>> coming upon "washington journal," we take your calls and comments live. and then a look at efforts to re-pass legislation reauthorizing the foreign intelligence act. sam sabin is our guest. we will discuss the arizona supreme court abortion ban, us aid to ukraine in israel with representative judy chu and congresswoman harriet hagerman. "washington journal" starts now. ♪ host: good morning. we begin with the debate in washington over reauthorizing

section 702 of the foreign intelligence surveillance act. yesterday in the house, 19 republicans join the democrats in blocking speaker johnson from holding a floor vote on the legislation. we would like to get your thoughts on the debate. , kratz, -- democrats, (202)-748-8000. (202)-748-8001 for republicans. democrats, (202)-748-8000. independents, (202)-748-8002. you can join us in the text, include your first name, city and state at (202)-748-8003. go to facebook.com/c-span and put your reaction there, or in a post on x at --@cspanwj. we will get your thoughts in a minute. let's begin with "the wall street journal" reporting the surveillance vote failed in its

setback speaker johnson. that is their headline this morning. lindsay wise reports how speaker johnson's tenuous ramp on the gavel was dealt a blow wednesday after holdup republicans, a done by former president trump, denied passage on controversial spying law. here's what the former president wrote on his to social website. "it was illegally used against me and many others. a spy on my campaign." speaker johnson spoke to reporters after meeting behind closed doors with rank-and-file republicans. he had this to say in reaction to the former president's comments. [video clip] >> here's the thing fisa, he is not wrong. they abused it. it was built on a false premises. we know the fake russian dossier

and all the other things, but these would actually kill the abuses that allowed president trump's campaign to be spied on, and their criminal and civil penalties for using opposition research or for making fisa applications are illegal spying, if someone is involved in that, they could get 10 years of jail time if they commit those abuses again. and there are a number of other reforms and measures. president trump used the intel from this program to kill terrorists, and we have to kill the abuses so that we can do both of those things to continue and that is what the bill does. [end video clip] host: mike johnson, speaker of the house, republican, for renewing section 702 of the foreign intelligence surveillance act. we would like to get your thoughts. do you think it should be renewed or do you oppose it, as

19 republicans and all democrats voted against the rule that would have allowed a vote? democrats, many of them, support renewing the fisa bill, as republicans do, but there are some democrats and republicans who are opposed to renewing it. "washington times" -- lawmakers derailed vote during new fisa. democrats and republicans who do not trust federal law enforcement demand the law include a new warrant requirement for when the fbi searches for american data in the pfizer database. the law allows the government to only target foreigners abroad, but sometimes american data is inadvertently captured when they communicate with a foreign target. the bill, written by intelligence lawmakers, does not include the warrant requirement. here is congressman thomas

matthew, kentucky republican, on the house floor, talking about wanting to include the amendment in this legislation. [video clip] >> today, we are building on the resolution that would bring forward reauthorization of a program abused for decades, the fisa surveillance program. before we vote on that program, this resolution that we are voting on now prescribes we will bring forward an amendment to require warrants. if you would like to spy on americans and use this database as a backdoor to look at the privacy, the private information of americans, you would need a warrant if this amendment passes. some people say, getting a warrant is too hard and it will slow us down. you will put america in danger. i have been in the classified area where they are supposed to tell us the problems with requiring a warrant, they never have. a single example over getting a

warrant would be a problem to national security. in fact, we have a provision that says in exigent circumstances. you can skip that step. you will hear today that, everything is fine, we don't need the amendment. we have got 53 reforms in this package. here's the problem with them. we rely on the same people that abused the system to enforce those reforms, and they still don't go to the constitutional level that is required in this country. who doesn't trust us 53 reforms? congress. the authors of this bill. you know how i know? because they have put in two exemptions for themselves in this bill. if the fbi is going to use 702 fisa to spy on congressman, they have to tell congress. they even have to get permission from congress that they are

spying on if they say it is for the congressman's own good. why do we have a provision in their that exempts congressman but not all america. americans deserve protections that are enshrined in the constitution. at the last should pass this house. [end video clip] host: that was the republican of kentucky arguing that the renewal of the foreign intelligence surveillance act needs an amendment to it. "from the new york -- from "the new york times," democrats and libertarian minded republicans would like to add to requirement that a warrant must be required before declaring content for american communications, under the rule to be voted on wednesday, critics led by jim jordan and the chair of the judiciary committee, that they would have a that tends to add it to the bill. national security officials argued doing so would cripple

the program. senior lawmakers on the house committee, including congressman mike turner, a republican of ohio, and jim pons of connecticut, a top democrat, have also resisted such changes and are back in the more modest adjustments in this bill. on this idea of adding an amendment requiring a warrant. fbi director christopher wray had this to say, requiring a warrant for u.s. queries would be a deliberate and shortsighted choice blindness to the threat of a foreign terrorist and u.s. planning and even executing an attack. the consequences of tying our hands, he wrote, are not, he goes on to say, merely hypothetical. autumn line, a warrant requirement would be the equivalent of rebuilding the pre-9/11 intelligence law. i saw the consequences of that policy choice 22 years ago.

i have spoken with families of victims, he writes, about horrific attacks. and now, i can assure human of our adversaries are holding back . whether to attack us, steal from us, or to print our security or american lives at risk. the argument for and against the reauthorization of the foreign intelligence surveillance act. republicans, dial in, (202)-748-8001. democrats, (202)-748-8000. independents, (202)-748-8002. remember, you can text as with your first name, city and state, (202)-748-8003. you can post on facebook.com/c-span and on x at --@cspanwj. we have a democratic caller. good morning.

