all students on how guns work and on gun safety? am i understanding you correctly echo -- correctly? caller: you are. host: let's go to john from liverpool, new york. john, good morning. caller: how are you doing.

that last collar is ridiculous, everyone knows what guns do. the problem is not the guns. the gun does not cause the death. it is the bullet. it is time we started concentrating on some control of ammunition. you state these as mass shootings. it's almost impossible to do a mass shooting without a high ammunition clip. it makes common sense, everyone knows that. how can we be selling ammunition clips that have more than six bullets? that's where you have to start making laws. you have to start regulating the amount of the let's that can be put into a gun on a clip. that makes common sense. everyone says common sense gun control. you start with regulating the bullet clip. that's where you start. that's it. host: doesn't that infringe on

the second amendment? caller: are you kidding me. everyone of our amendments has rules and regulations. read him of speech, freedom of regulate -- freedom of religion. give me a break on this. on infringement of rights garbage. host: all right. the new york times has a partial list of the recent mass shootings in the united states just this year. and while this shooting happened in indianapolis on friday, in that community they also suffered through to other mass shootings including one on january 24 where five people were killed and one on march 13 where four people were killed. there have been other mass shootings around the united states just this calendar year, boulder, colorado 10 people were killed south carolina seven people were killed. atlanta in march 8 people were

killed. allen texas for people were killed. this is not just a problem happening in one part of the country or just in particular cities. it's happening around the united states. let's go back to our phone lines and see if we can get a solution from rebecca from california. good morning. caller: good morning. i just want to make a statement actually, i'm sick of opinions. this is going to force another lockdown. we are trying to get out and have a life and now the gun violence will force us to lockdown. i thought covid was bad. we are going to have to take individual personal responsibility for our lives. we are past the point of no return. there is no solution. each person now will have to basically enter the world at their own risk.

sorry it has to be so negative, try to have a good day, everyone. host: let's talk to linda from mount holly, north carolina. caller: good morning. i hate the words gun violence. you have a memorial up there that guns can't commit violence. it's the heart. our hearts need to return to the laws of god and where is the memorial for the 63 million innocent babies that are murdered. host: what would be your solution to the mass shootings problem in the united states? what would be your solution? caller: it comes from the heart,

not the gun. the heart of the individual. host: how do you change the heart of the individual? caller: you return to the laws of god. our creator. he will change your heart. host: let's go to sean calling from laurel, maryland. caller: good morning. i didn't know if you were talking about mass shootings or gun laws. host: we are talking about mass shootings, but some people are saying we need stronger gun laws. caller: -- gun dealer in maryland. all you will do is add more fees and have people wait longer to pick up the gun they are trying to get and go through the assets that will take you 30 days and $300 and the federal process is going to stay the same and the states will get more money out of you.

they want to go after people coming in trying to buy. i did my bit by not getting the refund but if they are not going to enforce the regular laws who is going to protect you when the bad guy comes? host: what do we do to solve the problem of mass shootings? caller: you are going to have shootings. they did lower the level from 20 to under 10, you have people that get shot in groups like that daily. that's almost throughout the whole united states. you can't change human nature, you have to defend yourself when it comes knocking. that's your choice. host: you say there's no solution to mass shootings in the united states? caller: there's no solution to human nature. people are going to kill whether they use guns, knives, their fists, their feet. we are animals. you tell me what you're gonna do when someone comes to your door

and are you going to call the police and wait 15 minutes for them to get there or are you going to deal with the situation and protect your family? host: let's go to matt calling from bladensburg, maryland. caller: how are you doing today. host: go ahead. caller: i think it's time, i think it's time to stop humoring these people. i think it's been proven once and for all this country is not emotionally mature enough to own guns. imes tired of humoring them. there is no reason to go on and allow people to do this daily. these people that think that we are that barbaric a civilization that we can't maintain the same kind of laws they had in sweden

or switzerland's. switzerland, it's insane how few murders they have annually. i saw an interview and they were saying just how immature our country is about guns and the way they look at guns. they have guns at home and they can. they don't have the murder rate that we had. it's all a mentality thing. we have let hollywood dictate our lives and our government promotes violence. you don't need much more than a clip to kill a person. whether you have mega rounds or not is not going to control how many people you can kill. host: what's the solution? caller: there's just no argument to it. it's just time for this country to grow up. host: what's the solution? caller: i don't think they are

willing to -- first they will tell us that we don't enforce the laws that there are when you try to enforce the laws there are they will take that they say they will take your guns. to me the only thing we haven't tried i don't think anything that semiautomatic should be available to people. i don't think anything that you can conceal should be available. host: let's go to some of our social media followers and see what they say about a solution to recent mass shootings in the united dates. here's a post from facebook that says "those who commit a crime with a firearm should be given the maximum sentence and no chance of parole. taking guns from law-abiding citizens is not the answer. the law-abiding citizens are not going out shooting up the town or cow -- shooting up the town."

" all gun should be manufactured with chips that cannot be removed without disabling the weapon, the chip could also prevent the weapon from being discharged in certain environments and also identify the weapon to building sensors which could disable the weapon." people -- they bring their military weapons home including automatic rifles. no mass murders there. we should follow the swiss. "immediate banning of all semiautomatic weaponry. mandatory insurance for each weapon own area high bullet tax, no online or show sales. background checks. proof of safe storage and regular inspections -- we want to know from you what you think could be a possible solution to the recent mass shootings. here's a story from reuters that

explains more about ghost gun ownership in the united states. according to reuters with about 121 firearms in circulation for every 100 residents, the united states is by far the most heavily armed society in the world according to this research group. gun ownership is becoming less common across the country and one in three u.s. households own firearms in 2016, down from nearly half in 1990 according to a corporation think tank. ownership of varied significantly by states and 66 of montana households own firearms compared with just 8% in new jersey. that comes from reuters and their survey -- why tighter u.s. firearms are unlikely. we want to know from you what you think is a solution to the

recent mass shootings. let's go to debbie who is calling from columbia, missouri. good morning. caller: good morning. there have been a lot of good ideas. i think we need to focus on the families and have mothers and fathers raising their children and schools teaching about healthy families, mental health, anger management and the families are responsible for all their members. throughout their lives. if they have -- there were red flags in each of these mass murders. we need to do a better job of assimilating our immigrant families. and fixing them and teaching them what it's like to be an american and celebrate their culture to. but we need to focus on

families, america, and i think we need to vote in person in our own neighborhoods. host: what do you mean when you say you should be responsible for your own family? does that mean a 60-year-old person would be responsible for the actions of their 25-year-old son or daughter? caller: yes. host: responsible in what way? if the child commits a crime the parent goes to jail? caller: when you have a family member with a history of mental illness or perhaps they are deficient mentally, you don't let them have a weapon if they have ptsd from military they probably shouldn't have a weapon. there are agencies to help, everybody learn what a good healthy mental health and who is

capable of handling a firearm and if you have a mentally ill person in the house and each of those cases around the country, those were people that had red legs. the schools and professionals new and the family. and they didn't take action to remove them. even if there are mentally challenged people that shouldn't be walking this week's. that goes back to the family. if you know you have somebody that is not capable take care of them. host: let's go to james who is calling from brooklyn, connecticut. james, good morning. caller: how are you doing today? a lot of people are saying the craziest things i ever heard. name one reason why these people -- there is one reason these people are out there shooting and killing.

