♪ host: it is the washington journal for april 11. the justice department has filed a appeal. a reaction to the decision from the texas judge --the ruling comes as another willing from what washington state.

that ruling only affecting the 17 states and a -- and washington dc. we want to get your opinion on the texas decision of the abortion pill and the possible implications it has for access to abortion in the united states. if you support the texas decision, call us at (202) 748-8000. if you oppose it, (202) 748-8001 the number to call. if you are a texas resident, you can give your perspective at (202) 748-8002. you can text us at (202) 748-8003. you can post on facebook and twitter and follow the show on instagram. the decision last week in the appeal. they write in a filing with the

new orleans-based circuit court of appeal, -- usurpation of the u.s. fda by rolling the pill should not have been approved. the department said that u.s. district judge upended decades of reliance of the abortion pill based on the courts own misguided assessment of the drug safety. the laboratory that sells the pill filed a similar motion and the company said in addition to the potential arm the ruling posed, it threatened their livelihood as a one drug company. that is the appeal that was filed. the new york times following up its -- with its lead story. 400 leaders under the headline,

drug executives condemn a willing on the -- condemn a ruling on the abortion pill. the writer writes, -- and companies, none of which make drug, the first pill in the two drug abortion patient regimen, the reach of the case stretches beyond abortion unlike roe v. wade, this one could challenge the foundation of the regulatory system of all medicines in the u.s.. if courts -- complexity required to fully -- any medicine is at risk for the same outcome as mr. pristone makes the statement. your thoughts on the decision

that came down last friday from the texas drug on the fda process. if you support the judge's decision, (202) 748-8000 the number to call. if you oppose it, (202) 748-8001 . for texas residents, (202) 748-8002. if you want to text your thoughts, you can do that at (202) 748-8003. it was the white house press conference yesterday ready secretary was asked about the decision. >> -- ♪ >> --[video clip] >> the medication is used safely in more than 60 countries, providing critical care for women and this court decision threatens access to this

medication which is used not only for abortion but also for other critical purposes like helping women manage miscarriages. if the decision stands, it puts women's health on risk and undermines the fda's ability to ensure our patients have access to safe and effective medication when they need them the most. this decision further strikes away american's fundamental freedom and interferes with a woman's ability to make their decision with their own body and this is a step to the ultimate goal of antitrust -- anti-choice. host: that is from the white house press briefing and a follow-up story via yahoo! news that you can find online. one of the thousands of urgent questions about what would

happen if the willing remains in effect if whether or not the manufacturer of -- the manufacturer of the drug could file for another application. -- the fda takes 10 months to review. kristin more of the emaa project explained monday, we could be facing a scenario where the medication is only available in a criminal trial setting and not available to patients in the real world and even if everyone wants to move fast, it is upsetting to think about it. the story saying that lawyers for -- there is a lot of legal activity that will happen between today and friday. a senior staff attorney for the senate staff -- we have not seen

a single digit date from wind the decision came out and -- there is more decisions that need to come out but if kacsmaryk's ruling goes into effect, it will represent -- that is some of what has happened in the last couple days concerning the texas judge decision and you can tell us whether you this -- you support that decision or oppose it. if you support it, (202) 748-8000. if you oppose it, (202) 748-8001 . four texas residents, (202) 748-8002. text us at (202) 748-8003. for the oppose line, we will start with robert. robert, you are on, go ahead. caller: all i have to say, there are a lot of people who are antiabortion. what are they doing, anti-kids

getting killed in school? that is what is getting me upset and my wife, they can yell about unborn babies but they don't yell about kids being killed at our schools. host: the texas decision, what do you think about that? caller: i don't think they should do it. it is a woman's right to be able to take a pill or have the abortion. it is under certain circumstances, i agree. maybe there shouldn't be. it should be available as far as the pill. host: robert in melbourne, florida. this is from david. we set aside a line for texas residents. davis it -- david in dallas, hello. caller: hello, pedro. i oppose that judge's decision. it is typical, the texas won't

allow marijuana to be legal. i cannot go to a gun show to purchase a gun and for a record, i am a felon but it is purposely -- perfectly legal, if i go to a gun show and purchase a gun at the parking lot. host: to the decision itself on the fda approval process, why do you oppose it? caller: a woman has a choice and i have a friend who will go out to a club and if she meet someone, -- she meets someone, she will take the pill. the morning after. it is spineless of the democrats. they are like jellyfish. they let the republicans get away with anything they want. it is not just abortion, they gerrymander and disrespect certain presidents. certainly roe v. wade and they want to have their way. the vast majority of the united

states agrees that a woman has a right to choose a but they tend to do what they were -- their way -- they tend to do it their way. the democrats are spineless. host: richard in los angeles, california. on the oppose line. hello. richard in california, hello? go ahead. one more time for richard. caller: this is richard speaking. host: you are on, go ahead. caller: there is a book called human errors. there's a chapter in it that describes in detail the problems and issues with women and their reproductive access. i recommend everyone access and read the chapter. it will enlighten everyone on both sides of this issue.

we can make lots of compromises on this issue with the other side but they are not willing to compromise ever. host: the texas judges decision, what do you think? caller: it is nonsense. host: why is that? caller: because of all the reasons stated by supporters of this -- one primary reason is because it will reduce the bloody, other method of abortion. it could eliminate it. what is wrong with that? host: supporter of the justice decision, levi, brooklyn you marked -- brooklyn, new york. caller: good morning. i supported for a number of reasons just like i support -- i support it for a number of reasons just like i support abortion. margaret sanger, the founder of land parenthood, -- planned

parenthood, started planned parenthood to exterminate the black race. go google that. that is what she did. host: you are calling you say you support the fda decision on the support of the bill. caller: i support market sanger -- margaret sanger to eliminate the black race -- host: that is an inappropriate caller and we will not allow that. hello. caller: i will like to say this. no one tells a man what to do with their body and no one to tell a woman what to do with theirs. whatever their decision is, that is their decision. host: to the texas decision specifically, what did you think of the judge's decision? caller: i think the judge thinks

he can do whatever he wants to do and he is totally out of line to go against two decades of scientific data that supports that drug and nab event that he is allowed to get away with that, -- and in the event he is allowed to get away with that, you will see that in other states where people who think like he does. he is not a doctor. host: vanessa in san antonio, texas. i live for texas residents available at -- a line for texas residents available at (202) 748-8002. the ruling in texas and united states and what it might mean for the biden administration and others who fight against the ruling. the ruling may not be compatible and -- an order that would

subject danco and others at risk to criminal liability but it does not direct the fda to do anything. the rulings have created uncertainty that the department -- just as the -- clarification about how the tool rulings interact and officials from the 17 states backing the case in spokane told rice in a meeting that there was no need for him to clarify his order or accelerate proceedings. the doj part was motion was short on --this court order was crystal clear. defendant's motion to give the court little to rule on -- court little to consider and nothing to rule on. (202) 748-8000 if you support

the texas judge's decision and if you oppose that, (202) 748-8001 and those texas residents, (202) 748-8002. paul in florida on the oppose line. caller: i have a question that i have been wanting to ask for years on programs like yours. that is why hasn't the morning pill ever been discussed by anyo ne? the morning-after pill to prevent 80% of all unwanted presidencies -- pregnancies, why hasn't anyone said two words about this bill? --pill? it is a safe pill and it does not interact with any other drugs known to man and it would prevent so many unleaded pregnancies -- unwanted pregnancies.

i am a republican and i take it as a slur and insult to say i am a republican and be thought of as being completely antiabortion. that is a lie. republicans understand that an on what privacy can be atraumatic -- that an unwanted pregnancy and be a dramatic -- can be atraumatic thing in a life of a woman? host: why do you oppose it specifically? caller: have you published the requirements from the first film? have you published the dangers of taking this bill? have you? host: [indiscernible] caller: it is dangerous if you take it after eight months of privacy. -- pregnancy? host: that all said, you still

oppose the texas judge's why is that -- judges --judge's decision, why is that? caller: in a rut respect -- in what we expect -- in what respect? i oppose a logical answer to the whole question of abortion. these ancillary arguments about a drug, what has to happen is a resolution that makes both sides of this issue the most unhappy -- host: joel is next,. arkansas support like -- goal is next, arkansas, support line -- joel is next, arkansas, support line. caller: one day, you are going

to die and your soul is going to go to heaven. if your name is not in the book of life, you will stand before god and he is going to say to you turn away from me. you commit a sin. -- committed sin. he sent a man on this are to give you away -- on this earth to give you a way to go to heaven. host: your religious beliefs decide -- aside, why do you support the texas sen. sinema: --texas judge's decision? caller: we killed many babies already, how much more going to kill? host: in georgia, our support line. caller: why can't they take birth control or use condoms? i had a girlfriend and it

bothered her every day for her life because she had a abortion -- an abortion. i don't understand why people can't get condoms and have this kind of sex. it doesn't make sense. host: the discussion is on this judge's decision and the abortion judge -- drug. you oppose it, why is that? caller: i oppose people not taking birth control. because the psychological effects of these women have been done, it will be with them for the rest of their lives. host: that is al in georgia. mpr writes about certain states and specific states are preparing in their own states in light of the decision yesterday and what might come of it through the legal process. this is the mpi -- the npr

story. it says that's the -- it says that several states are there. a governor says they planned an emergency stockpile. while california is quoted saying, -- medication abortion, the state negotiated and purchase an emergency stop park in anticipation of the ruling by a far right federal judge to ensure that california remains a safe haven for safe and affordable and accessible reproductive care. the massachusetts governor said her state has stockpiled 15,000 pills, more than eight years worth of doses. last week, jay inslee had a stockpile worth three years.