what do you think about the debate? caller: yes, i disconnected a while ago. host: you are on the air now, -- caller: good. i don't know if i'm calling on the independent. i did not mean to call on the democrat, but i'm calling in regard to the way they are getting these warrants. my father was in the vietnam war and the cuban missile crisis, and i have lived here all my life, and i have internet or i could have internet. i'm calling you on a landline phone now. i found nine millimeter reels and i would love to share them with people, but i don't even want to turn on a personal computer because i'm very unsatisfied with the state of

our government at this time. i graduated from college in texarkana, arkansas, and i have my bachelors degree. i also have a child with mental disability that spent two years in the county detention center, waiting for mental health and hospital facility, in which there are only 30 beds in arkansas. host: dana in arkansas, independent, not trusting the government with this power. henrietta in florida, republican. do you agree with the 19 republicans yesterday? caller: i agree voting against it. i was there. i lived in west newark, new jersey, and i voted for this twice. i was on board with giving the alphabet agencies all the power

they needed in order to protect us, and with the daily with it -- and what did they do with it? despite honest. despite on political opponents, they spied on whoever the hell they wanted. some of these alphabet agencies actually looked at their backgrounds, their family background, this is the reason, and god forbid anything happens and congress takes us away from them. it is their fault, not anyone else's, not congress', they abused the power we gave them. we are taking it back, and unless they behave themselves, which they haven't for the past 22 years, they have lied, obfuscated, they have done

everything to enhance their own power and leave us pretty much on the backend of this. host: can i ask, you heard from the speaker, mike johnson, republican, saying that there are 53 reforms in this legislation. do you trust him? caller: quite frankly, no. host: why not? caller: first of all, he does not know how to negotiate a darn thing. he has come out of meetings, and he is a short stick. he is disgraceful. he goes in meetings with cia and the alphabet agency, and they say, oh my god, the world is going to blow up, we have terrorists, all my god, my god. too bad. you had power for 22 years, we gave it to you, and what did you do? you abused it.

you don't get a second chance at abusing. it is just not acceptable. host: and lawmakers did get classified briefing yesterday afternoon from the intelligence community, advocating for renewing this fisa section 02 and it was enacted in 2007, "the washington times" says, and at that time, congress said it had to be reauthorized every five years, so this debate comes up every time. yesterday, 19 republicans said, no, you are not going to move forward on a vote on this legislation. that blocked the role that would have allowed the reauthorizing bill to come to the floor, and here are those 19 republicans. all democrats voted, also,

against, which they typically do when you are in the minority. now, republicans are regrouping after the reauthorization of section 702 as divided the party. michael in pittsburgh, republican. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. it is a great topic. i think it is very important. i think that fisa -- the wings need to be clipped. just like henrietta said. and i think it has been shown that the cia and the fbi have abused their authority, in so many cases. and they need to have warrants and judges, and they need to have kind of better safeguards against this abuse.

host: listen to this from the intelligence.gov website, fisa targeting under section 702, all targeting must be conducted pursuant to targeting procedures that are adopted by the attorney general, in consultation with the director, and that must be improved by the foreign intelligence surveillance court. the court must find that the procedures meet the requirements in the statute and that they are consistent with the fourth amendment. targeting procedures provide specific criteria for ensuring all three of the targeted requirements are met. before selection begins, there must be layers of review and approval within every section 702 targeting decisions. nobody has the authority or ability to initiate section 702 except through this multistep process. michael, your reaction to that. caller: i trust congressman

massey. i believe that he is right, if they find ways around the power that has been given to them by congress, but i think that this patriot act was abused, and every time it came up for approval, it came out stronger. they strengthened, and a judge wrote a book about that when they first came up, and he said this is unconstitutional what they're doing here, and it is ripe for abuse. sure enough, that is what happened, and now the fbi and cia is running our government. instead of elected officials running the fbi, and all of these agencies should be under the purview of the congress and as elected officials that

represent us. instead, they are doing their own thing. host: michael in pittsburgh, republican. pat, the aquatic, -- texas, democratic caller. caller: good morning, greta. you are looking wonderful. host: morning. caller: first, i would like to remind you that a man with 91 felonies has said, if you have done nothing wrong, you don't have anything to worry about. the last thing we need is congress overseeing any authority of these investigations by the fbi and so forth three of this is exactly what russia would like. they would like politicians to oversee our government law enforcement so they can do whatever they want. listen to these people. they are brainwashed. they are absolutely rain washed. host: pat, do you see this as a decision of whether or not you trust congress or our law enforcement? caller: i trust law enforcement.

look at the corruption in congress. look at it. they do not want to have any oversight by any law enforcement. that is what they do not want any of these fisa policies. host: all right, packed's thoughts on renewing section 702 of the foreign intelligence surveillance act. in cincinnati, ohio, independent, chester. caller: hey, how are you customer host: -- how are you? host: morning. caller: a few things. one, they need to have those warrants because obviously you cannot trust any of them. as far as that one document you read, saying that he saw 9/11 happened because his hands were tied because of warrants and things for you that is not true. they had plenty of intel that