it's because these corporations are taking everybody's jobs away from them and no one can support themselves. that's what happened last night. the man got fired from his job. you don't give a man a reason to live. [indiscernible] time bomb ticking. these big corporations, we need to take them down to where we can all start coming out and living as people. host: five that reasoning, what you just said, you shouldn't be able to fire anyone because firing someone from a job, even someone who possibly is stealing from the job, or someone who is not showing up, could cause a mass shooting. caller: no, no, no. that's the nonsense people like to talk about. let me tell you something. i've never seen a guy ever talk

violence when he had a good job, a wife at home, and people that love him. today you've got nobody that love some, nobody out there with a job and people with all these ideas coming from hollywood. we have children growing up not knowing if they are a boy or a girl. we need to get back to the basics in america and put these jobs back in the community. host: what's your specific solution? what should be done to stop these mass shootings? caller: it would stop the mass shootings. you give a man a job. host: how are you going to give people jobs? are you saying the government should provide jobs? tell us what to do. caller: i'm telling you what to do. break these big companies down, put these local jobs back where

we had them. you so you all these factories that closed down in america, that means nobody has a job. look at what's going on in america. the family is gone. because nobody has any money. host: let's go to joe who is calling from san antonio, texas. joe, good morning. caller: the last couple of callers are pretty entertaining. how do you fix the problem, you can't fix stupid. it takes personal responsibility. the last two callers danced all around it, but we have lost our personal responsibility. host: explain what you mean by that. what are you calling personal responsibility. caller: people think they can commit crimes on the street and not be held responsible.

people think that they can have unrestricted sex with no consequences and abort the babies. be responsible for every action in life. host: give us a specific answer on what a solution would be. you've identified the problem, what's the solution? caller: no solution would be if everyone took responsibility for their actions. host: how do you make people take responsibility? there are going to be some people who are just not going to do it. how you make people do that? caller: think back on your life and when you grew up. you probably lost a job here or there, i certainly did, i didn't go out and shoot people. we had disappointments and bullies in life, yet we still persevered and got ahead, because we had to. but there is nobody to catch you. you're going to live at home

until your 50, you're allowed to murder your babies and not face up to your problems, the government is going to take care of the police in your life, you don't accept personal responsibility. how do you teach that? i don't know. it's taken a generation to a race all that. the one common denominator in all these mass shootings is it's usually a young kid who grew up in a home without a father. the one common denominator. how we got there -- people wanted everything for free. host: let's go to lou calling from highland park, illinois. caller: good morning. thank you, jessie, for being the dead -- for being the devils advocate this morning. i believe what half stick come is an executive order.

the executive order -- what has to come is an executive order. the executive order would be no guns are allowed outside a house. all these mass killings are outside of the home. if someone is caught with a gun outside of their house, 30 years in sentence. that's my specific solution. host: how you get lawmakers to start moving on laws like that? caller: executive order would come from the president. he wouldn't need congress. the only way to solve this problem is the bypass congress and create a powerful, it's not a law, but in order to solve this and then secondly i would make this temporarily and let it ride for five to 10 years and see what happens then let congress look at the results and

see if they want to pass a law. i believe this is the only way to get around the second amendment. host: amy is calling from richmond, virginia. good morning. caller: there have been some really interesting ideas on here. i want to comment on a few, one is the lockdown and the lady says that we are going to have another lock down. that's what i was thinking this morning before i heard her say it. during the pandemic, as far as i know there weren't any, during the lockdown's there were not any mass shootings. it seems like since restrictions have been lifted that people are going crazy. i find it weird and also about the ammunition. if somebody has a single shot weapon, they are not going to be

able to kill, that one man in nevada, i don't know how many people he killed. it such -- in less than 10 seconds, i don't know much about guns. the ammunition, i think that's a huge problem. i think there should be laws about that. the one guy that talked about requiring people or all students to have lessons about guns in school, i don't condone that, but if we were to do that they should also have weapons. i agree with the lady about the mental health, they need to have lessons on how to have good mental health, anger management, and stuff like that. another problem is people seem to have no respect for life anymore. i think if people can have respect for nature, the planet and have a sense of coming

together to help save the planet , people need to realize that our existence is in peril. host: let's go to vicki who is calling from arkansas. vicki, good morning. caller: good morning, how are you. first, we need to stop all of these gun shows. and the other thing is, when they started putting these rifles that would shoot 100 or 300, those should have never been in the united states. when i was growing up, we had prayer and we respected the law, we respected each other. that is not taught in the schools. you can't go around rioting because you are teaching your

kids if you are unhappy tear something up or do something. we need hard laws on people that kill. if you kill and murder so many people you need to be put to death. i believe in that. host: let's go to eric who is calling from compton, california. caller: good morning, america. i have the cause of the problem and the solution. we are dealing with this problem, i call it -- a lot of people have a killer heart, and that heart, you would kill your own brother for religious differences and stuff like that. a lot of people have this killer heart. they won't do nothing, but they have this hardware they bite around with good, and i wish person would get in my way so i can kill them.

i wish a person would come to my house so i can kill them. that's the heart people have and they call themselves christian during this. "i wish a person would so i can kill them." i heard the person talk about the universal background check. i'm a person, i stand here a changed man, a changed heart, and i'm not going to kill anybody and i'm not going to carry a gun, i don't want to gun, i don't use a gun. i live in compton, california and i'm not scared because i'm protected by the word of god. it's not a weapon, it is a protection. i don't need a gun. host: what is the solution for the people out there who do already have guns and are committing these mass shootings? caller: i cannot speak to them. a universal pardon for us that do not want to use weapons. i want to make a list for the

free people that do not want to use guns. this list -- host: i think we lost eric. let's go to john from georgetown, texas. john, good morning. caller: good morning, jesse. you have to think about the fact that the income inequality, somebody else called -- [indiscernible] the jobs away and all the money going to the top and i think that is generally made everybody upset and it has turned everything from gun violence to obesity to food deserts to everything. i look back at the question for the gangsters and the john dillinger's and all that, that was a time of poverty and great depression when they were going

on and people were so disaffected by their lives. then the new deal came in and you brought prosperity and opportunity and education so we created the largest -- that type of -- except for the occasional charles manson. we didn't have the problems we had today. i think joe biden has the answer and i'm not talking about him specifically trying to get political, but when you create prosperity -- they showed an anger and i think that's how you get rid of this type of balance. -- violence. host: all around the country, different states are looking at different gun policies, even

before the mass shooting happened on friday and i will bring to you several stories from different states looking at the gun legislations and policies they are considering in those state. in new jersey a story from new jersey about what new jersey is thinking about doing with gun laws. governor phil murphy proposed a host of new gun policies thursday including only giving permits to residents who pass gun safety biases and raging the purchasing age from 18 to 21. the proposals follow a rising number of homicides in new jersey and other parts of the country. the change would be the most sweeping gun violence prevented package in the history of our nation. murphy said to more than 100 people during a press conference at a newark community center. that's in new jersey. in arkansas, here's the story