the protocol approved by the food and drug administration 2000," christian of abortion -- antiabortion groups suing the fda. if you support the decision out of texas concerning the abortion drug, (202) 748-8000. if you oppose it, (202) 748-8001 . if you are a texas resident, (202) 748-8002 is how you let us know. texas at -- text us at (202) 748-8003. let hear from sheila -- let's hear from sherag -- [indiscernible] host: hello, are you there? caller: this is for the women --

for the abortion? host: lowering in california -- lauren in california. oppose line. caller: i oppose this ruling. i oppose the supreme court reversing roe v. wade. i feel these rulings have made women second-class citizens is -- of america and i am mad as heck about it and every time take -- the gop takes the rights away from americans, they will lose another butter. they care more about guns and -- then they care about the women and children of this country and it makes me mad. host: why do you oppose the texas ruling specifically? caller: he is judging people. the ruling makes no sense. he uses the concept --comstack

ruling, the supreme court said it was an invalid lot in the 60's --law in the 60's. he calls the fetus is unborn -- fetuses unborn human and children. he is judging people wrongly in his entire rolling. it is completely wrong and it is saying that women are second-class citizens in this nation because men can tell them what they can do with their bodies and that is wrong. host: that is lorene in california giving her thoughts. the former product -- the former vice president putting a statement saying the fda acted carelessly with blatant

disregard of human rights. today's ruling fixes a 20 year wrong. one of the other people on the sunday show talking about the decision and what the next steps congress can take in the house was texas republican tony gonzales. asked about the decision, possible reaction, here is his statement. [video clip] >> i have six children and i am a prolific pro-lifer and it is important that we protect the sanctity of right -- life. in texas, we have a heartbeat bill that was fast and it is important that states dictate their features and we have to have courts uphold these. it is dangerous, we have the biden administration coming out and saying they may not uphold a rolling as an appropriator on the house republican side, the

house republicans have the power of the purse and if the administration wants to not live up to this ruling we will have, a problem and it may become a point where house republicans have to defund fda programs that do not make sense. host: tony gonzalez, texas republican yesterday -- sunday, commenting on the decision. this is mike on the oppose line. caller: how are you doing? host: i am fine. go ahead. caller: i oppose this -- the judge's decision and i am christian. i serve a god that said, he gives you the right to choose and he wants you to choose and not to be forced to choose and he judges us by our heart and actions. you cannot force someone else

into heaven. second -- host: for the judges --judge's decision specifically, why do you oppose it? caller: i oppose it because it is based on the premise of religious beliefs -- and one of your caller said before, the judge said unborn child. and has been debated at which point life begins -- it has been debated at which point light begins. as far as i remember, there is a separation of church and state. we have to be willing to accept everyone's idea when making the law and not force are on on everyone else. host: as far as the judge's reaction, where did you -- where did you gather religious belief from that? caller: certain trigger words.

certain issues with the pro-life movement that is religiously based and based more on stronger beliefs, that life begins with conception. i don't think -- i don't -- i know one of your caller said the abortion pill. i think that will come up to debate by certain pro-life movement people. host: that is mike in laurel, maryland calling on the oppose line end of the person who opposed, giovanni in marietta, georgia. you are next up. caller: good morning. i want to oppose the women on the abortion pill. [indiscernible]

that's all i have to say. host: you thought the judge overstepped its boundaries -- is boundaries regarding the decision of a approval process? caller: yes. i'm not really sure. can you very -- hear me? host: we got you. editorials taking a look at the decision and visit from the wall street journal. the law and the abortion pill case and you can find it online at wsj.com. he writes an legal issue -- is a question on whether the fda acted arbitrarily and capriciously under the

administration procedure act. we disagree with the judge's decision in part because the the judgment doesn't appear to have been unreasonable. the editors write, the judges legal -- of the abortion drugs risk and benefits and congress has got -- delegated technical questions to regulatory agencies and it is not the role of judges to redo a agency analysis. that editors write this, our disagreement with judge kacsmaryk's concerns about separation of power. if hired court overruled kacsmaryk's appeal, that will likely be the reason. that is the wall street journal and if you want to read their thoughts on the matter this

morning, you can continue to call in on your opinion. (202) 748-8000 if you support the texas judge decision, (202) 748-8001 if you oppose it, (202) 748-8002 for texas residents. let's hear from bernie, in albany -- new albany, ohio. he supports the decision. caller: my bible tells me that god knew us in the womb. i think life starts at conception. that is what my bible tells me. host: why do you support the texas judge's decision specifically? caller: because i think if you are killing a human being because life starts at conception.

and don't start -- it don't start, 10, 15 weeks later. it starts at conception and i think in my opinion, all doctors that do this are murderers. . -- they are supposed to try to save lives, not take lives. host: let's hear from dave in wisconsin on our clothesline -- oppose line. caller: i think the judge overstepped his bounds. i will give you a reason why i am opposing. one of his reasons was, the safety, the drug that was rigorously texas --tested. the safety record -- tylenol is

more dangerous. some of the religious nonsense i am hearing, it has nothing to do with his decision. we are talking about his decision. that is the way i feel. how you feel about abortion, -- however you feel about abortion, this has been used by many women safely. that is my viewpoint. host: dave in wisconsin. under their editorial from the washington post on the decision. this is the headline, saying the affective and legal. the editors write, judge kacsmaryk's reasoning seems to be more in opinion than law.

the opposite is true. the edgy date -- f -- 60 drugs in the country, even as though multiple reviews have determined, safety use with complications occurring in fewer than 1% of cases and the editors argued that there is no reason to upset the state of affairs since 23 years that the fda made its determination. more than half of legal abortions are conducted with two drugs. take one of them away and women will turn to the other along, safe but more likely to cause side effects. mischaracterizations -- undergoing surgery to have tissue removal are waiting weeks to have it pass. you can find that editorial on washingtonpost.com.

we will hear from mary in pennsylvania. caller: it is my understanding when he made this willing, the drug was -- made this ruling, the drug was like tylenol. you can get it through the mail. are doing so, this took the doctor out of the procedure and by doing that, women are at risk. that is my understanding on how he came to the ruling. it was put on the market mainly because of the testing done in brazil, not the testing in this country. he wanted it to go back to the fda. as far as his ruling making second-class citizens, we are making women second-class

citizens to allow transgender women to compete in college sports. host: richmond in new york city on the oppose line. caller: firstly, i oppose this decision primarily because this is a safe drug, has been proven safe for 23 years. this judge is not a doctor, he is not a scientist. he should not be making these decisions. the scientists and the fda is charged with making these decisions. if you take these decisions allay, you end up with clowns like matt gaetz deciding what medications people can take and that is the biggest problem. to close it out, women have agency. they should be able to choose what happens to their body.

if you don't have a working, female reproductive system, stay out of it in mind your own business. host: richard in new york city giving his thoughts and you can do the same. based on this decision by that texas judge last friday concerning the fda approval process up the drug -- of the drug. if you support the decision, (202) 748-8000. if you oppose it, (202) 748-8001 . texas residents, (202) 748-8002. congress is out on their legislative break back home and several event taking place in and around washington and janet yellen said to speak at the international monetary fund make meeting at 11:30. she will have a press conference before that. if you're interested, watch that

at c-span on 11:30. are at on c-span now or on a website -- our app on c-span now or on our website at c-span.org. back coverage is at 1:00 this afternoon on our main network c-span, the app and.org --and ,org. at 2:00, a meeting at the urban institute. if you're interested in following along, 2:00 on the main network and on the app and our website and later on at 5:00 on the c-span now app, a hearing on california water that will be held by the house wat subcommittee, california's water system. that live coverage is 5:00 on our app at c-span now and if you

have not downloaded it yet, go to your store up choice --of choice. if you are on the go, is a good way to follow what is going on on c-span networks. romero, in rhode island, a supporter of the judge's decision. caller: i support the decision. i feel, as adults, we need to be more responsible and not look for a pill. people should tractor safer sex. -- practice safe or sex --safer sex. people need to be more responsible. people rely on these pills. they have the access to keep making mistakes. i don't feel like that is fair or right. host: romero in rhode island.

but hear from judy and aid -- let's hear from judy in nebraska, oppose line. caller: i am confused and maybe callers can help me understand. i am an old lady so this particular medication does not apply to me but i did not realize that if i have a medical problem, do i go to a court to decide if i need medical treatment or do i go to a licensed professional who decides the examination and interview i need a licensed and approved medication. may be some of your colors can help me understand. -- callers can help me understand. host: let's hear from roland, texas resident. caller: hello -- good morning. host: what do think about the texas decision? caller: i oppose the judges --

judge's decision in terms of -- i think the young lady that spoke, is between the women and the doctor to what happens. i am pro-life. i think we have gotten past a lot of morals. on morals in the u.s. have taken a turn for the worse -- a moral --our morals in the u.s. have taken a turn for the worse. i don't think any industrialized nation have had this problem like the u.s. the other color was talking about being responsible -- caller was talking about being responsible. where does the responsibility line --lie?

we have to give our morals -- they are pointing back north to where we take this possibility. host: roland in texas giving his thoughts. that decision coming out of texas out of court and he mentioned that he is pro-life. nancy mace of south carolina identifies as pro-life and she was asked about the fda, its decision and the implications going forward. here is part of what she had to say. @cspanwj >> you think the fda should ignore this? >> i would. this is an issue that republicans have largely been on the wrong side of. we have not shown compassion towards women. this is one of the issues i have tried to lead on. in the state of saffold -- state