9/11 was going to happen before it happened and refused to act. host: ok, so you are referring to christopher wray and what he had to say about the idea of adding an amendment that some republicans are supporting that would require a warrant to get american information. christopher wray will be on capitol hill today, and he will more than likely be asked and talk about reauthorization of section 702. he is testifying about the president's budget request for his agency, but this is likely brought up along with other issues faced by the agency. christopher wray testifying at 2:00 p.m. eastern time today. watch coverage live on c-span3, on or video mobile app, c-span now, or online at c-span.org. tim, fairview, pennsylvania, republican. caller: yeah, i would not vote

for the fisa build. over the past several years, i see american intelligence being targeted more and more domestically than abroad. i just think recently, you just saw in the news where the fbi shows up at some lady's door with guns drawn because she posted things on facebook regarding joe biden, so i just do not trust our intelligence apparatus anymore. and it seems kind of silly to be doing a fisa bill and worried about wiretapping and munication like that when we have a wide open border with thousands a day. many of them are chinese nationalists coming over the border, and they are worried about tapping somebody's phone call. i mean, there are divisions now of young men coming over the

borders, and they are worried about electronic surveillance. i would not buy it. i would not vote for it. host: tim in pennsylvania, weighing in on the debate in washington over whether or not to reauthorize section 702 of the foreign intelligence surveillance act. fisa is what it is called. we would like to get your thoughts. henry and michigan, democratic caller. caller: good morning. this is classic cognitive dissonance you are hearing. this man who just got off the phone said there are thousands and thousands of foreign nationals pouring over the border who would like to do something to us, but then they don't trust our intelligence community to protect us. i would like to clarify something. this is not the congress. the democrats in want this, it

is the republicans. they have gone off the deep end, paranoid schizophrenic. we have a 91 count indicted former president, who is going to trial. and that is why they are against this. they fear that because of the insurrection, and i would like everybody to look at the list of those 19 republicans who voted against this, they are all suspected of being a part of the insurrection, higgins, you just go down the list, and you will see all of them are suspected of being part of the trumpet insurrection, so we have to support our intelligence community to keep us safe, especially if you are worried about who is coming across the border. it makes no sense. you are saying we have chinese nationalists in this country were going to do us harm, but we do not want the fisa warrants or

the intelligence community to be empowered to have surveillance. this is crazy. republicans have gone stark raving mad. something is wrong with these people, and they need to seek help immediately. host: in 19 republicans tweeted out by our c-span's craig kaplan, covering capitol hill, 19 republicans who joined all the democrats in voting to block this reauthorization bill from coming to the floor. the fact that speaker johnson wanted republicans to vote on this and approve it is now another reason why congresswoman marjorie taylor greene of georgia is upset with the speaker. you all know, she has a motion to try to vacate the chair. she has not offered it yet. here she is yesterday talking to reporters. [video clip] >> it is pretty clear and

obvious and whispered that johnson does not have the support of the conference. the letter i sent has been well received, and it was a sickly speaking about it out loud. how he handled the fisa process and funding ukraine is going to tell our entire conference how to handle a motion to vacate. [end video clip] host: marjorie taylor greene yesterday morning. later in the day, the rule to bring the reauthorization bill of the fisa section 702 to the floor failed. alan in tennessee, independent. your thoughts on the debate. caller: yes, i have got two points. first, this is not accidental. this is a systematic abuse of the system. the fbi has done hundreds of thousands of warrantless searches. even if you took it to a fisa

court, they lied with impunity, and the fisa is a rubberstamp. we know that. christopher wray goes in front of congress and doesn't answer truthfully about any of it. the other thing i would like to make a note of so viewers will understand about shaping the narrative, you read an article about how fisa is benign and has all these protections. he could have just as easily read a story about the hundreds of thousands of abuses, how the fbi systematically targets people, how they use technology to do things that are specifically prohibited by the constitution, so that is the way c-span shapes the debate with selective reading of articles, typically out of " the new york times" and "washington post." i'm aware of it and i think the rest of your viewers are, too. host: did you see the arguments

made by thomas massie on the floor? the clip we showed were he was talking about what you were saying, the abuses that are taking place? caller: i saw you selectively take an article out of "the new york times"" washington post" as is the standard now -- host: it was intelligence.gov, their website, i prefaced it as that. it is their argument for renewing it. we showed the arguments against renewing it, the abuses you are talking about, thomas massie me that argument, and that is why he and others are calling for an amendment. kyle in new mexico, republican. caller: hey, greta and america. thank you. so that fisa is the foreign intelligence -- host: surveillance act. caller: surveillance act, so if

it is foreign, why is it involved with american citizens? host: this is from axios' reporting, fisa surveillance section 702 allows intelligence agencies to conduct warrantless surveillance of noncitizens based outside the u.s., some u.s. communications can sneak into collections of americans are talking with non-us citizens overseas, so this is where the concern comes in, data collection stored for years that intelligence agencies can tap as part of their investigations. we are now going to move to open forum in our first hour of "the washington journal." you can continue to talk about the debate over reauthorizing fisa, but there is other news we would like to bring in as part of the conversation. there are the lines on your screen.