from little rock talking about what arkansas is considering. a bill that gives state and local law enforcement the ability to not cooperate with federal law enforcement is problematic according to the governor. the governor said friday he is reviewing senate bill 298 which is on his desk for signature or veto consideration. the bill known as the arkansas sovereignty act restricts local and state law enforcement or public officials from enforcing or assisting federal agencies or officers in the enforcement of any federal statute, executive order or federal agency direct of that conflicts with the arkansas constitution. the measure specifically addresses federal requirements to register or track firearms and any prohibition against possession or ownership of a firearm or accessory or the

complication of firearms or ammunition. new jersey and arkansas doing two different things. we will bring you what is going on in other states later on. let's go to brian from colorado springs, colorado. good morning. caller: good morning, jesse. . in order to slow down these mass shootings it needs to be a multi-pronged attack. you have to look at mental health first. with the mental health industry as it is in the united states a lot of people just can't get help. they are either locked up in their apartments or homes and now they are getting a chance to get out, and things are just kind of going crazy. there are not laws -- there are laws on the books that can prevent these things that are

not being enforced. and instead of trying to make excuses on why this is happening or why gun violence is happening it should be dealt with quickly and expediently and people should know what the consequences are when you commit a crime with a gun and i think if you commit a crime with a gun and take someone's life you don't need to be out on the streets again. you can stay in jail and that's why felons are not allowed to own guns and they still get them. they get them off the streets, they don't go to gun shops or gun shows, i've never been to a gun show where you didn't get a background check if you are planning on buying. the gun show loophole i don't think is a real issue as far as gun safety and gun violence.

host: john from milwaukee, wisconsin. caller: i'm going to say something controversial but give it context first. the last time america was great was the day before columbus led all the europeans over here. who do you think is committing the majority of these mass killings? white men. why? let's not kid ourselves. they are the perpetrators and i don't care which one you choose, they can all help. deep inside them they know what is wrong with the bad guys. host: let's go to davis who is calling from connecticut. good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to note that i am in the state where one of our

major employers is a gun -- host: you are still on, go ahead. caller: one of our major employers is a gun manufacturer. i have one thing that might be a solution and these gun mank to factors are exempt from liability laws according to federal law. i think if you took away that exemption that was granted to them by congress you would see a significant decrease in gun violence in the united states. that's all i have to say. host: let's go to bill who is calling from st. mary's, pennsylvania. good morning. caller: good morning. i don't know why everybody is doing this, i believe there are bad people in this world. they steal money from seniors, they steal money from banks, whatever.

instead of passing a law to hurt everyone why not pass a law with some teeth in it -- make a good stiff law, i don't know what it would mean. host: would it stop people like the shooter in indianapolis friday who committed suicide after the mass shooting? caller: no sir, and i don't know how you present -- prevent that but i believe in my heart that if you put a law in instead of trying to punish everybody just punish the bad guys and make it a law that really has teeth in it, i think you would see a drastic drop in the stupidity. >> let's look at two other

states with gun legislation working its way through their state legislature. in texas, the texas house has passed a bill that would allow permit less carrying of handguns . i will leave you -- read from the texas tribune. they would illuminate the requirement for texas residents to get a license to carry handguns if they are not already prohibited by state or federal law from -- supporters of permit must carry including gun rights groups and conservative republicans argue the measure allows texans to exercise rights -- calling it constitutional carry. democrats, joined by some law enforcement officers instead cited the need for stricter gun safety measures following the 2019 mass shootings in el paso and midland odessa.

that is house bill 1927 which was passed by the texas house and is now in front of the texas senate. in alabama, here's another state that is working its way through more gun laws. in the alabama -- they'll them senate has passed a bill that would make it a crime for state and local officials to enforce any new gun control laws or regulations from the biden administration or congress. the bill by a republican from tuscaloosa is one of several bills in the legislature aimed at blocking enforcement of any new federal gun control measures. similar laws are being proposed in other states. once again, different states moving different ways when it comes to gun laws in the united states. before we go back to the phone lines let's look at what our social media followers are saying about solutions for mass shootings in the united states.

here's a tweet that says, we have security at airports and bag checks at concerts. corporations need to improve security. background checks and fingerprints plus card scanning should be put in place. "many of these young shooters have been indoctrinated on violent 80 a games that have killing and getting to live again to kill again as solutions for their problems. start there. here's another text that says "i suggest a mass shooting remediation tax on all guns, ammo, sharp instruments, and vehicles. another text that says to solve the gun problem we need to do several things. parents need to train children not to be violent and schools and other training must teach more than reading, writing, and math. third, religions and cults must

be responsible and stop convincing people that the world is going to end. one last text that says it all comes down to one thing, drug addiction, gun violence. people have lost hope. we need hope again. let's go back to the phone lines and let's talk to carlos who is calling from cincinnati, ohio. good morning. caller: i have two things to say. i think we need to revise the second amendment. the second amendment was brought in in the 1700s for a purpose, to allow people to have guns for the militia, not for going out and killing people. we need to revise that constitutional second amendment to what is happening in the world today. we need to educate our children like someone else said. we need to do that through the long term. it's not a short-term answered everything.

what we are trying to do here today is to fix -- and want put your finger in a diked that will not hold it. we need to get someone with a lot of cement and fix it and seal it up. it takes all the states at the same time doing the same law so we don't have 50 different laws on gun control in every state, every state is different. we need to get that together and get the education and it's going to take time. it won't be done in a year and it will be done in two years. it will be done -- and what we have to do it through maybe two or three generations. host: let's go to nancy from cedar falls, iowa. caller: good morning. i agree that it starts at the home and schools and there needs to be better education and it starts with the lack of mental health care available to people

and i object strongly to the implication that all people with mental illness are violent. yes most mass murders have mental health issues, but there is a very small percentage of people with mental illness that are violent. you can't discriminate against mental illness. the answer would be to have a relevant and extensive psychological test on the background checks. host: let's go to nick who is calling from nebraska. good morning. caller: good morning. i think that we should implement some local gun clubs versus having gun dealers i suppose. host: what's a local gun club? caller: if you purchase a

firearm you have to be a part of the gun club and go through the gun club versus going to a gun show and not being a part of anything. i gun club you could be responsible, the club would be responsible for their patrons. host: ok. let's go to alvin who is calling from delaware. good morning. caller: good morning. you are asking a real serious question which i don't think there is a logical answer to. i was just going over in my mind, there is not one lawn the books right now that can stop bad behavior and you can have all the laws you want, but people are going to act up. the further our society moves away from christ, these are the kinds of things that are going to happen over and over again. this started a long time ago

when it started taking christ out of schools and people started moving in different directions and you have women that want to be men. we have changed. in my 60 years of life, life in america has changed. host: how do you explain the fact that other countries which may or may not be christian don't have the mass shootings problems that the united states has? caller: when you have 3 billion guns on the street you are going to have idiots that have guns and recap it. the countries that don't have that issue, they don't have the population that we do. we give countries credit for not having mass shootings but their population is not what we are and we are supposedly so far