-- south carolina, we have folks on the state legislator who wanted to execute women who had abortions. 90 up -- percent of americans are in the merrill -- middle. 90% i think would be ok with listening to the fda rather than a judge that would use an old lot that was proven unconstitutional by the supreme court. host: you think your party has gotten it's wrong with abortion. you think the house but geordie -- what do you say to text -- tony mark -- gonzalez? caller: -- >> i represent a very purple district that is a bellwether for the rest of the country and i can tell you far more than the vast majority, 70% are not -- 70% of americans will not agree with this decision. there are many pro-life people,

while they are pro-life, they don't want the government to intervene in this radical of a manner and the fda has a rigorous process they go through on drug approval. most of the time, they get it right. when they don't, there are lawsuits on the efficacy. but this judge did on the basis of this ruling, there is no basis for it. they used a lot that the supreme court said was also crucial. it is a rogue thing happening. you see that happening on both sides of the aisle and those are tools people can use. we are getting it wrong on this issue. host: the new york times took a look at the possibility of the decision from texas moving out to the supreme court and what happens if it should arrive there. you can find it online and the right is right that " all of

that might -- dominated by conservative justices quite promising but illegals -- scholar set on monday that the sweep and the collateral consequences of the decision might cause some supreme court justices to wait for a case that would allow them to take more metric steps -- measured steps. this is not a particularly element -- elegant one. everything about this case makes it a imperfect vehicle except it is about abortion and the ameritrade of state. " jonathan abner -- this quote job and in -- this quote jonathan abner. in 2021, by a vote of 7-2, the court said that the 18th republican lead states and two

individuals that brought the case have not suffered the sort of direct injury that gave them standing to sue. when push came to shove and they were prevented with a deficient legal there he, only two justice -- legal theory, only two justices were given the time of day. let's hear from mark, in pennsylvania, supporter of the texas judge decision. caller: is the same -- it is a shame that people do not read the decision before calling in. the case is about women's help stop when the fda approved this judge -- the case is about women's health. this drop is very safe for women who do not have that kind of

pregnancies. if they do and are not aware of that and used it, there are serious side effects, one out of 50 have a talk this -- have a toxic pregnancy. the end result is having to be hospitalized. this is a women's health issue. i support the pill being used safely but the company decided to use it unsafely and that is the justification on what i was able to read through. it is not just about abortion but women safety -- women's safety. women should know the risk of using the drug. everyone that has called in and is pushing their own personal opinion on the subject, rather than looking at the facts. i am looking at the judge's decision based on the fact that it is dangerous for women having

those type of privacy because the company has forgotten what the fda told him. --them. host: let's hear from sharon in pennsylvania on the oppose line. caller: i oppose this decision because i don't believe that judges should be using their way to make those decisions. we have people in place who make those decisions and for the previous color, all of these have been done with the doctor's approval so he doesn't have to worry about the 6% because the doctors are screening women before hand. the fact that, the whole abortion issue is a way that many lawmakers are trying to

divide our country. if you are a christian, you know that the unborn child will be in heaven. what is the difference? it is better for the child to go to have been then be in a family that does not love them. i don't know what the argument is there, why there is such a issue for other people whose lives it does not impact. that is how i feel generally about this whole crazy discussion that is going on about abortion. host: sharon in pennsylvania. this is in butler, pennsylvania, jack on the support line. caller: what a lot of people don't realize is this is a democracy and what that means is, the people rule and if more people want something, it needs to go through. you can't just love your democracy when you agree with it.

you have to go by your democracy and this is all going to come up to about and the more people that want it, it is going to go the way the people want. host: you think by a judge in acting on this, it circumvented democracy because a judge acted on it? caller: absolutely. host: and you support that judge's decision? caller: no. host: you are calling on the wrong line. let's hear on the oppose line. caller: i have come to the conclusion that this is a form of population control. african-americans are only 10% of the population, yet we are 70% of those that are invited to have an abortion. this is the first or the second

story in the last three or four days. host: why do you oppose the judge's decision? caller: i oppose the decision because i think abortion is like everything else, a wrestle -- racial issue in the country. you sit up there and look at this stuff. there is a lot of bureaucratic language to kill certain -- off certain populations in the country. host: let's go to carly in philadelphia on the oppose line. good morning. caller: good morning. i have a question for all of the people that were born male at birth. how would you like it if any judge, any law put forth that --

host: marie and silver spring, maryland. oppose line. caller: about four years ago, i wanted to have -- removed at fibroid and i was surprised -- prescribed the drug the day before the surgery and the morning of the so the cervix was open so i can have a successful surgery. i am wondering what happens when the drug is lost and when it is not able to be used for certain procedures. host: i am sick -- assuming you had a safe interaction with the drug. caller: yes, it was fine, my surgery was successful and i recovered quickly because they used to drop to open my cervix. host: marie in silver spring

maryland. taking a look at the texas judge decision and one of the people reacting on chose was alexandria ocasio-cortez talking about what happened if this goes up with the supreme court. [video clip] >> i do not believe that the courts have the authority to have the authority over the fda -- i believe that it creates a crisis. should the supreme court do that, it would essentially institute a national abortion ban because you have an extraordinary amount of states that have implemented surgical bans. if you pair that with a -- drug band, we will have a ban on abortion. there are certain workarounds

and there will be certain workarounds but we would have taken a very significant step towards an abortion ban. if you take -- in the united states, we are in a dangerous territory and i would urge the supreme court in its lawlessness that they are exhibiting right now over and -- right already, the extraordinary conflict of interest, my hope we don't get to that point. -- would be that we don't get to that point. host: a couple questions concerning the abortion questions and one of those dealing with the topic of medication abortion. two thirds of americans say that medication abortion should remain legal in the u.s. and that includes 84% of democrats and 64% of independents and 34%

of republicans. you can find more on the website and it also said, when given information on the pending case in texas. it was 29% saying the federal judge should override the approval of medication banning. when given more permission on education abortion, the same proportion of americans, 66% agreed that a federal judge should allow abortion medication to be legal. 62% of americans agree that the court banning medication abortion would harm women and families. if you want to check it out for yourself, go online. let's go to arnold in texas. you are up next. caller: good morning sir. how are you? host: i am well.

caller: i oppose the grand sweep of making it legal and i don't support abortion. i do and eight certain cases, there should be an exception -- if there is a life any danger -- life in danger, they should pass it but as far as rulings go, people should not take something because how they feel. it is moving us in the wrong direction. i support the right to do what you need to do to protect your health, and if that means having to terminate a pregnancy early, then so be it. host: michael in florida. you are next on the oppose line. caller: my opposing is a more --

how can one judge in a small town make a decision that affects the whole country. if the judge made a decision to make guns legal, that would really set -- save lives. host: one of the people offering their perspectives was the head of the health and human services department talking about the decision from texas, the steps the fda and others can take in reaction to it. [video clip] >> we want the courts to overturn this reckless decision. we want women to continue to have access to a drug that has proven safe and millions of women have used this drug around the world. >> what if they don't act in the interim before you get to that point -- >> i have to believe whatever

court has to understand that this ruling by this one judge doesn't just overturn access to mifepristone but many other drugs. >> what if they don't? >> that speculation isn't worth engaging in. everything is on the table. the president said that way back. >> i want to ask about the supreme court because you see this, you hope you win an appeal. it will likely to go -- likely go to the supreme court, you agree with that? >> good chance. >> how likely do you think the supreme court will agree with the texas judge? >> if the role of justices and judges is to apply the law with the fact of evidence, the

evidence says mifepristone is safe. they should be able to discern the difference between mifepristone judgment and using be facts and evidence to make a legal -- the facts and evidence to make a legal ruling. host: caller: i am shocked that this justice is able to make this decision because it does seem that he is ruling on personal grounds and the safety of so many people. in general, i want to oppose abortion but i think we have to support it because of the safety it allows so many people to have. i know that i had to use it user

other reasons. what about all of the other people who need the drug for other reasons. it is strange that this person wants person wants to make this decision on this drug and they allow him to do that. i find it heartbreaking because it puts the puts the justices ie that does not make sense and it feels like we don't support democracy. it is very strange. the government isthe governmento ignore the ruling, we are not allowed to ignore the ruling. i am worried about what is going toi am worried about what is gog to happen for the people who need this medication and the safety of that. as someone else brought up, i want to determine that this drug

is safe and they don't that thig is safe and they don't have an exception where they should not receive it. but i don't think that is why this judge is blocking this medication. it feels like we have lost control and somebody is trying to insert their conservative viewpoints and make that how and why they are doing their job and that is really weird. i in general do not support abortion but sometimes it is what has to happen for the safety of people. host: that is catherine in minnesota finishing up the software. thank you to all of you who participated. thank you to all of you who participated. coming up we will take a look at what is going on with swing districts and what is changing in those districts and how it

may impact future election. joining us is david wasserman from cook political report house editor. and later on in theand later onh smith from the center for growth & opportunity at the utah state university on the state of refugees and what is going on with that. those conversations are coming up on "washington journal." >> all this week, c-span is featuring encore presentations of q&a, our interview program with nonfiction writers, journalist and historians.

tonight, the reporter talks about the greenabout the green . mr. hall visited a dozen of the sites. mr. hall visited a dozen of the sites. calvin hall, tonight at 7:00 p.m. eastern on c-span q&a. to listen to all of our podcast listen on our free c-span app. sign up for our newsletter by scanning the qr code. television for serious readers.

in 1970 nine, c-span has provided coverage from the halls of congress, congressional hearings, party briefings in committee meetings. c-span gives you a front row seat to how issues are debated without commentary and completely unfiltered. c-span is your unfiltered view of government. >> the grand prize winners of the studentcam project are eighth-graders from martin luther king junior school in ma. watch the grand prize documentaries online at c-span.org.

washington journal continues. host: this is david wasserman from cook political report house editor he is here to talk about swing districts. how do you define a swing district? guest: a district that has a partisan score that tends to produce the most competitive races and we have tracked those for 25 years. we just came out with an archive at cook political.com for every congress back to 1997. the number of swing districts have fallen from 164 to just 82. that is attributed to a combination of voters, a

polarization between urban and rural parts of the country and photos moving to neighborhoods where people agree with their values and redistricting and the tendency of parties gerrymandering and the republicans have had the advantage and they have increased safety republican seats whereas recalculating the scores to reflect election results. as far as how they compute the scores to determine the redistricting. we look at the presidential race for every 435 districts and

we take the difference between that district and the national result. a district with the score the vote for the republican candidate, we put them against a district that got 53% of the vote. we use -- we rated 75% of the score for the presidential election. host: swing states are down to 80 plus, what is it mean for those competing in those states for offices? guest: it has an impact on the competitive structures that members of congress need for

passing votes. it used to be votes. it used to be that 164 swing districts was greater then the number of soundly democratic or republican districts. now, that is less than 20% of the house. over 80% of the members of congress are elected from districts where the primary is tantamount to an election. the overwhelming share of legislatures are playing to a primary base because their only threat would come from someone who is further right or further left than you are. this is meant that most of the competition is now in states that have maps that were drawn in a more neutral manner not bipartisan legislatures trying

to maximize their advantage. there are 13 states that were mapped to the most most recent s that were drawn by a nonpartisan commission or a court. the balance in the house is going to come down to states like california, arizona, new york. host: david wasserman is joining us for this conversation. when you want to talk to to redistricting, call and let him know. (202) 748-8000 for republicans, (202) 748-8001 for democrats and (202) 748-8002 independents four and you can text us at (202) 748-8003. cancan you go back to the last