republicans, any politics or policy issue, dial in at (202)-748-8001. democrats, (202)-748-8000. independents, (202)-748-8002. open forum for the next 30 minutes this morning. to kick us off, speaker johnson with reporters yesterday at the capitol was asked about representative marjorie taylor greene's threats to asked him ukraine funding and how the recent spending battle played out. here is his response. [video clip] >> on the supplemental, house members are actively discussing their options. there are a lot of ideas. a complicated matter at a complicated time. and the clock is ticking, and everybody here feels the urgency on that. what is required is that you reach consensus, and that is what we are working on. marjorie taylor greene is a colleague, always considered her a friend.

i don't think we disagree on any matter of philosophy. we are both conservatives. we do disagree sometimes on strategy and with regards to what we put on the floor and when. marjorie is frustrated by the lack of the appropriations package and spending bills and you know what? so am i. we have to remind everybody that we have the smallest majority in u.s. history, a one-vote margin. this is an historic moment. there has never been anything like this. at the same time, we republicans only have that in one house, not the senate were chuck schumer and the democrats are in charge, and we also don't have the white house involved. so we are not going to get -- because of that reality, we will not be able to do transformational changes that we would like and that we know are necessary. for example, the budget and spending, we will not get all of our priorities. we will never get 100% of what

we want and believe is necessary for the country because it is a matter of math in the congress. i members" that are available. it does not serve our interest to not fund the government and shut it down at this critical time because imagine a scenario where border patrol agents are not paid, tsh agents are not paid, flights are canceled, we are not paying the troops, everything we do that comes to a grinding halt would put pressure on the american people, economy, and a desperate time. we cannot have large sections of the border and patrolled. we cannot not pay border patrol agents. that wasn't an option, and i don't think that would helpful from a political standpoint of the republican party to govern to maintain, keep, and grow our majority in november. that would not be helpful, nor does the motion to vacate helpless in that regard either. it would be chaos in the house.

marjorie and i are going to visit later today. i look forward to the conversation. i will not discuss it anymore. i will discuss it with her. [end video clip] host: do you agree with speaker johnson? you can react to what he has to say on spending battles and the threats to oust him because we are open forum. republicans, (202)-748-8001. democrats, (202)-748-8000. independents, (202)-748-8002. you can text us, include your first name, city and state to (202)-748-8003. join us on facebook.com/c-span or on x at --@cspanwj. on capitol hill yesterday, senate republicans are pressuring vulnerable senate democrats who are up for reelection this cycle on the impeachment trial. defectors are needed to prevent

the killing, they say in "the washington times" of the charges against the homeland security secretary. this week, they delayed heading over articles of impeachment to the senate, which would have triggered action the chamber. instead, they asked the speaker to delay that until monday this week coming up. now, republicans in the chamber are pressuring as "washington times" says, vulnerable democrats to have a trail against the homeland security secretary. here is a chuck schumer of new york on the senate floor yesterday on his approach to the impeachment proceedings against the secretary. [video clip] >> mr. president, as we enter the height of the spring season, there is a lot on the senate agenda. we continued to confirm more judges and nominees, we must assure fisa authorities are

renewed during this work period. off the floor, we continue to work on a host of issues like lowering the cost of prescription drugs and increasing travel safety and ai and more. as busy as we are, one issue the senate will soon have to address is the house vote to impeach homeland security secretary alejandro mayorkas. yesterday, speaker johnson announced he is delaying transmitting the articles to the senate until sometime next week. our plan over here hasn't changed. the senate is ready to go whenever the houses. we would like to address this issue as expeditiously as possible. as i said yesterday, impeachment should never be used to settle policy disagreements. that sets an awful precedent. when the time comes for the senate to receive the articles of impeachment from the house, we will be ready. in the meantime, we'll keep

working on legislation that matters to the american people and doing it in a bipartisan way whenever we can. the american people demand, expect and deserve nothing less. [end video clip] host: the debate on whether or not to move forward on impeaching the homeland security secretary over the border situation is also on the table in open forum. in alabama, republican read what is on your mind? caller: yes. first of all, i will give you examples as to why the border and the people coming over here, and they are receiving all of this free stuff. i will give you an example, and i would like to hear some comments on this. ok, medicaid was paying my medicare premium. they stopped. but, they were going to have me take two to three months back on medicaid, medicaid stop paying

it, so i was going to have to pay two months to three months in advance, taken out of my check, three months of medicare, which is $174.70. ok, why can they not do this more rapid instead of letting it stack up? my rent is $550 a month, so if they took out that much, two months to three months worth, i would not even have enough left to pay my rent. i don't understand this. instead of them squabbling over small things, why don't they look out for the seniors? there is no help for the seniors. if you are a few dollars out of their limit, they are knocked out all of this. they don't consider the high-power bills, the high food costs that affect everyone. not just the people that are

below their standard. and i don't have family left, so i have to watch out for myself, and i had to call medicare and medicaid. i had to call social security. i was on the phone with them off and on since february 16. finally, i got it straightened out work i'm paying one plus half of another in order to live, so i would like to hear some comments about this. that is why i'm so upset about all the illegals getting all this free stuff when i worked like a man all of my life, not like a woman, i have worked like a man, and now we are getting this thrown in her face. thank you for taking my call and have a blessed day. host: bill in alabama, independent. good morning. caller: good morning, greta. i would appreciate it if you

would allow me to make several comments. first, about alejandra mayorkas, he is a -- i don't even have words to describe what he has done to the country. he needs to be impeached, prosecuted, in my opinion. two, the illegals, all the illegals coming into the country, i live in alabama. we are a border state because my community has been flooded with illegal aliens. they are everywhere. everywhere. now, one more thing. i have been in contact with social security. the lady i spoke to, i did not