advanced but it's to the point where we are going to kill ourselves out of extinction. host: let's go to ron calling from elizabeth, indiana. caller: good morning. i would like to ask a few questions. how many of these shooters have been alienated by friends, family, employer, classmates or their internet communities before they took these actions. how would this change if communities made efforts to include all of the members of their community in some kind of discussion to find out what each of us need as far as keeping us safe and happy and healthy and getting our lives together and moving on away from problems we might have and what could happen

if people stopped waiting for some magical super being to fix our problems and what if we just stepped up and started fixing these problems ourselves by caring about one another? host: let's go to steve who is calling from pennsylvania. good morning. caller: i don't want to sound like a pessimist, but there is no solution. the problem exists because of the way the world is today. if we put in more gun control it's going to take the guns away from the good guys. the bad guys will always get the guns. the bad guys will always find a way to commit these atrocious crimes. the only solution we have is to be more of a civil country and it starts in washington, to be more bipartisan so that the reflection of washington goes

back to the communities around the country. by putting gun laws in you only take the guns away from the good guys and that's not the solution. host: coming up next the vice president of demographics and behavioral insights for the national association of realtors discusses their 2021 home buyers sellers generational trend report. later on the former cia deputy chief historian and director of the intelligence studies program at catholic university will be here to discuss the 60th anniversary of the bay of pigs invasion, the failed cia backed effort to remove cuban leader fidel castro from power. on thursday, florida gop congresswoman maria salazar spoke on the house for about the 60th anniversary of the bay of pigs invasion.

here are her remarks. [no audio] >> i rise today to commemorate the anniversary of the baby pigs invasion. over 1400 men, many of which were only teenagers, volunteered to save the island of cuba on april 17, 1961, from communism. 114 brigadier's and four american soldiers were killed in action. while thousands of others, including my grandmother, were waiting on the island for these freedom fighters arrested,

killed, or sent into exile. for the miami community exiles that i represent, these are a moral point of reference. our heroes and reminders of how the cuban people continue to suffer under a communist dictatorship led by the castro brothers. i am proud to join in introducing a bipartisan resolution honoring the brigadier's. i urge my colleagues to cosponsor our resolution, to join us in our fight for freedom, democracy, and human rights in the only communist bastion in the western hemisphere, the island of cuba. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are back with jessica lautz, the vice president of behavioral insights for the national association of realtors. she is with us to discuss their 2021 home buyers and sellers

generational trends report. good morning. guest: good morning. thanks for having me. host: tell us what the 2020 one home buyers and sellers generational trends report is. what is it looking for? guest: this is a massive report. it is about 150 pages. we take the data, and it is an annual survey, and it looks every year who is buying homes, why they are buying homes, their interaction with their agents, and how those demographics are changing among homebuyers and home sellers. host: tell us what you found. what is changing about homebuyers and the age of homebuyers? guest: there has been so much talk of late about millennials and how they are having a hard time buying homes, and they are. there is no inventory in this country and they are facing struggles searching for homes. what we did find is the largest generation of homebuyers today

is millennials. contrary to what we think, they are out there, they are buying homes, they are a large section of the market. that being said, their homeownership rate overall is lower than what we have seen for past generations. host: what is causing that? can you tell us more about what is going on? guest: their age spans from 22, all the way up to 40. it is the largest generation of adults we have today. they are going to act differently in the market. separate out younger millennials from all the millennials. older millennials are likely on their second home by now, likely to have a family with young kids. we look at younger millennials, they are entering homeownership with family help. they are moving from a family member's home, or they are actually getting down payments from friends or family. to really boost their ability to

pay for that down payment and closing costs. host: everyone has a different definition of what a home is. let's define for our audience what we are talking about. our talking about condos? all we talking about townhouses? we talking about single-family ranch style? what are we talking about? guest: it is the full spectrum. it has to be a primary residence. that is what we are looking at. we know the people who bought vacation homes and investment homes actually did increase in the last year. they wanted those places where they can escape and really work remotely. this report in particular is looking at primary residence buyers. a large single-family home, all the way to a tiny home, but we are looking at everything in between. host: looking at your report, it says it is the single-family

homes that seem to be most popular across the spectrum. and even for millennials. we hear a lot of talk about millennials moving back into downtown, urban cores, instead of living in the suburbs like their parents did. are they finding these single-family homes in the cities, or is that trend wrong? are they still finding the acre lots out in the suburbs? guest: it is the spectrum, but affordability is he here. especially this year when home prices have been increasing. what we see is that millennials are seeking supportability, seeking less density than we have seen in the past. udc millennials buying in cities at higher rates, but surprising is that we actually found a large share, 20%, are buying in small towns. they really are saying, you know

what? where can i get more bang for my buck? where can i buy a larger house outside of a dense area and really have a place of my own? host: which brings us to my very next question. what are the factors that millennials are looking at when they are thinking about buying homes? are they thinking about affordability? space? are they thinking about future investment possibilities? what are millennials looking at when they are looking at that first house, or even second house? guest: you have all of the keys there. affordability is key. when they purchased their home they are saying, this is a good financial investment. when we compare them to other generations, they are the most likely to say my house is a good financial investment. it could be because they are buying properties that need elbow grease, but we also see what i think is very unique to the younger millennial generation especially, is that

they want to be close to friends and family. it is possible they moved out of a friend or family house. that is a very important connection to them. it is interesting when we look at that young millennial generation and see that, because it is very similar to retirees. didn't see it among boomers, we didn't see it among gen xers, but we do see it among young millennials. they want to be close to those friends and family. host: let me remind our viewers that i want them to take part in this conversation as well. we are going to open up special lines for this conversation. if you are between ages 22 and 40, those of the millennials we are talking about right now. if you are between ages 22 and 40, we want you to call in at (202) 748-8000 two tell us about your home buying experience. if you are between ages 41 and 55, we want to know about your experience. call us at (202) 748-8001.

if you are between ages 56 and 74, we want to hear your opinion. your number is (202) 748-8002. if you don't fit in any of those categories, younger than 22, older than 74, there is a line for you as well. that number is (202) 748-8003. keep in mind you can also text us at (202) 748-8003, and we are always reading on social media. jessica, i remember when i bought my first house back in 2000, the interest rates were somewhere between 10% and 15%, but the millennials have come up in an age where the interest rates have been relatively low. how has the interest rate affected their ability to choose that first or second house?

as opposed to the people who came before them? guest: the interest rate environment right now is amazing. it really is at historic lows. we are seeing interest rates around 3%, a little more than that right now. and buyers are able to take advantage of that. it gives them more buying power. that said, we have seen this rapid price escalation, so both of those things all at once. buyers really do have to wait that -- weigh that. you have competition dry -- driving buyers in, so you have to be patient as all of these buyers have multiple bids on one home. host: one of the things we have heard from a lot of millennials is about student loan debt. how is student loan debt affecting homeownership in that age group? guest: that is huge. there is no way around saying

how big student loan debt is and what a hurdle it is, saving for that down payment, saving for closing costs, and then the buying power. we look at millennial generation, do see that younger millennials, the highest share when they enter homeownership at 43%. when we look at younger -- when we look at older millennials, it is less. whether it is older millennials or gen xers, it is very steep. that does translate into a lost amount of time that they have to pay down that student loan debt, get their debt to income ratio and check so they can work on their credit score, and then save. that is very hard. we do see that reliance on friends or family to help them. and boost their ability to enter homeownership. a lot of people can't rely on that. it is holding back buyers.