house election and see the results as far as the close margins we saw? is that because of what you see in the swing states or what's going on at large? guest: we had 35-50 competitive races which which tracks prettyl with the number of seats that we have in our range as -- we would expect that around that same number of seats will be competitive this next time around. keep in mind there are 18 republicans that hold seats the joe biden carried in 2020. there are five democrats that hold seats that donald trump in those will be at the top of the target list the next time around. part of that is that republicans despite underperforming what history might have suggested they should do in the midterms,

they managed to do quite well in california and new york. in new york state alone, you have six republicans who represent democrat seats in the past they only had two. democrats see their route back to house majority running through those six seats in new york, seven in california and other states. part of the challenge for democrats is that republicans could go back and redraw maps and other states. at the same time, democrats pick up seats in north carolina and ohio last fall republicans took back control of the state supreme court and that is important because state supreme court's were the ones to invalidated the republican

gerrymandering is the last time around. if these new state supreme courts agree in my legislatures to go back to revisit those lines in the middle of the decade that could give republicans an additional five seats in the house and doubled their cushion considering they sit on a narrow majority. host: that's just for the house, you don't see anything happening on the local level or does it impact local elections to? guest: this trends across the board. we see a decline in the number of swing states, swing districts, swing counties and neighborhoods. take counties where we haven't seen the boundaries of the county's change in recent decades and yet in 1990 2, 60 1% of american voters lived in --

only 38 percent of voters in 1992 cast balance in landslide counties. today that number is 58%. we have seen americans live in communities that are political homogenous and that it is a result of polarization. we have seen democrats doing better and better with those who have college degrees and they tend to cluster in urban and suburban settings. you have seen a hollowing out for democrats in more rural parts of the country like kentucky. this is coal country in eastern kentucky. that is when we first came out with our index in 1997.

today, it is the second most republican district in the country. host: david wasserman is here, with the cook report quickly remind people of what that is? guest: it analyzes house, gubernatorial and state elections. i have been covering house races for the past 15 years and we meet with candidates. we talk with consultants and ad makers and each party. we talk with party committees who spend a lot of money and we also take a quantitative, analytical approach to demographic trends and try to balance and calibrate these factors into our outlook of

which party is likely to do well in each seat. host: let us hear from rick in chattanooga, tennessee on the independent line. let's go to richard in georgia on the democratic line. caller: good morning sir. one of the biggest things i have noticed is how the democratic party through four democratic seats in the democratic party did not give donation money to the top candidates in different states and senate races,

wisconsin, michigan, north carolina and you wonder why the democrats lost the house to the republicans. new york messed everything up with losing those four seats. guest: there is a criticism that the caller expressed that democrats left seats of the table because they did not realize how well they would do in some parts and it came within 26,000 votes of winning a senate seat in wisconsin. although democrats spent money elsewhere they did spend a considerable amount of money on mandela barnes in the race. losing a bunch of seats in new york state and that included the chair of the democratic campaign committee. there was only so much the

democrats and d.c. could do to control what was going on in albany. democrats in new york tried to gerrymander a map that would give them 22 out of 26 seats. they passed a constitutional amendment that was supposed to curtail gerrymandering in the narrow majority enforce that amendment and said that redistricting needed to be done by a special master. that special master drew lines that included competitive seats. what we noticed in 2022 is that democrats did well in states in the midwest where abortion had been a flashpoint. they did not do as well in a number of solidly blue states where there were fewer threats to abortion access and the races played out along lines of

inflation and crime. new york being such a solid state at the presidential level at the party has not invested the infrastructure to turn out a lot of the voters. that handicaps democrats and those house races. they will not make that same error in 2024. they will fully fund races. we have already seen george santos is unlikely to win renomination in new york's third congressional district. host: a story coming out this week that both the governor of new york and attorney general looking to change around the current lines going on. could you explain that? guest: the ruling that overturned the gerrymander that albany democrats passed was very narrow. the changes made at the court of

appeals is giving democrats hope for leaders to change the boundaries in time for 2024. there will be pressure on them given to what we will likely see in north carolina where the republicans are looking at cracking the lines open the summer and drawing a map that could convert a partisan breakdown to a 11-3 republican route. democrats could say that our only path to work remaining competitive is this nuclear arms race of redistricting. host: let's hear from kathleen in mississippi. caller: good morning. what i am calling about, everybody talking about

gerrymandering and redlining. if you live in a rural area. when i was six years old i was raped by my uncle and nobody did anything about it. it was sad when i hadn't ectopic pregnancy. this is not about health care, this is about our rights. host: i think we are going back to the last discussion. we have someone on twitter asking about gerrymandering. if there is connection between that and what you see in the swing states? guest: we see a number of states that are competitive statewide, less so with the district level. in wisconsin, you had a close presidential election.

obviously, it was somewhat decisive when donald trump one, decisive when joe biden flipped the state. and yet at the congressional level there are six republicans and two democrats because of the way the state's geography lends itself towards republican advantage. democratic voters are very packed in madison and in milwaukee. as long as you use neutral principles and redistricting in those areas are kept together you will end up with two strong democratic districts and the rest of the state needs republican. these more liberal factions just retook control by 04-three margin of the supreme court in the election earlier this month and that has some democrats believing that lines for state

government and congress could be redrawn in a way that gives democrats more of an even footing. in order to do that, you would have to crack up these major, urban areas. host: this is karen from tampa, florida. caller: i have three questions, first questions of the 32 states that are gerrymandered, how many of those are gerrymandered for republicans benefit and how many for democrats? secondly, i am in florida. florida seems to be extremely gerrymandered, is that the case? which dates are the most gerrymandered? thank you very much. guest: that is a great question. florida is a state where republicans have aggressive gerrymander in 2021.

florida had passed a fair lines constitutional amendment back in 2010 that led to a state court intervening in the last second opposing lines that were more democratic. in 2021 the republican legislator considered a map that would have preserve the status quo giving republicans an additional seat. governor desantis disagreed and outmaneuvered his own state redistricting committee leaders and pushed successfully for a map that gave republicans an additional four seats. obviously, republicans had a great year and florida notwithstanding the maps. now the breakdown in florida is

20 republican and eight democrats and that is a maximum map for republicans. another state with aggressive gerrymandering for republicans is in texas. before our most recent partisanship scores, there were 14 districts and a lot of those were suburban seats that had become more purple as democrats made advances in the suburbs. republicans packed more democrats into urban seats which moved those suburban seats to higher ground and now there are only two swing districts by our definition and taxes. we went from 14 to 2. there are

six states that only have one district. there are two that have bipartisan compromises that lead to maps. of the remaining states, the only ones democrats were able to gerrymander were illinois where they have a 14-3 advantage with some pretty creative lines that defy geometry. and in new mexico and oregon. the democrats were able to sweep new mexico, they hold four out of six seats and in divide as well. no doubt, the republicans have major opportunities and gerrymandering gains in tennessee, georgia, texas and florida. host: how are boundaries determined.

as far as the actual map is concerned, what is involved in that? guest: districts have to be equal populace for the most part, they have to be within a person of each other and that requires splitting the city blocks in some instances. you have the voting rights act which is constantly up for judicial reinterpretation. there will be a key case that will be decided this term. this is a challenge that arose from alabama. the voting rights act says that if a group is sufficient enough to form a majority in a district , sufficiently racially polarized there must be an opportunity for that group to be

able to elect their candidate of choice. civil rights groups in alabama as well as democrats objected to the map the republicans drew this time around in alabama that features just one african-american districts out of seven, the states black population is 27%. they argue it would be proportional and required of the voting rights act to draw an additional block opportunity c. the supreme court will decide whether the district court was correct in returning the district. the federal panel was made up of two trump appointees. you have a major question as far as interpreting the voting rights act that could have repercussions in alabama but

also georgia, south carolina, louisiana and there are very sophisticated mapping applications out there that allow whoever's in charge from state to state to draw lines but increasingly that has been democratized. the same level of advanced software that used to be the province of highly paid consultants is available on web-based platforms that anyone can use. host: a viewer makes a reference to ai and if that is part of the process as well? guest: that's part of the discussion with gerrymandering experts and academics in the last few decades. could we move to algorithmic redistricting where our own bias does not play as much as a role? someone would have to write the

code of how you draw those lines. you could develop a program that says what is the shortest possible line to divide the state into equally populous districts and see what happens. could it be better? from a small d democratic standpoint, the drawnout processes that we have now that lead to high-priced legal fights, may be. host: david wasserman is joining us. let's hear from joyce and taxes on the democrat line. caller: i have two questions, my first question is on redistricting, are they supposed to redistrict after the census only one time? it seems like to me i remember

some states and in texas in particular they redistricted midyear after the census was taken. my second question is, what could be done about people who are elected as a member of one party and then once they are in office for whatever reason they decide they want to switch parties? should they be made to give up their seat and let the people run another election because it seems that is a bait and switch on the voters. if they elected you as a republican or democrat and you decide to change it was like you were being dishonest with them. have you done any studies on that? thank you. guest: those are two excellent

questions. to your first question, taxes did redistrict mid decade in 2004 when republican legislatures did not like the map that a court had imposed in 2002. that was very controversial and it was spearheaded by tom delay and it allows republicans to pick up house seats and put several rural democrats out of a job by drawing their district and altering them in profound ways. we have seen other states like georgia engage in that practice. the state that has seen the most change is north carolina. they will have a new congressional map in 2020 four regardless of what the legislature decides because by

state law the map that the court drew in 2022 is temporary. it is only valid for one election cycle. it is about to have his fifth different congressional map in six election cycles and this is become confusing for voters. it becomes difficult for members of congress to follow on casework. our political boundaries have real-life consequences for voters and constituents. the caller's question about party switchers, there have been a number of incidents of members of congress and state legislatures who have switched parties. the most recent example that grates on democrats is a legislator from charlotte who just switch parties from democrat to republican.

it has given republicans a super majority in the general assembly. i suspect that she will not survive the next election given how democratic that district has become but there is nothing democrats can do to vote her out of office until then. sometimes party switch is taken sometimes they don't. you have instances in the last few decades where democratic members from the south decided they no longer identified it with the national democratic party and became republicans such as ralph hall and taxes and they were reelected because their districts had been migrating that way anyway. you have some members that went the other way michael forbes was

one in new york. they have not had a safe landing in the other party. they are not fully trusted. michael forbes lost his primary to a librarian and did not return to congress. host: from lou in oregon. caller: i used to live in san antonio and macon, georgia. you guys have talked about all three of the states. in terms of swing districts, i volunteer with the group called the portland gray panthers. in terms of contested districts,. . one was a completely new

district that was won by a democrat. there was see district that was redistricted, but she lost to a republican. in southern washington state which is vancouver next to portland, oregon. a democrat one that district that was contested, marie perez. i had an additional comment to ask about rank choice ability. guest: we did keep very close track of those races and thank you for highlighting those districts. democrats took a different approach to drawing lines where they had control over redistricting.