even understand her. i had to get her to spell things so i could write it down. i don't know if she was eating or just doesn't know how to speak english. this is ridiculous. host: bill in alabama. on immigration, the homeland security secretary was on capitol hill, testifying twice yesterday on the president's budget request for that department. first, he appeared on both the house and senate side yesterday. we covered both of those hearings. you can find it on c-span.org. here is a little bit of what he had to say on the house side to members of congress about the homeland security department diverting other federal resources to handle the border. [video clip] >> the administration is diverting a record number of

federal marshals, and this leaves americans unguarded on commercial flights. i spoke with their marshals about the concerns post on diverting them to the southern border, denying them their sworn duty to protect americans in the air. mr. secretary, you dance around calling the crisis at our southern border not only a humanitarian crisis but a crisis, so if you don't see it as that, why are you deploying law enforcement agencies to the border? >> congresswoman, i do understand the challenges at the border and i don't dance around them. >> would you call it a crisis? >> yes, i would, and i work every single day with the men and women in the department of homeland security to strengthen security at the southern border, as well as the northern border, and we deployed personnel from different parts of our department whenever the situation warrants, and the situation the border so

warrants. >> when i look at my visit to the southern border. i have been twice and had a chance to meet with the brave men and women, as well as ice agents, but i was certifying how many you are pulling from other agencies, from tsa and fema, again, i'm pleased to hear you call it a crisis. i think that's the first time i've heard you publicly acknowledge it, but i think we continue to put american lives at risk of pulling federal air marshals off of the flights, leaving them uncovered. i think the federal air marshals communicated to me that they have had enough. they consider it a horrible action, so i'll continue working to deploy those necessary air marshals down to the border. they need to be back on flights, mr. secretary. [end video clip] host: that was secretary mayorkas testifying on capitol hill yesterday, twice, once before the house and once before

the senate committee. we covered both of those hearings. go to c-span.org. if you do not have hours to sit through the coverage, you can hit the play head on the player and you will get yellow stars that show up. that will take you through the points of interest from the hearing. the key moments so that you can get an idea of what lawmakers ask and how the secretary answered. we are in open form. mary, nevada, democratic caller. caller: trump's vision, he says america is a joke and he has to make america great again. this is from a man born into wealth and is a self-proclaimed billionaire, so he is saying he is very rich and is in either money but since emails to grandma asking for five dollars. he would like to terminate the constitution, he would like to cut the irs, he would like to indict and lock up his enemies. he was on the stock of channel

squat box being interviewed, and says he would like to cut social security. he is an authoritarian, a dictator on day one, dictator for life. i envision him on the tv shopping network selling trump water, gym shoes, the list is expensive. many of them are using russian propaganda on the house floor. this is for two republicans on the intelligence community. sounds like russia first to me. wake up america because your freedoms are being taken away. host: steve is a republican. new york. caller: good morning. i'm a republican. the wireless tops, those are conservative things.

as a republican voter, i cannot in good faith back the maga movement. you have a guy who says he would like to get rid of the constitution. those are not public and principles. you have a guy on tape admitting to sexually assaulting women. that is not law and order and republican principles, so the maga hopes has lost more republican voters. since 2016, the republicans have lost about 70% of special elections and elections. host: what do you think is driving that? what is the issue or the issues? caller: well, the entertainment industry has taken over, so our politics have become entertainment. when a king was building his kingdom, he never went to the chester for policy -- jester for

policy issues and the king and queen never rest like entertainers. but today, the entertainment is everything, whether our style or dress, we are controlled by the entertainment industry. the maga hold has a bright shining light and donald trump, and it is all entertainment. it is affecting our bottom-line. we have spent $8 trillion in less than four years. the stock market -- my portfolio was up 18% in my 401(k) is up 20%. yes, inflation is high, yes, but it was also high when bush and conservatives lied us into war, so as a republican voter, i cannot in good conscience join the white maga cult. it is destroying america. host: front page of "the washington post" and "wall street journal," likely to delay

another rate cut by the fed. the data is -- and expectations that the fed will reign in interest rates. front page of "the wall street journal," inflation upsets rate cut plans. stocks drop as it rattles the markets. also, you can talk about them and open forum this morning. bill in minnesota, independent. caller: hello. i wanted to bring people's attention to something i saw on the news yesterday, where putin is persecuting christians in russia. if you are an orthodox christian, if you are evangelical or protestant, he sends the policeman after you. he is blowing up churches. the reason i think it is newsworthy is i think of a lot of people who do not support ukraine democracy, and who do

support from our evangelical christians, so i think that is a news item they should check out. i do hope mike johnson checks sadow, too. that is all i have to say. host: you're in open forum until the top of the hour. another policy issue is abortion. front page of "usa today," arizona abortion ban brings a new outcry. below the headline is a picture of the arizona attorney general answering questions tuesday at a news conference outside of the arizona state capitol in phoenix. she has vowed not to enforce any abortion bands. below that, the supreme court of the state upholds the 160 year old law, unleashing fear and legal tumult. abortions are illegal in nearly all circumstances under a pre-state could law that has been upheld by the arizona supreme court. abortion ban was put in place under arizona law in 1864.