host: we expect millennial buyers to be more internet-savvy. how has millennials entering the home buying market changed the industry? guest: yeah. i think what is really interesting is when we look at all of the generations, they are all using the internet. we do see, whether it is using a mobile phone or getting your laptop, or just sitting down at your desktop computer, every buyer is taking advantage of these search tools. especially in covid, you don't necessarily want to walk into every home. want to be strategic and say, ok, let me take advantage of these virtual tools. virtual tools, videos, even doing a virtual listing. we do see that younger buyers are embracing these tools. when that hand-in-hand with the realtor. -- doing that hand-in-hand with the realtor. host: let's let some of our callers join the conversation.

let's start with dd from cleveland, ohio. caller: hello. host: go ahead, deedee. caller: i bought an income property, so that way i do have student loans, the burden of paying the mortgage is not all on me. guest: you know, that is really interesting. what we are seeing right now is that there is actually a lot of -- especially young buyers -- were pulling their incomes -- you are pooling their incomes. affordability is key. we see a lot of young adults saying, you know what? i want a two bedroom and i'm going to rent out that other bedroom. the onus is not only on me, that i can share those costs. maybe that is utility costs, but it is also that mortgage. host: jessica, who is it that actually is buying homes?

is it single people? is it mary cupples? is it multi-generational families? who is the composition of homebuyer households right now? guest: that's a great question. i guess i can say, all of the above. what we are seeing is that marriage rates have dropped. we used to see that back in the 1960's that more than 70% of american adults were married. today just half of american adults are married. we see unique compositions of people who are buying homes today. it has changed over time. we are seeing this nadir of marriage rates. just over half of home buyers are married. we see a large share of single females. they have been second only to married couples. we also see a very large growth in multigenerational buyers. one in the six buyers. maybe they have an older parent,

but we see contributions contributing to that mortgage payment. host: when you say multigenerational buyers, are you talking about parents and children with their name on the mortgage or just living in the same house? guest: we are collecting it as living in the same house, but i suspect there are people who are saying, this allows me to buy a bigger home. when we ask the question, are you buying a multigenerational home, what we see is half of purchasing for older adult relatives to live there, especially during covid. people wanted to protect their family members from nursing homes. they brought them into their home themselves. we did also see a third of multigenerational buyers are saying, i want a larger home. this will allow me cost savings. i suspect in that situation we do have those names on the

mortgage as well. young adult homes, we saw massive growth in that. we saw post secondary colleges change. all of those makes of generations could actually all be in one household together. host: let's go back to our phone lines and talk to scott, who was calling from maryland. scott, good morning. caller: hi. i've been in my house for about two years now. it is my first home. one message i want to tell a lot of young people is, make sure you invest early and often. one thing i did was roth iras. you can put money in it, it can grow, and you can take $10,000 of the capital gains and use that towards the closing costs

of your primary home. i think the clock on that is about five years, so you can keep doing it throughout your life without having to pay taxes on those gains. guest: yeah. i would say there is so many unique programs that are available locally too. he is calling from maryland, and looking at the programs in maryland, there is one that works with you on your student loan debt and helps you enter homeownership. illinois has a similar program. one of the things i think people don't know about our state of local programs -- and i encourage people to research and see what is available in their local area, because they might be able to open -- able to enter homeownership with these programs. host: let's talk to mike, who was calling from montgomery, alabama. good morning. caller: good morning, jesse. i would like to just bring a historical perspective. i have been on this earth 68 years.

one of my favorite sayings i learned back in college was from john calvin, who said that hard work breeds success. i think that is true in my fortunate life. in 1978, when i got married, my wife and i did not want to pay rent and throw money out the window, so we bought a starter condominium in connecticut. things got better as careers progressed, and the kids came along. we bought a front-hall colonial in a better community. things got better where i was able to get a relocation package for my employer and moved from connecticut to alabama, where, of course, the housing is less prohibitive where i was before and was able to buy a 3000 square-foot rick home in montgomery -- brick home in uncle marie, alabama.

-- montgomery, alabama. i guess all of your colors and your guests, if you have a strategy and look at the economics can be cognizant of the housing market, you should be ok. i think i am probably two years from retirement. my wife and i will probably look at our last, final destination for a home. hopefully it will be a good one. a smaller one, and that is our next, probably our last purchase. so, real estate, i guess has been something that was to our advantage. i just wanted to do that, the xers, if they are planning a career, be cognizant of the real estate market. guest: i love that story. i think it is a positive story of homeownership.

what we do see and what the federal reserve reports -- and i think what his experience was -- is that he earned equity in the all of his homes and was able to purchase larger homes along the way as his family grew and as his job relocated. we do see the federal reserve reporting that homeowners have, more than $255,000 compared to renters at just $6,000. i think it really is encouraging, and that was a very positive story about the joys of homeownership and that people want to buy, because they want to place of their own. host: one of our social media followers has a question we touched on earlier. i wanted to go back and give us more information. how many of the new homebuyers are moving away from the largest cities to the rural areas nearby because of covid and the rising costs? where is the location of these new homes that millennials and others are buying? guest: that is a great question.

i will say that about a year ago what we did see is that people said, you know what? i need less density, i have to move away from the city center. i see these walls collapsing ramping. but we did see is a lot of trade. i will say the daily -- the data is self-reported. people say i'm moving to the suburbs, i'm making that trade. you don't know if those are inner suburbs, but it is the suburbs. what we were able to do recently is dig into big cities for millennials. ogden, utah, surprisingly one of them. we do see places that are more affordable, or close to friends and family, could be where people grew up. and maybe they moved to a big metro area and said, you know what? my friends and family have the support system around me. i have some kids. i have these older adult

relatives around me. we did see a lot of moves longer distances as people say i have to get out of the city center, i have the flexibility, so we did see these moves. host: millennials did not -- were not old enough to recognize all of this when it was going on, but we all remember when the housing bubble first a decade or so ago. go ahead. i appreciate you knowing what i was about to ask. guest: i will say that while millennials may not have experienced this themselves, there is definitely a hangover effect from that recession. we have done focus groups with young adults, especially those with student loan debt. they were wary and said, my parents went through this, so i want to be wary moving into homeownership. i want to be a homeowner, i think it is a good financial

investment, but they are actually saying when they purchased a home, i want to live here for a longer period of time. for entry-level buyers they expected to live there for five years. it has doubled to 10. they are not saying this is my entry-level home, i'm going to move. they are actually saying, this is a home where i'm going to live for a while or grow into it. maybe i will take in a renter and expand and have a family later. they are staying a longer ring -- longer period of time. host: olympia, washington. rachel, good morning. rachel, are you there? caller: i'm there. can you hear me? host: yes we can. go ahead, rachel. caller: i've been living in the same house for 20 years. i pay the mortgage. his name is on the deed. i'm a little bit frustrated. i have a daughter who lives in