democrats tried to spread out there voters to his many districts as possible to maximize their advantage and they drew some seats that only narrowly favored them. they had to spend money in order to try and win the five districts they drew. it just goes to show, redistricting is not always destiny. in some seats, candidate quality members. you had to shining examples of that in the portland suburbs. you had oregon's fifth district where a moderate democrat he was a leader of the blue dogs lost the primary to a progressive who had been on city council in the bay area in the past. republicans attacked her for being too far left for being endorsed by elizabeth warren and

the republican was able to win that seat even though i and carried it by nine points. just across the river in vancouver, washington, you had a republican joe kent who was a special operations officer in the military, in the middle east. he was a very hard-core maga devotee. he was calling for murder charges against anthony felty and called january 6 writers -- kent had been endorsed by trump and a democrat who flew under the radar named marie perez. she owned an auto body shop in

rural washington. she is one of the rare instances of a truly grassroots candidate who made it to congress. she ran an energetic campaign and democrats and d.c. did not spend a whole lot of money on this but you had a democrat leaning pack that came in late and spent on her behalf and made the difference by painting kent as too extreme. host: he asked about rank-choice voting as well. guest: rank choice is taking off in some cities and it is the law into states for congressional election and that is in alaska and maine. rank choice confuses a number of people but it has led to more competitive elections in alaska

and maine. it is no accident that two of five democrats that represent districts that trump carried, they hold seats in part because of rank choice voting. it allowed them to win second place in third choice votes. in the case of alaska, sarah palin, the republican former governor he was highly unpopular , she advanced to the runoff but a lot of the votes from the more conventional republican who came in third place ended up going to the other candidate or they did not rank a second choice.

that allowed a democrat to win alaska for the first time in many decades. host: david wasserman from cook political report house editor here to talk about swing states, redistricting and other topics. let's hear from james in connecticut on the republican line. caller: i have a very political, wonky questions based on my experience where i live in connecticut. in many swing districts we have what is called an open primary system in the democratic party has their democrat voters vote for the worst republican candidate in those primary as republicans. i saw this in the last election

cycle. a democratic strategist said they flipped six house by putting up the worst candidates by collusion in the primary. do you feel this is a good thing for democracy that we have the democrat party bragging about how hard they are rigging elections so the republican candidates who the republicans want don't get to run for office. in washington state i was good friends with the head of the union's. the only reason the governor one is because the democratic party crossed over to vote for ellen croswell instead of dale foreman who was the most popular speaker of the house. that is the only reason he became governor because of

political corruption. guest: i want to add one more thing on rank choice. part of the challenge for devotees is that after democrats of one those seats, republicans see it as the most evil election innovation. that has been an impediment to widespread adoption and why it is taking off in places like portland, new york. it's a harder sell statewide. as far as democratic collusion in trying to field week republican candidates. the republican had massive candidate problems, there were seven house seats the republicans left on the table because they nominated

candidates who were viewed by independent voters is too extreme on abortion, trumpet matters of democracy in january 6. i would say the narrative the democrats played a role in scheming to nominate weaker opponents, that is overrated. we did see democrats invest some money here and there and trying to boost republican candidates who were further right but it was not that widespread and not backed by serious money. it was a situation where republicans lacked discipline in trying to put money behind the nominee that had the broadest appeal. in the senate, for example, there is still bitterness between rick scott who is the chair of the republican's campaign committee and mitch

mcconnell the republican leader of the senate. that opens the door for donald trump to come in and hand-picked candidates who were either fellow celebrities are personally loyal to him and not the broadest appealing in a general election scenario. host: there is a story from nbc taking a look at two years from now saying that the democrat is targeting 31 seats in their hopes of retaking the house. what faces them with us a challenge they face? guest: both parties have targets they are going after. democrats are targeting around 30 districts in the both of them are in new york and california as we have discussed. there are a variety of republicans that democrats view

as vulnerable because of the presidential year. the fact that we will have a bigger turnout among younger voters and nonwhite voters than we had in 2022. the central valley of california where you have two republicans who are in very close seats, swing seats in our estimation that latino turnout was very low there. it comes up a lot in the presidential cycle. those are the types of seats that the party is looking at. host: david wasserman is cook political report house editor. you can find his work at cook political.com. thank you for the discussion

today. guest: thank you. host: we are going to the public forum and if you want to participate (202) 748-8000 for republicans, (202) 748-8001 for democrats and (202) 748-8002 independents. we will be back with washington journal. >> all this month watch the top 21 winning videos from the studentcam documentary competition. every morning before washington journal we will air one of our winning documentaries where students were asked to share what they priorities would be if they were elected to congress. watch the winning studentm documentaries at 6:50 a.m. watch all winning entries at

c-span.com any time. order your copy of the 100 18th directory now available at c-spanshop.org. with bio and contact information for every house and senate member and important information on congressional committees, the president's cabinet and state governors. skim the code tr your copy or gto-spanshop.org. is 29.95. there are a lot of places to get political information but only at c-span do you get it straight from the source. no matter where you are or you stand on the issues c-span is america's network. unfiltered, unbiased, word for word. if it happens here, or here, or

anywhere that matters, america is watching on c-span powered by cable. listening to programs on c-span for c-span radio just got easier. tell your smart speaker to play c-span radio and listen to them important congressional hearings. listen to c-span any time. just tell your smart speaker to plan c-span radio. c-span powered by cable. "washington journal," continues. host: the numbers for open forum (202) 748-8000 republicans, (202) 748-8001 democrats, (202) 748-8002 independents. we will start with and on the

independent line. caller: the previous guest was on and he glossed over the fact about rank-choice voting, individuals who had ballots that did not count in their ballot was thrown away. rank-choice voting, when you have philanthropist with millions of dollars in support of an idea, who is it really supporting? as far as it be more collaborative, it doesn't help the voter. when you have candidates working behind-the-scenes to bump out other candidates. there is a benefit to hearing all anything has to say about a candidate. rank-choice voting takes out away from the voter. i would urge people to read

about rank-choice voting when it does not benefit voters. host: we have stephen. caller: over the weekend, lindsey graham urged his followers to contribute money to donald trump for his legal fees. donald trump is a multimillionaire and does not need the money. i have two other suggestions. last year there were 40,000 people in somalia on the east coast of africa the died of starvation because of a famine caused by a drought. i suggest people donate to catholic relief services or another organization to help provide food to those people. suggestion number two.

there are thousands of people incarcerated for crimes he did not commit. they are innocent people i suggest people contribute to their states innocent projects with fees associated with expert witnesses and investigators so these people who are innocent and not guilty of the crimes for which they are incarcerated can be freed. host: that was stephen in illinois, let's hear from brad on the independent line. caller: today is the four year anniversary of julian assange being in president and the u.k.. i urge the government to let them go. we all should be doing more for him. pedro, you should have done something today for it.

we need to set them free. host: robert and oregon on the republican line. caller: i am totally opposed to rank-choice voting. as one previous caller said, it denies a significant number of voters from a real choice in the general election and i think it is terrible for democracy. a lot of commenters would say the opposite. i am a moderate and see this all the time when i talk to people with their rank-choice voting. it leads to something not good for democracy. host: the washington post talks

about the efforts made by the biden administration centering around several projects. the defense department will determine the scope of leaked material in the impact the spread could cause. in conversations with counterparts officials are on damage control. u.s. officials are engaging with allies and partners to reassure them are commitment to safeguard information. at the white house press briefing where john kirby talked about the intelligence leak. here's a portion from yesterday. [video clip] >> the classified document leaks, has the president bed briefed on this breach and just

the u.s. government have any sense of who is behind it? >> the president has been briefed late last week when we all got work that -- word the documents were out there. this date has been in contact with national security officials. as for the source, as we know the department of defense has sent this to the department of justice and i would refer you to them but they have not come to any conclusions about where they are coming from. >> do you believe the leak is contained or are there more documents that have not been released? >> we don't know, we truly don't know. host: let's hear from brian in maryland on the democrats line. caller: years earlier i was in

jail in jail and the military drafted me and trained us for afghanistan and iraq. they said they would pay me eventually, i am out of prison now and i'm trying to get that charge taken off my record and they won't come through with the payment. i am hoping you could shed some light to the president or defense secretary, they said they would get back to me but they are stalling me. thank you. host: paul is in indianapolis on the independent line. caller: i just wanted to talk about, if the wealthy don't pay taxes why should we? i am not too worried about the documents that trump had.

i worry about him selling them. he has tried to sell us out anyway, it sounds like. he was really mad. if someone would listen when he had covid and he was sweating he said the war is on. i believe he has got it under control. host: (202) 748-8001 republicans, (202) 748-8000 and independents (202) 748-8002. and light of the recent clarence thomas story, the judiciary wrote a letter about follow-up, the chairman of the committee joined 10 other democratic members said that if the court did not act in response to justice thomas

relationship with harlan crow they would draft legislation clarifying the courts at the rules but you do not need for congress to act to undertake your own investigation into the reported conduct and ensure that it cannot happen again. the senator said the conduct of senator thomas is inconsistent with the ethical standards of anyone in a position of trust. let's hear from christine on the democrat line. caller: hello. host: hi, you are on. caller: i want to say that i think it is a joke that we call ourselves a nation of laws, we are the number one killer of children with guns. with all these assault weapons that are out there. host: nelson is next, nelson is

from san diego on the independent line. caller: i guess i missed your show on rank-choice voting. lisa murkowski would be primary now. i am open minded that there may be problems with it and they may have to fix it. without a doubt, lisa murkowski and other republican senators who voted to convict trump after impeachment, they would have been primary doubt. a lot of people are fine with that i guess. i voted for a republican governor in california. i vote republican too.