the state court of appeals issued an injunction against the 160-year-old man when the u.s. supreme court issued its historic roe v. wade decision in 1973, when the dobbs feed jackson ruling came in june of 2022, and removed protections, conservative activists in arizona petitioned the courts to remove the injunction against the ban. here is former president donald trump yesterday talking to reporters in his reaction to the arizona ban. [video clip] >> did arizona go too far? >> yet, they did. it will be straightened out. i'm sure that the governor and everyone also bring it back into reason and that will be taken care of quickly i think. >> what you think about florida? >> florida is probably also making a change.

it is the will of the people. it is a broken system. for 52 years, people have wanted to end roe v. wade to get it back to the states. we did that, and it was an incredible achievement. we did that, and now the states have it, and the states are putting out what they want. so florida is probably going to change. arizona is definitely going to change. everybody would like that to happen. and you are getting the will of the people. it has been amazing when you think of it. [end video clip] host: the former president reiterating this is a state issue and saying he believes arizona will change. "from the new york times -- from "the new york times" reporting, the gop back in the 1864 ban on abortions fights a bid to repeal it. resurrect 160-year-old ban, trying to push bills through the republican legislature, whom

they said would protect health. it was removed one day from the agenda, and in the house, they blocked an attempt to repeal the ban. here's what happened. [video clip] [shouting] [end video clip] host: that was democrats on the senate floor in the arizona legislature yelling "shame" and "a women's lives," as republicans -- "save women's lives," as republicans left the chamber as they tried to remove the ban. abortion policy on the table this morning during open forum. monique, washington, d.c., democratic caller. caller: good morning, c-span. i would like to agree with all

of the last three callers in retrospect to what they communicated to the american world. you know, i have really been thinking about something, i think about how that education department fails us with multiple-choice questions. we have put ourselves in a situation where we cannot even comprehend -- not everybody, but a large population of american society cannot fully understand truth. it is almost like the america that we once have known is no longer here. i think audible choice questions hurt us. it put us in a situation where we have to use our brains to choose the correct answer. we know the correct answer, but when you have several in front of you, and somebody manipulates

your mind, i think the multiple-choice question needs to be removed from our education because it shows in the calls when people call in and give their perspective on how america should be ran today. some of the people are not comprehending truthful information. when it comes to abortion -- host: ok, abortion, go ahead. caller: when it comes to abortion, i have sat on a trial and listened to the abortion advocates, as well as those who are for abortions. when you hear the nurses come up and say a 10-year-old child came from mississippi to get an abortion in washington, d.c., because her father had sexual relationships and impregnated her, when you listen to those nurses talk about 9, 10, 11 and 12-year-old young girls getting

impregnated by members of their family, and for america to want to allow these babies to be put in a situation where they are having their fathers, cousins, and brothers' kids is sickening! host: we will leave it there. on education yesterday on capitol hill, there was a hearing about financial aid and the distribution of it by the education department. if you are interested, go to our website, c-span.org. in a related headline this morning, "the washington post," as colleges receive faster records, some ask, how to address the data? we are continuing with the growing list of technical problems and asking for student aid, which determines a student's eligibility for grants and loans to pay for school. the errors will probably require

the education department to reprocess numerous applications, which could further delay when some students receive aid. that was the subject of the hearing on capitol hill yesterday that we covered. you can find it on our website. robin in pennsylvania. caller: hi, greta. how are you? host: morning. caller: good morning. i wanted to say about the fisa that i am all for it, but, you have to clean out the fbi, we have to clean out the cia, we have bad actors in there, and we has been proven live on tv, they lie, lawyers -- a lawyer fixed a document. they lied on the document. it has got to be fixed, but they have got to clean house first. until they do that, i do not want any kind of bill coming forward. i have one more thing to say, all these democrats calling in

and saying about we are a cult with being donald trump supporters, how about the biden supporters? host: robin' scots in pennsylvania on reauthorizing fisa, section 702. here is scott on facebook -- this law was instituted after 9/11 when it was designed to stop terrorism. the truth is, it has been used against political rivals like the democrats used against trump, so it will be used improperly, what uses the law? now they claim to want to protect us. mike in california, independent. caller: good morning. good morning, c-span audience. i just wanted to talk about donald trump, as you quoted him,

the fbi was [indiscernible] you could not mentioned that just like that lady called biden to trump, biden is the antigen for barack obama. the racist majority of the people in this country, which is made up -- this is what you get, donald trump. [indiscernible] he don't want people coming from exiled countries or whatever and

that is what you want. it is just amazing. it is a shocker. america has a problem with homegrown terrorists and foreign actors like russia and congress, jeff sessions working for them, and lindsey graham working for russians, we have a problem, and they always limit on minorities. so the civil war was a war fought white against white, and that is what is going on right now. white against white. they are putting everybody else up in there instead of owning up. they are going to lose this election with all the different people they messing with, women. it is just not going to work. cain killed abel.