oregon and she has been wanting to buy a house. she is still living, so i don't know what she could try to do to get out of her situation, but i'm praying and hoping she can. host: go ahead and respond there, jessica. guest: i think it is really hard right now for renters to be able to find a property. i'm not sure if rachel's daughter is a saving for that down payment or in that home search process, but inventory is very tight. especially looking at the pacific northwest. we know there is a lot of competitions for home right now. people are trying to find that perfect property. is she saving for a down payment? i would say look at those state local programs, see if there is anything she qualifies for, and stay on track. it does take time. especially right now. host: let's talk to homer, who is calling from shreveport,

louisiana. good morning. caller: yes, i was more or less wanting to make a statement about my fortunes on a house. my first house i bought in houston, texas was a v.a. repossessed and it was a one dollar move in. the interest rate was just like it is about now, about 3%. i had five or six different others. i'm 79 years old. i paid $995 for a house back in 1989. i wanted to make a statement. thank you. guest: that is a really interesting topic, talking about those interest rates. but we have seen and when we look at first-time homebuyers, what we see is that right now they are at about a 33-year low. we know that first-time

homebuyers are having struggles entering the market. student loan debt is one of the things we touched on, inventory. when we look back to the 1980's, that is when the first-time homebuyers were actually the smallest share. that was due to interest rates at that time period. it is a very interesting environment when we compare 1989 to today. host: we talk a lot about the age of the homebuyers. what is the age of the home sellers? who is out there selling their houses? guest: well, i think i'm going to start generational warfare when i say this, but the sellers are actually boomers. we do see that boomers are holding onto those homes. they have that housing wealth. they have build equity -- quite a bit of equity in the last couple of years as we see this inventory crunch. they are holding onto the cart right now, because they are holding onto those homes and

they are the sellers. host: let's talk to anthony, who was calling from fort covington, new york. good morning. caller: good morning. i just wanted to say that me and my fiance, just bought a house three years ago. we have a two-month-old. i've got to say, it is affordability. definitely affordability. get the insurance, the whole nine. i used to rent for years. we in my fiance. my fiance has never rented in her life. basically she asked me, rent or buy? i said, buy. i would rather put my money into something we are using instead of a landlord's pockets. here it is expensive for renting , when you can actually save your money and buy a house and it is a lot guest: cheaper.

we do see consistently in the data that when we look at buyers the number one reason to buy a home is that they just want to own a place of their own. it is the american dream, and we see that consistently. but also, just building that equity is huge. people want to be able to really build that. we are bad savers in the u.s.. our homes are where we hold our wealth. we see consistently that people say, my home is a good financial investment. host: let's talk to linda, who is calling from st. louis, missouri. good morning. caller: yes, good morning. i must be on the wrong line. i'm 60 years old. when i was calling about is, how do they get away with a 30-your mortgage and a 15-year mortgage? at the time i bought my home could've bought a car for that, you only paid for the car for five or six years.

how do you get away with that? guest: this 30 year mortgage product is something that has been very consistent. do see it is the most popular mortgage people want to take on, gives them payment options and more consistency over time, and doesn't necessarily stretch. if you are going into a 15 year mortgage, perhaps you feel stretched and cannot make those payments. so you are building up equity at a faster rate as you are paying down that mortgage. we do see that 30 year fixed mortgage is one that people do feel confident in taking on. host: jessica, there is a story in the "wall street journal" that says the u.s. housing market is nearly 4 million homes short of buyer demand. one of our social media followers wants you to address the equity group bulk buyers they say are driving up prices and devastating neighborhoods across america.

why do we have a housing shortage right now? guest: we do. we absolutely have a housing shortage. last 13 years we know that homebuilding has not kept pace with the demand of homebuyers. so, as they have actually under-old, -- under-built, it is due to a number of factors. we see a shortage of materials. the pandemic has exacerbated all of these things. it is very hard to get those supplies for homes, especially as we see a remodeling boom. a lot of people want new things in their homes, so that is actually with people in that space. we did see in the new numbers that we had the highest homebuilding in 14 years. that means we made a lot more -- we need a lot more in the next

three years to get up to the pace we have been missing for more than a decade now. host: let's talk to donna, who is calling from salem, massachusetts. donna, good morning. guest: -- caller: hi, jessica. hello? guest: hi. caller: i just wanted to, because it is my lived experience, the greatest redistribution of wealth being that property is the greatest asset of people is happening through the family court. you don't know what you don't know, until you know what, until you live it. my people were honest, hard-working. they were blessed to have a -- to have acquired property. today, because of 18 years of negation, you know, it played out just how they wanted it to play out. my elderly mother, she ended up

a very wealthy woman. she owned two properties, had money in the bank. it was like oh, we can't allow that. so little by slow my family -- a decent family -- lost so much that i'm never going to recover from it. it is happening across the country. guardianship and conservatorship. they take over the rights of that person. they take over the rights, and you know what? the more horror stories i read about, a lot of these people that worked their entire life, they are left homeless. that is how little the senior citizens are cared about. host: go ahead and respond quickly there, jessica. guest: i think the last year has

really placed a very heavy emphasis, and something we want to pay attention to. it just came out, the impact of covid. do see a lot of families trying to take care of each other in this unprecedented time. it is very hard. host: we would like to thank jessica lautz, who is the demographic and behavioral insights vice president for the national association of realtors for being with us and discussing their 2021 homebuyers and sellers generational trends report. jessica, thank you so much. guest: nikki summit for having me. host: coming up next, we are going to ask you the question, should the supreme court expanded? you see the numbers there on screen. we will hear your opinions in just a few seconds. we will be right back. ♪ >> today, fcc commissioner branding car.

>> you've got mobile wireless competing with cable for in-home high speed. cable is now entering the mobile wireless game. we have all of this convergence, so you have entities that are competing, that they are doing so with very lopsided regulatory structures. that is a challenge. again, net neutrality is an example of that. how do we take this internet infrastructure and regulate it under this 1930's copper line, telephone structure? that is a bad fit had a mistake, and part of the reason congress should step up to the plate on that one. >> watch the communicators today on c-span. sunday, may 2, on in-depth. a conversation with rost outfit about politics, religion, moral values, and education. >> progress has not ceased, but

it is along a very particular dimension that feeds back into the larger pattern of decadence. because it leads people to spend more time in virtual realities and simulations of reality, and to retreat from, you know, both certain kinds of economic activity, but also to bring us to another force, retreat from family formation, romance, sex, childbearing, which is the aspect of decadence i call sterility. >>'s latest book is "the decadent society. go -- society." join in with your facebook comments, texts, and tweets, sunday, may 2, on c-span two. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are back and interested in knowing from you the answer

to the question, should the supreme court be expanded? earlier this week democratic lawmakers actually presented a bill that would expand the supreme court, and i want to bring to you a little bit about that bill from the wall street journal. a group of democratic lawmakers introduced legislation on thursday that would add four seats to the supreme court. an initiative that has slim hopes of passage, reflects progressives's impatience with biden's approach. once again, democratic lawmakers are bringing to the house floor a bill that would add four extra seats to the supreme court. here is democratic senator ed markey with fellow democrats outside the supreme court on thursday, talking about their plan to expand the supreme court. >> public and still two seats on the supreme court, and now it is