without a doubt, rank-choice voting saved lisa murkowski and anyone else who voted to convict trump. host: jack is next in michigan on the republican line. caller: i am calling in because i am trying to stay on topic. the leaks are disgusting. it is kind of a sham that this democratic party and administration has put these people in place because from the supreme court, the pentagon, the leaks. everyone seems to be failing in that department and they have no answers for us. maybe we can get to the bottom of it sooner. thank you and have a good day. host: on the democrat line, duane from florida. caller: yes sir. host: you are on, go ahead.

caller: all these big shots have all this money and they spend money in other countries. you have a lot of poor people here that have nowhere to stay. they have all these empty buildings and you can put homeless people in them. what could they do about that? host: the easter egg role at the white house with plenty of people, 30,000. one thing that emerged was word from joe biden about another run. not even the eggroll is safe from politics. president biden said he will participate in three or four more easter egg roles.

here's part of that exchange from yesterday. > [video clip] >> will you be taking part in easter egg roles after 2022? >> i plan on 3, 4 more easter egg roles. >> are you saying that you would be taking >> i plan on running. where not prepared to announce it yet. >> thank you for having us. >> president biden signed a bill that ends the public health emergency on covid-19. he planned to end did in may, but the timeline was spent up.

the white house confirmed the signature in a one line statement. that is the washington times. this is from jim in chicago, illinois. caller: thanks for the call. i just want to say to the trump supporters about election fraud, jim jordan is not holding any hearings on election fraud. any witness they call it rudy or sidney or any of the other proponents of the election fraud of all said under oath that there was no election fraud and that it was all alive. it's very sad that millions of

republicans still believe in this lie. it's very sad for our country. host: frank in michigan. frank in michigan it, hello? caller: people want to dress like a woman to get jobs. hello? host: you are on it. caller: i have two lovely daughters. why should we accept something like this where people want to impersonate a different gender to gain in sports and jobs. what if somebody other than black wanted to be the same thing.

they can gain in grants, jobs. would that be acceptable? do we have to accept the other? it's hypocritical. host: that is frank in michigan. we are in open form. you can continue to call in. a lot of things taking place on c-span. the treasury secretary is speaking at a news conference involving the international monetary fund and the world bank spring meeting taking place in washington dc. cybersecurity agency director,

she is speaking at the crowd strike government summit. later on it, social security and solvency issues sponsored by the urban institute. that will be at 2:00 on various channels. if you are talking about water storag the natural resources subcommittee will be looking at that. you can see that on our c-sp now app and download it if you hav't already. the best way to follow along is our website, the events that take place throughout the day. that is at c-span.org. west virginia, we will hear from russell. good morning. go ahead please. caller:

host: i am going to ask you to turn down your television. caller: on the high-capacity clips, we need to either abolish those or get rid of them. we don't need ak-47s hunting deer. we don't need these hunting deer. we've got 30 odd sixes. we have 30 30's. i don't like people out of the woods with these fully automatic machine guns shooting at people when they are hunting deer. host: richard is in minneapolis. caller: good morning in minnesota, the democrats took over the house and senate and the governorship. they passed this 2040 plan. they put a lot in that they are going to go carbon free by 2040.

they estimate it will raise the electric bills drastically. they've got a lot of new power lines and they will not want those powerlines all over their land. all sorts of other obstacles. electric bills are going high in minnesota and it's going to be a tragedy for many people. it's going to be a tragedy. host: the wall street journal highlights that in the events of those bank fallouts you heard about a month ago or so, to lawmakers reported trading during those days. a republican of new york bought stock in a regional bank before it took over signature bank

following its closure date before she bought the stock. she met with regulars to discuss the bank closure. a democrat from oregon reported three trades in bank stocks as he cosponsored legislation seeking restrictions on financial firms. a spokeswoman said the lawmaker made the trade at the recommendation of her financial advisor. she wasn't aware of the plan to bank on signature bank. he said he was not aware of and at the time. that's the story in the wall street journal. let's hear from joe in nashville. caller: i wanted to talk a little bit about the corporate taxes and we are hearing how corporation should pay their fair share. i believe they should. i also believe there is an easy

way -- it's like a talking point. if you look at it, i was an employee for the first 20 years of my adult life. i made about $60,000 a year. the government taxed that. they didn't get very much taxes off me. then i started my own business. now, i have employees i pay $400,000. me going into business for myself generated much more tax revenue for the government, even if i don't pay any taxes. our corporations are in the same boat. if they have thousands of employees they pay and generate money, i think that's the

capitalist society. we are producing jobs and products. why should we handicapped our corporations by charging them taxes at all? i have heard that said, they pay zero taxes. they should pay zero taxes. we need to keep them as competitive as possible. when we are paying an american worker $40 an hour and the chinese get three dollars an hour, how are we supposed to compete with that. host: let's hear from pennsylvania. ron in pennsylvania? one more time? we will go to catherine in new

hampshire. caller: good morning. i was calling because you have ukraine and i've wondered about this. you have ukraine and russia. you have taiwan and you have china. they are at odds. what i was wondering is why you couldn't have dual citizenship. if you were born in russia, you could also be considered a ukrainian. you would be considered russian. you would have two countries with your name. you would be separate. ukrainians would be ukrainians, they could be russians. i don't know, i think passports,

you have dual citizenship on that. i don't know why they became two separate countries, they don't become two countries. just an idea. host: rosetta in baltimore. caller: good morning. i want to talk about juvenile crime in baltimore. the reason we had the harbor, in the summertime they have barbecues and cookouts to attract young people. that doesn't appeal to them. we need to use psychology. we've got to keep getting in to let them know this is not where they need to be, to tote a gun.

i would like to see us get inside the heads. they will want to think about themselves in a positive way. the fact that psychology works is demonstrated by the taliban and isis who get the message to get americans to go over to their country and fight for them. it gets inside their head and makes them go over there and fight. we need to use psychology. it's not being a man to tote a gun. you show weakness. we need to push that in a different manner. on tv, we have a lot of programs.

sort were a lot of family oriented programs. now, everything is crime. entertainment is crime. this is what these kids see. it reinforces the idea that crime is something to do. we need to appeal to them psychologically so they know it's not cool. host: that is rosetta with plenty of ideas for where she lives in baltimore. it was in louisville yesterday that shooting took place. one of the people responding

yesterday was the governor. done only on the shooting it, but the events that the shooting took the lives of two people that he knew. here is part of his response from yesterday. >> this is awful. i have a very close friend that didn't make it today. i have another close friend who didn't either, and one at the hospital that i hope is going to make it through. when we talk about praying, i hope people will. for those we are hoping to make it through the surgery. we've got to do what we've done these last three years. we have to wrap our arms around these families. don't be afraid to get help. our bodies and our minds go through these tragedies.

i hope the brave officers who stepped into the line of fire will reach out for help when they need it. i hope every one of those bank employees, that is my bank. i hope they will all reach out and get the help they need. there are a lot of people hurting today. i hope we surround them with the love and the compassion we have been so good at showing one another. i want people to know that while today is horrific, this is a safe community. officers are doing their very best each and every day. that is what we saw here. i know there are steps the police department is taking to do things better. i think we saw the best from

them today. i want to thank them and our law enforcement officers for doing their best, to try to save some of my friends and many others. host: linda in oregon it. caller: i am calling to just say that we were better off two years ago than we are today economically, military, police, religion. i believe in the lord. i believe that we have our first amendment rights. i think we should just go forward and vote in 2024 if we make it that far.

the person we have right now is not our president. host: president biden will travel to ireland today. you can follow along on the sea spend networks. let's hear from cj in minnesota. caller: thank you for accepting my call. good morning. i just want to say that america is 246 years of age. we are a baby compared to the rest of the countries. we don't know how to get along with each other at home. it tells you that when people don't get what they want with

election and they start crying like kids, they can accept the the fact of the transfer power didn't happen. that doesn't mean it's going to happen. we should get behind the president and stop criticizing him. a lot of people have never had presidents they really always liked. they have to go along with it because they have no other choice. they need to grow up and start acting like real adults. host: one more call. but show you what the new moon suit that you saw on c-span and other networks, the ash and

opsware announce. this with the suits will look like compared to the apollo suits, when it comes to the new suits the vehicle or mobility unit. there is greater flexibility to pick up items from the ground as well as boots. there is another rendering there. thank you for the nerd moment. donald is the last call in michigan. go ahead. caller: i just wanted to speak on the gun situation. the nra has america thinking we are coming to get their guns. they will never be satisfied until everybody has an ar-15.

it's like a big masquerade. nobody said we are going to come to every house and take their guns. all they want to do is limit the sale of these guns, the republicans are right on their bandwagon, telling people they are coming to get your guns. they just want to do something. they are really proposing something that is lightweight. they know it's not going to happen. background checks, what's wrong with that? that's my thing. host: that was donald in michigan. that is the last call for this portion of the program. coming up, we learn about the

plight of refugees, what happens when they get there, the amount of refugees covenant. josh smith at utah state university will join us for that conversation when washington journal continues. >> all this week, c-span is featuring encore presentations of q&a, tonight, tv and radio broadcaster alvin hall. he talks about the travel guide used by many african-americans during the jim crow era that listed safe hotels, restaurants, gas stations. he visited one dozen of those sites to learn more about the history and lasting impact.

alvin hall tonight at 7:00 eastern on q&a. >> be up-to-date in the latest publishing with book tv's podcast with nonfiction book releases. you can find about books on c-span now, our free mobile app or wherever you get your podcasts. >> campaign 2024 coverage is your front row seat to the presidential election. watch our coverage with announcements, speeches, events.