abel did not even suspect cain hated him that much. host: ok, mike. i'm going to leave it there. in "the wall street journal" this morning -- abortion fight erupts in arizona. i wanted to point this out, would you say each candidate's positions on abortion are too restrictive, not enough, or about right? in swing states, when they were asked to former president's position on abortion, when they asked those questions, look at the amount of people in swing states said his abortion stance is too restrictive. this is what those in arizona said about the former president 's abortion stance, and then compare that to the question asked of president biden's abortion stance, the dark purple is those compared to the light purple who said it was too restrictive or not restrictive

enough and not too restrictive is the dark purple and the light purple is just about right, and that is how people in arizona responded to president biden's stance on abortion. the dark purple is too restrictive in the light purple is just about right. angela chicago, democratic caller, we are an open forum. caller: hi, greta, thank you for taking my call. i just wanted to say about the migrants here in chicago. i understand -- i don't understand why they are getting so much help and they are ignoring our own homeless here in chicago. i mean, there are so many people that do not have anywhere to live, yet, here, they are

bending over backwards helping these migrants. you want to give them free money, shelter, health care, cell. i even heard that when they come here, they get like $6,000? that is ridiculous! i mean, they are saying that the crime is going up here in chicago, but, you know, i just do not understand why our borders are so open to letting these folksi mean, sure, you knr country as a country of immigrants. i myself, you know, and from an immigrant family -- am from an immigrant family, but it's ridiculous how u.s. citizens, chicago residents, are being ignored. i mean, this is just awful. host: all right, angela.

front page of the "new york times," "for the first time the federal government is requiring municipal water systems to remove synthetic chemicals linked to cancer and other health problems present in the tapwater of hundreds of millions of americans. the extraordinary move from the epa mandates the water agency, that water providers reduce the chemical to near zero levels. rich, ohio, republican, open forum, what's on your mind? caller: really great conversations going on. seems that the fisa warrants, we are getting all confused. they are supposed to check people from other countries who are trying to do things for us. we have people who have used it illegally, including presidents. obama, definitely, and biden

have used it to spy on the other candidates. with nixon we saw how just a little bit can get you in the doghouse. the people that do it don't get a punishment, they get promoted if they spy. maybe they are a talkshow host at one of the networks. the other one, on abortion, we still have the hyde amendment that says you can't use public money to do abortions or to hurt unborn kids. it doesn't solve the whole problem. i'll hang up and listen to your answer. host: we want to share one headline on campaign news for you. this is the "washington post," "cornell west announces alina abdulla as his running mate." you can find all of c-span's campaign 2024 coverage if you go to our website, c-span.org/campaign.

up next, axios cyber host -- cybersecurity reporter sam sabin is going to discuss the efforts by the republicans to reauthorize pfizer, we will toggle back to that conversation after a break. later, judy chu, a member of the progressive caucus, discusses the arizona supreme court abortion ban, u.s. aid to ukraine and israel, and the mayorkas impeachment proceedings stay with us. we'll be right back. ♪ >> the house is now planning to send impeachment articles against homeland security secretary alejandra mayorkas. several senate republicans requested the delay in order to have the chamber conduct a full trial instead of the democratic plan to table the articles. live coverage next week, on

c-span two, c-span now, and online, at c-span.org. >> c-span now is a free mobile app featuring what happening in washington, keep up with events in u.s. congress, white house, the courts, and more from the world of politics, all at your fingertips. you can also stay current with the latest episodes of "washington journal," and through scheduling information from c-span networks and radio, plus a variety of compelling podcasts. it's available at the apple store and google play. scan the qr code to download it for free today, or visit our website, c-span.org/c-spannow. your front row seat to washington, anytime, anywhere.

>> nonfiction book lovers, c-span has a number of podcasts for you. listen to influential interviewers on the afterwards podcast. on q&a, hear wide-ranging conversations with authors and others who are making things happen. these are weekly hour-long conversations that regularly feature fascinating authors of nonfiction books on a wide variety of topics. the about books podcast takes you behind of the nonfiction book industry. as well as best sellers lists. find all podcasts by downloading the free c-span now app, or wherever you get your podcasts, and on our website, c-span.org /podcasts. ♪ [video clip] >> the house will be in order. >> this year c-span celebrates 45 years of covering congress like no other. since 1979 we have been your

primary source for capitol hill, providing balanced, unfiltered coverage of government, taking you to where the policy is debated and decided to, all with the support of america's cable companies. c-span, 45 years and counting, powered by cable. >> washington journal continues. host: sam sabin is at our table this morning, she covers cybersecurity with axios, here to tell us about the renewal of the foreign intelligence service act, renewing section 702. remind viewers why there is a section 702 and what it is. guest: it's been around for so long. it is here and it primarily begins -- gives the intelligence agencies the ability to surveill non-americans abroad. think anyone who might be

planning a terrorist plot, who might be carrying out cybercrime, ransomware, anything of that nature. however, the history of the program has been a bit fraught. the intention is to collect communications, text messages, emails, things of that nature, about those who are abroad who are non-american. of course, i'm an american communicating with someone abroad, for whatever reason targeted by this program, my communications will get sucked into this program. all of this information is put into a database that is then freely available -- maybe not freely available, but available to intelligence agencies for years to come, and they can search it for other investigations to say that they are still looking into the same person who is organizing various terrorist plots or something like that. the idea is if they can get permission they can look through the database and search through

it. sometimes this has led to abuses , missteps by the fbi in particular. we have seen democrats surveilled by this program. we have seen republicans surveilled by this program. that usually means, when we say surveilled, that an agent has probably searched at some point for that person's name or has come into their communications in some way, shape, or form. critics of the program call this a way of bypassing maybe our fourth amendment rights, surveilling people without a warrant, it's caused a lot of controversy on the hill this week in particular. host: speaker johnson wanted to move forward with it, arguing that the reauthorization bill he wanted to put on the floor included reforms, many of them. what kind of reforms? guest: that bill, essentially, that was trying to get on the floor this week, included reforms codifying something the

fbi had been processing over the last i want to say year or so. they are rules that basically dictate who at the fbi is able to search the database. that you are not changing the way in which surveillance is conducted, which emails or texts are collected, but they are essentially dictating how the agent is able to get permission to search the database, who is able to even search the database, and the types of permissions they need to get either from a pfizer court or someone else higher up in the fbi before they are even able to conduct these searches. the fbi says that this has enabled them to use the program within the confines of appropriately 98% of the time, 2% of hundreds of thousands of searches is still a big thing, and that is what some of the critics of the bill are kind of fighting against and angling to see more reforms to close that gap.