up to us to repair that damage. our democracy is in jeopardy. today, because the supreme court 's standing is damaged. the way we repair it is straightforward. and do the damage that the republicans have done i restoring balance. we do it by adding four seats to the court to create a 13-member supreme court. these four new seats, to be filled by president biden, will reconstitute the united states supreme court. the bench will then rightly flecked values of the majority of the american people on whose behalf they serve. expanding the court's constitutional. congress has done it before, and congress must do it again. host: now, this plan brought for by democrats claim after president biden last week

created a partisan commission to study changes to the supreme court. here is what the post wrote about that. president biden created a bipartisan commission friday to study structural changes to the supreme court. giving the group 180 days to produce a report on a range of thorny topics, including court expansion and term limits. the commission, composed of 36 legal scholars, a former federal judge, and practicing lawyers, fulfills biden's campaign promise after activists pushed him to expand the court following republicans rushed to confirm amy coney barrett shortly before last year's election. biden has said he is not a fan of adding seats to the supreme court, but he has declined to say whether he supports any other changes to its structure. house republican leader kevin mccarthy is not a fan of the

legislation. and here is his reaction to hearing about the democrats' bill coming up in the house. >> legislation aims to expand the supreme court by four seats. that makes it -- that makes a real difference, four seats. it is the number needed to give democrats a one-seat edge. never in my time in politics that i ever believe they would cover this far. -- they would go this far. never did i think, even if my disagreements with democrats, i question, is there a moderate democrat left in the party? if power means so much to you, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, you will change the course to capture another form of judicial power, simply to

control more. and they proudly put it forth as their agenda. host: let's go to our phone lines and see what you have to say about the question of, should the supreme court expanded? let's start with stephanie, who is calling from texas. stephanie says yes. good morning. caller: good morning. host: go ahead, stephanie. caller: i believe they should expand the court after all of these years. more justices would be able to handle them. i don't think things would be as slow and clogged as they are. i think it would provide relief. host: let's talk to john, who is calling from dayton, ohio. john says no, the supreme court should not be expanded. good morning. caller: good morning. i think it is just a partisan political move. they are going to turn the court into just another wing of

politics, rather than a neutral authority that we can all look to and say, well, i don't necessarily disagree, but i will accept these guys' decision. if they do something like this, i would consider the court to be null and void, and personally i would never respect or make any effort to adhere to whatever they decided. it would just be, you know, a political move. i think it would be a terrible idea. host: let's go to leonard, who was calling from maryland. leonard, good morning. caller: yeah, good morning, jesse. i'm actually in hamden. i just, i don't understand why people don't see the commonsense factor or the elephant in the room. i'm 69 years old, i'm a veteran,

and in the last 50 years i have watched the demise of our democracy and country. i want to ask you a couple of questions. bear with me for a second. they are going to seem very frivolous. do you know of anyone who knows what people 250 to 300 years ago had on the minds for the 21st century? i sure don't. i don't know why we continue to try to govern ourselves under these antiquated, archaic rules and regulations that were set down by people who had no idea what the 21st century would be like. our government needs to be overhauled, revamped, and absolutely does not work. if you think it does, you are not paying attention and have not in for 40 years or more. that's all i've got to say. host: let's go to susan, who was calling from california. good morning. caller: good morning. no, i don't think we should.

we could end up with the -- with a one-party government, which could lead into a dictatorship. also, those vacancies were filled. they were not stolen. that seat for garland, obama did not have the senate. they could have had five hearings, and he still would not have gotten in, because obama at that time did not have the senate. that seat was not stolen. host: let's talk to zame. good morning. caller: good morning. the epoxy of the republican party is through the roof. now, currently the supreme court is what? 6-3? if someone said that's not balanced, so another four, yes,

that would make it more balanced. yes, and they did. they kept obama from nominating merrick garland for the supreme court, because they claimed that people should decide. that was all most a year that obama had left in his presidency, but my power -- my pal mitch pushed through this woman who didn't even know what the amendments were to the constitution. the hypocrisy is ridiculous. host: let's go to stephen, who is calling from naples, florida. stephen, good morning. caller: good morning. my opinion is that america has changed. america is different that was 200-plus years ago. we have a different population, a different economy, a different technology. everything is different, especially our demographics and politics.

i think perhaps we should consider, instead of adding four, at least adding two, to account for that difference in demographics and all of the other factors that represent a real vibrant and growing and expanding and changing america, regardless of which party. i think more representatives at that level represent a broader section of the united states of america in this century. let's go to -- host: let's go to david. david says no, the supreme court should not be expanded. caller: to make such a fundamental change to a body like the supreme court, based on the results of an election cycle is a bit overboard. the way things are working now for the democrats, they will likely have the presidency and the congress for a very long time to come.

they just need to wait just a few years and they will be able to populate the court with like-minded justices. i want to make a quick comment about -- i think it was maxine waters. is she the delegate from d.c.? host: no, she isn't from d.c.. she is from california. caller: ok, i forget the delicate's name from d.c. host: ella for holmes norton? caller: yes. if the residence for d.c. need presentation and want to become part of a state, she replied to the suggestion of just giving land back to maryland. because maryland gave it up. they gave it up forever for the purpose of the district, for the seat of the federal government. if people want representation, that it back to maryland. if we are going to do away with

the bulk of the district. host: let's go to justin, who was calling from georgia. justin says yes, expand the supreme court. good morning. justin, are you there? caller: yes sir, i'm there. host: go ahead. caller: i think we should expand the supreme court every time the executive branch changes to a new party. to make things fair we should increase the justices every single time. that way probably in another 100 years we will have in the double digits, maybe 40, 50 supreme court justices. maybe we could even sway the power of the supreme court so that they were -- they are the most powerful branch. i think that would start a nice trend. host: house speaker nancy pelosi came out and responded to the bill that was brought up by democrats and they say they are going to push it to the house for.

here is what speaker nancy pelosi said about the bill to expand the spring court. >> you support the bill to expand the supreme court by four seats, and would you commit to bringing that to the floor? >> no. i support the president's commission to study such a proposal, but, frankly, right now we are back. our committees are working. we are putting together the infrastructure bill and the rest. i don't know that is a good idea or bad idea. i think it is an idea that should be considered, and i think the president is taking the right approach to have a commission to study such a thing. it is a big step. it is not out of the question. it has been done before in the history of our country, a long time ago. and growth of our country, the size of our country, the growth of our challenges, in terms of the economy, etc., might

necessitate such a thing, but in answer to your question, i have no plans to bring it to the floor. host: let's see what some of our social media followers are saying about whether the supreme court should be expanded. here is one text that says, scotus doesn't need to be larger, but terms need to be shorter, and one seat needs to be a random citizen that serves for six months. here is a tweet that says, expand to 13, one justice for each federal court strict. -- court district. another says, the court is 6-3 conservative. if it was 6-3 liberal, the current debate would be 180 degrees. another text that says, four seats to cancel out the seeds republicans still. i would have made it five to teach them a lesson. the republicans seem incapable of learning.