campaign 2024 on the sea spend -- c-span network. your unfiltered view of politics. >> this is our online store. browse through our latest collection of c-span products. there is something for every c-span fan. shop now at c-span shop.org. >> washington journal continues. host: we are going to take a discussion on the refugee system. join us as josh smith from the utah state university. thank you for your time this morning. guest: it's great to be here. host: can you tell us about the

center itself, especially what it does in the space of refugees. guest: it's a research center based utah state university. it's a great place to do research. we get to decide the topics and dive into those. i get to say refugee policy -- we need dire reform to continue. we have taken as few as 25,000 people. we used to taken 200,000 people. there is a lot of work to do to rebuild that system. those of the projects we are working on here. host: why the decrease in numbers from where you started? guest: the refugee system is built out of world war ii. we established a system in 1980 for the president gets to decide

how many refugees to admit. it can be subject to big up and down flows depending on the preferences of the president. president trump lowered the number of refugees admitted. we closed about one out of three resettlement offices. the problem today is even as we try to rebuild the system, it is more difficult to build it back up. last year, we only took an 25,000 refugees. as of march, we have settled about 18,000 people. we hit a new milestone, we settled more than 6000 in march. it's going to take a long time to build a backup to our prior levels. we are finally getting to these milestones again. host: i know it's academic, what is a refugee? guest: there is a fear of

persecution because of race or religion or because they belong to a social group. a lot come from syria because of the conflict. these are the kinds of people when we talk about the american dream or the promise on the statue of liberty. these are the people we are talking about. they are most in need of a hand up. the great part about refugees is we get to provide a new home to people who are suffering some of the worst in the world. that's an exciting thing about the system. host: this is the state department definition, someone who has a fear ofersecution on account of their race, religion, social group, political opinion. if they are coming to the united states, do they come directly?

are there other parties involved? guest: there is a lot of vetting. they are the most vetted immigrants of all. not only does the u.n. -- there refugee group refer them to the u.s., the u.s. does its own vetting. that is great news for all the communities. they just started their own agency. i am glad to bring more of those people here to give them a new home in one of the most beautiful places on earth. host: what is involved in the vetting process? guest: background checks you would expect, they do identity establishment. if you fled your country, you may not have grabbed your so security card or birth certificate. a lot of work into establishing

this person, here is a record of where they've been. they get matched with a global area, anywhere else in the country. host: i suppose we will answer questions. if you want to ask our guest -- he serves as a research manager. what case would you make for the united states improving the system? guest: the central problem has been up and down. what we should do is take a needs-based approach.

the u.n. produces a category. our proposal is we should take one in 10 each year of those people who are designated most in need. this insulates the resettlement process from the kinds of political winds of whoever is in office. that offers an opportunity to make sure we are honoring that american ideal, being the city on the hill. just doing that, we'd take about 160,000 people year. that brings us back in line with the early years of 1980 when we had the refugee program. that would be a great way to start building backup our system. host: if you're familiar with the resettlement process, you can tell us your experience. you can call us at (202)

748-8003. you recently wrote a paper on this. one of the comparisons you make is how the united states deals with taking in guest: germany is the most striking single example. in 2013 they took one million people in. it is a testament to what you can do with a concerted effort local communities as well as federal or a public leader who says we can do this. there is a lot of opportunity for us to take more and for people to integrate into local communities. canada is much smaller. once you adjust for our different population sizes, the u.s. takes a lot fewer. that is a disappointment. when you think of america you think of this history of immigration. you think of the statue of

liberty. this is a place of refuge. one way we can start building back up and start to rival some of those countries that take a lot of refugees as well. host: is the process different to account for more people coming in? guest: the same thing about that different process, we are starting to steal the good ideas. the u.s. just got that started. the u.s. welcoming allies program that was bringing in people from ukraine as well as people from afghanistan, those are really promising ways to first of all, people are bringing -- people are putting up their own money to bring in refugees. it is a lower cost for everyone. there is also a way to expand refugee resettlement. back in president trumps administration he asked governors, do you want refugees? many states said, yes, we want to take in more refugees.

utah was one of those as well. there is a lot of opportunities to start allowing more private choice. allowing more people who want to sponsor refugees, allowing more states who want to sponsor refugees. extending that private resettlement option we have already started, but also creating a state-based program. host: before we take calls, mr. smith you have probably heard these comparisons at a recent hearing where republican senator drew comparisons through the refugee process and the asylum process that happens along the southern border. i want to play you a little bit of what he said and get your response to that. [video clip] >> the u.s. refugee program is not the solution to the chaos and the crisis we see on our southern border. in january president biden announced a new measure to address the border crisis, including a provision that would welcome up to 20,000 refugees from latin america and caribbean countries doing -- countries

during the fiscal year 2023 to fiscal year 2024. this new strategy includes other components as well. most of which i believe camouflage the severity of the problem we are experiencing. let's be clear, increasing refugee resettlement is not the solution to what we see on the border happening today. in each of the last two fiscal years, u.s. custom border protection encountered 1.3 million migrants from mexico and northern triangle company -- northern triangle country. this is a drop in the bucket. it will not alleviate strain caused by the current crisis on our southern border and it will not prevent migrants with weak or nonexistent asylum claims from unlawfully crossing the border. host: mr. smith, what did you think of those comparisons? guest: senator john cornyn is

onto something. the refugees system is completely separate from the border crossing challenges the u.s. faces right now. if we really want to fix those problems, i grew up in rural area. there are more towns than people. one of the things you learned when you see water flowing through the irrigation ditch, it is flowing out, overflowing onto the sides, that is because there is something blocking and irrigation ditch. to fix that, clear pathways so that water flows through and reaches where you want it to. i am in favor of border security measures. we call it border security plus. the plus matters a lot. no one is against hiring more border patrol to make sure people who are coming across are here to do good and not to do harm. what we need to also do is clear out that ditch by creating

worker programs. there is a really clear findings over and over again in immigration research that one load doesn't do it. you need the full recipe in order to get order at the border. there is a lot of opportunity investing not just in border patrol or spending, but also start creating new pathways for immigrants to come in because it is totally true. we hid record numbers of border crossing last year. it is a big challenge. that is going to mean for leaders like john cornyn, is to step up and find ways we can get really good immigration reforms through that does both of those things. provides immigration security through border spending and enforcement as well as creating new pathways so that instead of trying to just show up and hope they don't get caught, register for a simple guestworker program and can come to the u.s. that

way. host: a discussion with josh smith from the center of growth and opportunity research. robert on the republican line starts us off. go ahead. caller: my comment would be, is this a program supported by big business and big farming in regards to cheap labor? diluting the wages in the united states? the more people you have, the more wages are going to be paid sooner or later. we have seen this where there is an influx of immigrants that come across. so you have got all these people who are willing to do jobs a lot cheaper. is this a ways of means to make it easier for people to come here and work? i know there is needs in the form of to do all that work.

is this economics 101 or is it more about not having to pay people a living wage and all that stuff? host: that is robert in illinois. guest: you are totally right we should be concerned about the kinds of wage effects immigrants might have it when they come into an area. programs like the farm labor, guestworkers who, through agricultural guestworker program, they were subject to wage requirements. u.s. government already provides those kinds of simple protections. you're not just paying minimum wage. you have got to pay that, plus some additional amount. and that is the kind of policy we can have if congress passed some new immigration reform. we could have guestworker form -- guestworker programs that meets the needs. but also provides options for people to come to the country legally. the great part about that, this

is the second order of that. when you bring people here, they have got to go get their car fixed, they have got to go get their hair cut, they shop at local grocery stores. it is not just a single shift in supply of labor. there is also a shift in demand. it has got to hire more people. it has got to staff more people. two stories in that. there is the complementary increase in demand. economics 101 answer is it depends on which of those wins out. most evidence says immigration increases u.s. wages by buyback demand affect. or bringing someone who can work on the farm while maybe you fix the tractor and do more mechanical work. there is a lot of of opportunity to make the world a better place. we are better together with immigrants. host: nadia, in virginia. independent line.

caller: mr. smith, you talked about using a formula related to the u.n. identification of refugees. to identify coming into the u.s.. i had another proposal. i believe our foreign policy in the last several decades has brought death and destruction on countries. particularly middle eastern countries and we have yet to atone, provide reparations, do anything significant. for example the iraqi people, afghan the people. we decided to declare war on two countries and destroy the infrastructures, and those countries are still in chaos. i would like you to pine on

identifying refugees based on doing atonement for what we have done and the results. and my second question is, how do we get the conservatives in america, the republicans to acknowledge that immigration, refugees are a net benefit to this country? because data doesn't move them. no matter how many times you tell them, they do less crimo, -- they do less crime, population growth is stagnant and we need the immigration to grow our country, to pay social security, how do we move these people to understand that? because those talking points do not impact them. host: ok. that is nadia in virginia. guest: the first step is to

think about, we owe special debt. one of the things you start writing in public place or talking in public space about immigration policy, people pop into your inbox. one of the men who jumped into mine and said, hi, is a man who is not safe in afghanistan. he and i have been talking for about six or nine months now about the challenges he faces in afghanistan. he and his family have to move a lot because the taliban is looking out for people like him. people like him means people who worked with the u.s. military. he is stuck there, not because he hasn't been approved by the people in charge of admission. he has what they call chief admission approval. he is stuck in afghanistan because he cannot go get his fingerprinting done in the country. there is not an open u.s. embassy. the next step he would have to go through before being issued

u.s. visa is he would have to go get those biometrics done. so he is stuck. we need to do much more to work on these kinds of issues. you were an asset to the u.s. military in afghanistan, how can we get you out of there? going on in congress right now is the afghan adjustment act. if you have a chief of justice approval you should be clear to come into the country and finish the rest of the screening. that is one of the kinds of changes that needs to happen to repay the people who helped us. i am no foreign policy expert so i will speak and -- i won't speak in general to foreign policy. but certainly in syria and the large parts of refugees who come today are from syria. there is a lot of work we can do there. in regards to your second question, the reason i chose to work on refugee policies specifically is because it is a

place where everyone agrees. the hearing we played a portion of, that was chair senator padilla, a democrat from california. if you go and listen to that hearing, you're not going to hear much grandstanding. there is no political speeches. there is a commentary about the value of refugees. everyone agrees. we are looking for solutions. we hope these kinds of public appearances we make as resources that's as resource -- as researchers provide solutions to be able to bridge the gap between republicans and democrats. most of our immigration policies come down to problems within the law. we have to have congress act. host: here is senator alex padilla talking about reductions to those admissions. [video clip] >> president trump attempted to shut off all points of entry. his efforts included

aggressively reducing refugee admissions. slashing the total number admitted to around 2500. 30,000 and finally just under 12,000 in his final three years in office. because of these dramatic cuts, 134 resettlement officers throughout -- offices throughout the country were shut without justify the cost to staff. during that time conditions only worsened for millions of refugees fleeing persecution. and the covid-19 pandemic created additional unprecedented challenges in processing refugees. as in person screenings were delayed and increased the demand for flight made refugee travel more difficult. while the biden administration has made efforts to rebuild and scale the refugee program back up, the trump era cuts and the