one text says, actually i prefer the commission approach to the house's legislation. let's go back to our phone lines and talk to mike, who is calling from gettysburg, pennsylvania. mike says no, don't expand the supreme court. caller: yes, i do say no to not expanding the supreme court. it is very simple. if you ask the democrats right now, would they wait until the republicans gain control of the house and senate and the white house, would they be willing to bring it up for a vote then? and wait until that happens and see what they say? i don't think so. the second thing. nancy pelosi and joe biden are saying the same thing. they are saying no, they're not in favor of it, but then they go on to say that i have a commission looking at it.

nancy pelosi all that said no, then she said yes, she would. you have to read through the lies of what joe biden has shown us. he does one thing and then he reverses it. he is using this commission of people to study it as a way to say that the people want it. host: let's go to and, who is calling from new york, new york. ann says yes. good morning. caller: i am in favor of expanding the supreme court. the only reason i called in this morning as i was so annoyed when you cut off that woman who is talking about the hypocrisy of the republicans. you have the hypocrisy of mitch mcconnell and the way they put those supreme court justices through, the only fair thing to do and the only thing that fairly represents the people is to put more justices on the supreme court.

host: speaking of senate minority leader mitch mcconnell, here he is in his reaction thursday to the democrats' bill that would expand the supreme court. here is what mitch mcconnell had to say. bucks today democrats have announced they will want -- they were once again threaten judicial independence. they are introducing a bill to add four new seats to the supreme court so that democrats can pack the court. destroy its legitimacy. and guarantee the rulings liberals want to. across the ideological spectrum, top jurists have been outspoken on what a terrible idea court packing would be. the late liberal icon, ruth bader ginsburg, explicitly warned against court packing, saying "if anything would make the court appear partisan, it would be that.

nine seems to be a good number." justice stephen breyer reaffirmed his own opposition just last week. the public agrees. they see through this discredited concept. one survey last year showed a clear majority of americans opposed packing the supreme court. but the far-left activists are not interested in the common good. they want power. the same democrats and the same corporate media that spent the last four years hyperventilating and declaring a constitutional crisis was underway every 30 seconds seem to be perfectly content to play along. now, if republicans had introduced a bill to add four supreme court seats that the last president had failed, it would have been weeks of wall-to-wall outrage on every newspaper and cable tv channel.

nonstop. now it seems the main strategies are either to shrug off and look the other way, or actively play along. it is not just about whether this insane bill becomes law. part of the point here are the threats themselves. they left once a sword dangling over the justices when they weigh the facts in every case. as the democratic leader threatened, democrats want the justices to know they will "pay the price" for rulings that democrats don't like. host: let's look at some poll numbers about expanding the supreme court that come from a story on fox news. 50% of likely voters question in a new york times poll conducted october 15th through the 18th amid the general election and a

partisan battle over amy coney barrett's nomination said democrats should not expand the supreme court beyond its current members. with 31% agreeing to expand the size of the court. according to an abc news poll conducted september 21 in the days immediately after ginsberg's death, 54% of americans opposed quarterbacking, with 32% supportive of expanding the high number of supreme court justices, and 12% unsure. a fox news poll conducted october 3 through sixth ask a straightforward question, in favor or opposed to increasing the number of justices on the court. 39% favored the move. what do you think? let's go to ruby, who is calling from brown's, texas. ruby says no. good morning. caller: yes sir.

let me say something. i'm talking to everybody. i lived through the race card and the depression. let me tell you something. the democrats and newspeople, except for fox, as lying to you and using you. if you want to go back to jim crow and the slave days, then you vote for biden and the democrats. you will get your wish. the american people set you all free and gave you a chance at a fair life. you had better think about what you are doing before you do it, because the democrats is liars, leaves, and hypocrites. -- thieves, and hypocrites. host: let's go to nathan in las vegas, nevada. good morning. caller: good morning and thank you. good morning, america. i oppose. this is typical of ignoring the constitution of the united states and the media putting out

false narratives about, you know, trump packing the court. he did not pack the court, he followed the constitution. mcconnell followed the constitution. that is what our forefathers put together so we could rule this great republic that has been established going on 250 years. host: wouldn't it be constitutional if the democrats had the votes to increase the number of supreme court justices? caller: yes it would, but if they are going to finagle the filibuster and just -- let me give you a scenario. texas is a republic and can withdraw from the union at any time. then reapply as maybe 10 states? host: actually, nathan, i don't think -- i think the civil war decided whether the states could leave the republic. i think the answer to that is no. caller: well, i'm not so sure about that. we tried to get estate up in

jefferson that was called jefferson between oregon and northern california. that almost passed in the late 1890's. i'm telling you, we are in for some dangerous territory. host: let's go to brenda, who is calling from houston, texas. brenda says yes, the supreme court should be expanded. caller: oh, definitely. could morning. i am calling because i too was rather upset you cut the lady off with hypocrisy. but i'm going to let you slide this time. listen. matter what the stash i will be nice -- matter what the republicans call in and say, guys, and talking to the democrats now, don't live in fear. pelosi, biden, president ident, you had better fear your constituency that are then you fear,.

have nothing to fear. they are nothing but bluffing you. go right ahead. i did not consider you when they decided to do what they wanted to do, so why should we? thank you so much for taking my call. host: let's go to john, who is calling from tampa, florida. good morning. caller: good morning, c-span. i think it will be fine if they expand the court like more judges. then there will be 13 judges. they all don't have to be seated in the every case. you can have nine of the judges sit on each case and they can be in a rotation so that everybody gets a chance. mitch mcconnell really did steal two cases. now he is pretending that he is mad, he did that. if they added four justices -- biden can add the four justices, it will be more balanced and they can choose nine to listen to each case. c-span, and -- can i make a

suggestion to you guys? host: really quickly. caller: i don't you have a liberal and conservative guest so that when somebody says something they can argue it out on -- in the studio there with you. that way we can have a more productive, you know, situation? host: as soon as the pandemic is over we will have guests back in here. let's talk to alex, who is calling from lancaster, massachusetts. good morning. caller: good morning, sir. i am calling on the no line, because i believe the senate republicans rightfully appointed amy coney barrett, and i do not think packing the court is necessary. host: what do you define as court-packing? alex, are you still there? all right. let's look at what our social

media followers are saying as we wrap up this conversation. let's start with a text that says, the court should be expanded, done in a nonpartisan manner that does not carry political indications. any additions should be done after the term of the sitting president, and don one per administration until the desired number is reached. here's a tweet that says, of course scotus should be expanded. the court packing by mcconnell stealing two seats. the takeover of the court by the federalist society, an organization that believes the constitution is a secondary document. coming up next on "washington journal," nicholas dujmovic, former ca deputy chief historian will join us to discuss the anniversary of the bay of pigs

invasion, the failed cia effort to remove fidel castro from power. but first, he is a universal newsreel lip from 60 years ago today, reporting on the immediate lead up and earliest stages of the invasion. ♪ [video clip] >> the assault has begun on the dictatorship of fidel castro. this is the first phase of organized revote with ball -- bombing raids. the rebellion against the red state dictator was off, with the refugee pilot claiming a full-scale army revolt was near. ♪ in have anna, --ha