culmination of covid processing challenges have made it difficult to return to the typical historic annual admissions numbers. host: you can see that for hearing on our website at c-span.org. let's hear from mike, republican from texas. caller: from 1924 to 1965, we had no immigration. the president at that time, we had an opportunity for people who had come to the united states by way of immigration to assimilate. we had expectations of them. among them was to speak english. i know that the people who come here, they love their parents and their families as much as we love ours. i get that. we cannot save the world. the very people you are embracing and bringing here are exactly the people who are well suited to reform the nation they lead -- they leave, the tyranny

they leave. how is it these countries, i know this is a different topic of immigration, 165 immigrants have come from 165 different nations around the world. when does it end? when do we control what is here? because we have costs. dental care, medical care, housing, education. do you think these people are going to land on the moon in the next 10 years? i don't think they will. i think they need to get assimilated with what we have here now. we assume these costs, we are going to print the money. we have so many costs, so many things going on in our nation right now. our quality of life is being destroyed. guest: i agree with a lot of what you're saying. there is a great need for people to integrate into their communities. the good news on refugees, not only do they integrate quickly, we get them into jobs, they

start their own families, they become americans quite quickly. but we also see they are huge economic contributors. because of that they actually pay in more to the u.s. then they take out in terms of the fiscal cost. for example, they pay for their own flight to come to the u.s.. so that is an example that really, yes, we have cause problems. look at social security, here is another cause problem. social security predicted to be bankrupt in 2034. that is a problem. we are not going to be able to pay out those benefits. a part of that problem is because we don't have enough people coming into the country. i want to encourage everyone to see immigration as an asset fixing those problems. a book came out last year, streets of gold, details a great story about immigration and immigration assimilation. the rate of immigration haven't changed that much. there is a lot of reasons to be

optimistic. i am totally for these kinds of concerns because america is the greatest place on earth. but i also think immigration has always been a part of that. looking back at the 1920's act, i don't know any evidence it improved assimilation banks. there is a lot of reason to think it reduced our ability to integrate immigrants in the long run. there is a lot of options for us to take this integration and go up a notch. one thing we have done research on is english language trading. english language is a great way for immigrants to integrate into the community. because now they can go to the grocery store and order more easily. think about public schools. if you set in. teacher conference and you have probably seen someone who is interpreting for peer -- for parents not able to speak english, those kinds of ways are going to improve the integration of immigrants on economic terms

but they are also improving on cultural terms. to interact and become friends with everyone in the country and become americans, fundamentally. host: when someone comes to the united states as a refugee, how much federal support do they get? guest: i forget the total amount of the cost of them coming in. but the net amount, over 20 years that they pay back in access to what they are given in support is about $2000. there is new evidence from michael clemens, a researcher at george mason university, he sold that she shows we have been underestimating the benefits of refugees because we haven't been accounting for the demand affect. when you bring people here and they start working, that is also the benefit of u.s. natives as well. we are clearly in the black on refugees in terms of the

spending we have. it is a great investment that pays back more than what we are paying in. host: do they get a stipend of some type, do they get health care of some type, what are the benefits when they come to your united states -- come to the united states? guest: they receive some financial support at the beginning but the current programs are geared to quickly get them into the workforce so that they can become contributors. if you talk with refugees, that is what they will tell you. they show up here, yes, they are in need, they had to leave their home country, but they were assets. when you talk to them, they will tell you, i was a journalist back in afghanistan, i was a doctor, i was a nurse, i was a lawyer. an iraqi applicant who came to the u.s. gets here, looks around and says, what does my community need? i am going to start a grocery store.

because of that he employed at six or seven people running this small corner shop. that is really the story of immigration. that is an asset to the country. people bring prosperity. they look around and say, what we need to do? and they do it. host: this is from warren in ohio, democrats line. caller: this is jack. i have a couple of questions. i know you guys are really happy about all these people coming into the country. but i notice you guys never say anything about black america with our reparations. these people are pouring in my neighborhood's left and right, leapfrogging all black americans, but you guys never put anybody like doc or claude anderson on c-span to expand -- to explain the black means that we need. you guys are not listening to us in black america. we need reparations for ourselves so we can rebuild our

country and our neighborhoods. where do y'all get off saying this is ok? this is detrimental to the black community. host: mr. smith? thank you, caller. guest: thank you for calling in. i don't study racial issues directly so i don't want to speak to those. what i can say, sure, we should do more. right now congress is debating what to do with a program called trade adjusted assistance. that program is to help people who may have lost their job because of international trade. a factory moves out of the u.s., how do we help those people? trade adjustment was supposed to do that. it doesn't seem it has done a good job of that. a desperate need for more people to say, we need this kind of investment in communities in some way. we need to help people who are losing out. trade adjustment assistance should be the start. we need to find ways to do that. i encourage the utah workforce

development office, a great resource here. i am sure every state has something like it. there is a lot of opportunities for people to find help. i agree with the caller, we should be doing even more. host: how much is private industry stepping up to the plate as far as assisted industries? guest: you can find health-care workers who need training to get up to u.s. standards. but can quickly become contributors. even if they are not exactly in the same position, they can still use their health care training. it has often been a way for businesses to stay alive. upstate new york has had a beautiful story about refugees coming in and saving local businesses. people moving out of buffalo because there were few opportunities, remaining ones were thinking about leaving. but because buffalo took in refugees, they started expanding those businesses. not only did they start new businesses themselves, but they

also powered the existing ones. there is a lot of opportunities to do more with private groups. here in cache valley, in logan, a lot of private groups work with the refugee resettlement office to find workers they need. that is a promising example for more businesses to step up. if you are in need of workers you should reach out to your refugee resettlement office and find out how you can become one of the on ramps for refugee employers -- employees without host: john on the independent line. caller: what you seem to be addressing and what many folks have been talking about is the symptoms of the refugee crisis that we have and folks coming to the border. but nobody seems to want to address the cause of this. which is the economic development, political development in central america. where we don't seem to admit we

sent billions -- we spent billions on arms for ukraine. we don't look at the cause why people are coming to the border. specifically central america, panama, even south america. we have people coming there because the political and economic distress, tremendous distress. what we need to do is address the cause of this. involve a private enterprise in the united states to get involved. improve education in central and south america. we need to send the tide and not give money where there is corruption. put a cap on that and start addressing the cause of the refugee crisis. i am not saying they don't need it, but the refugee crisis in every country. i am specifically talking about central america, south america, our hemisphere to address the cause. host: mr. smith? guest: thanks for calling in.

the right approach there, those guestworker programs i mentioned, if we had guest worker program, one of the best things about those is people who come here and work are sending that money home even before they themselves go home. that is an upper -- that is an opportunity for them to rebuild those communities from the ground up. certainly opportunities for us to do economic investments in those countries. it is difficult to do. we have a long history of countries we have tried to help and have not succeeded with very well. there is a lot of opportunities for us to create these guestworker programs. people come temporarily, they earn money and send it home. that allows the people that are there to rebuild. that is an effective approach. foreign aid is not an area i study well. i am much more comfortable talking about the benefits of the immigration system. even temporary immigration. and bringing economic development from the ground up

by actually supporting the people there. host: from alicia in maryland, independent line. caller: thank you. good morning. i am from arizona originally. and the mormon state is very prejudice against saint avery. even as recent as two weeks ago, when our girls played basketball over there, there were racial slurs. if you don't even accept your neighbors and don't even offer them jobs, how do you expect some foreigner that you are going to accept? host: mr. smith, as far as the remainder of the biden administration, what have they specifically said about these concerns you have expressed with the numbers of refugees coming in?

what have they proposed to resolve these issues? guest: the number one step president biden has taken is raising the refugee resettlement goal. originally he set a goal of 60,000. the next two years he set a goal of 125,000. that is a really promising way to say we are going to build back up. it is going to be a slow battle. the good news is last year we resettled about 25,000 people. this year we have already resettled 18,000. really great numbers to think about our progress. i started the call talking about we resettled the first time since january 2017 more than 6000 people. there is a lot of opportunity to create -- to keep seeing that increase over time. it is going to be a long battle but one that is going to help people most in need and help fulfill america's promise is, land of immigrants and the kind of values all of us stand for.

host: if you want to see the research of our guest when it comes to refugee policy here in the united states. josh smith serves as the research manager for utah state university. thank you for your time today. guest: thank you for having me. host: that is it for the program today. another addition of washington journal comes your way at 7:00 tomorrow morning. we will see you then. >> live today on c-span at 11:30 a.m. eastern, treasury secretary janet yellen holds a press conference ahead of the international monetary fund and world bank spring meeting in

washington, d.c.. at 1:00 p.m., cybersecurity and infrastructure security joins the first of her crown strike government summit to discuss >> live today on c-span at 11:30 a.m. eastern, treasury secretary jat yellen holds a press conference ahead of the imf and world bank meeting. at 1:00 p.m., cybersecurity and if the structure security agency director jen easterly joins the crowd strike government some to talk about tactics and technology. at 2:00 p.m., the acting mission urity administration speaks with the urban institute about ways to strengthen retirement and disability programs under social security. these sotream on the sisi now now -- the c-span out video

app. a water storage meeting. that gets uerway at 5:00 p.m. eastern. >> all this week, c-span is featuring encore presentations of q and a with writers, journalists and historians. tonight, tv and radio broadcaster, the author of the driving green book, talks about the travel guide in the jim crow area that listed safe hotels, gas stations and other businesses. mr. hall visited a dozen of those sites to learn more. alvin hall, tonight at 7:00 p.m. eastern on c-span's q&a. you can listen to c-span's q&a

on our free mobile app. >> massachusetts senator ed markey discussed carbon monoxide emissions for mining is equivalent to 7.5 million fuel wered cars. watch the full hearing tonight at nana, p.m. eastern on c-span, c-span now, our free video app, or anytime online at c-span.org. >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government, funded by these television companies and more, including wow. >> the world has changed. wow's is there for our customers.

more than ever it starts with , great internet. >> wow supports c-span as a public service, along with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> next, the secretary of veteran affairs talks about toxic exposure in ways the ba health care system is modernizing benefits to cover it, costed by the university of chicago. this is just over 50 minutes.