host: one reform pushed by some republicans, thomas massie, we played his clip from yesterday, required a warrant. what would this do and if that were to get approved, would that secure its passage in the house with republicans? guest: predicting the house vote, i don't have a magic eight ball, i wish i did, in terms of who's going to do what, but in terms of the warrant, it's being pushed by the judiciary committee and leadership there. the idea is that anytime, anywhere in the intelligence committee, not just the fbi, once they conduct a search they would need to get a warrant from the pfizer court if they want to look up any information about americans. so, there have been reports from the pfizer court that oversee the program, a secret like

everything else in the intelligence agency, but there have been reports of inappropriate searches of u.s. senators and state senators. the idea that if for whatever reason during an investigation they would need to get a warrant during an investigation. the intelligence community would tell you this is a lengthy process that will impede their ability to look up information quickly, you don't always have probable or what meets the merits for probable cause when you are doing an investigation in the early days, and perhaps they are just trying to get confirmation on something they heard and the information might give you that probable cause. if you don't have a warrant, how can you get the probable cause? it has caused some back and forth. it is really unclear if this will ensure the passage through the house floor. i would have to believe that there is a warrant attached that

anyone in house intelligence pushing for a non-warrant bill will probably vote against this. it is such a slim majority in the house, it's really changing hour-by-hour in terms of what will and not go for the passage of section 702. host: it expires when? guest: april 19, next friday. host: what does the senate legislation look like? guest: the senate is in a mostly wait and see mode. a lot of senators have been coming out, and from what i have heard it is mostly a house game. a lot of the back-and-forth is in the house, the majorities are there. when it comes to the senate, we are increasingly seeing leadership over there backing a bill that wouldn't include a warrant. it is really kind of quiet in terms of what would happen if there is a warrant requirement. everyone knows that the program is important, no one wants to see it lapse. there's a real kind of touch and

go. i meant is a paid in the senate will pick up a path, but it depends on the amendments that are added, what is included in the bill that gets to the house at some point in the next few days, or even a week or so. host: we want our viewers to join us this morning for the conversation. here is how you can do so. republicans, (202) 748-8001. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. independents, (202) 748-8002. you can also text us, include your first name, city and state, to (202) 748-8003. what happens if this were to expire? guest: it's a little bit tricky. the pfizer court has already reauthorized the program for a year. every year the pfizer court does this, it re-authorizes the way in which the program can be used. they are dictating if this can be used for terrorism cases, cyber crime, drug trafficking. they are basically doing that and it has already been

reauthorized for the next year. depending on who you ask, the program changes a little with procedural things that will happen, but it will probably still be operating in some way, shape, or form, set to expire after the authorization from next year. however, the biden administration really wants to see this reauthorized for the long term. everyone is a bit tired of talking about this. host: any concern with a legal challenge if a pfizer court can authorize how it's used but congress hasn't even authorized its use legally? guest: yeah, i think there have been lapses before and the program and it really changes who participates, who is willing to engage. it creates some weird legal challenges, since the pfizer court operates in such a secret way, just by the nature of it, it is meant to operate in that way. but there are sincere legal

challenges, which is why i think everyone is pushing to see it authorize, even though the court has technically authorized the program for the next year. host: john, in michigan hi -- michigan. hi, john. caller: with the talk of people coming across the border, this and that, i would think there would be a real push to get this through for potentially any internal terrorism within the united states, which has been so worried about all of these other people coming across the border, as well as any other kind of terrorism, whether it be looks like another january 6 or something like that, being able to find out things ahead of time would probably be a pretty darn good idea before it actually happened. that would be my comment. host: all right, john. sam sabin, people making that argument? guest: you are hearing

that argument, particularly in the house intelligence committee , people arguing that we need to be able to investigate, have all of our surveillance power intact. there is no good, they would argue, from impeding the surveillance program. that's exactly the argument that is being made in terms of passing this and keeping it without a warrant in this moment. host: fbi director christopher wray on capitol hill today, you can bet that he will be asked about the program and will probably bring it up himself. our coverage begins at 2 p.m. eastern time of the fbi director testifying about the agency, and likely this program as well. you can watch on c-span three and on our free mobile video app, c-span now, or online at c-span.org. portland, maine, independent line, darrell. caller: i just wanted to speak about the new act that's coming on. i heard all about president

kamala harris and the irs and the vote coming down on this thing. i feel like reagan should be able to do this. [no audio] host: talking about the future of the foreign intelligence surveillance act, fisa, section 702 is the debate here in washington. republicans, 19 of them, blocked the house from moving forward on debating and voting on this legislation. what happened after that? what is the plan on the house side? guest: great question. there were several, there was at least one closed-door meeting with many republican members of the house last night after the vote. my understanding from my colleagues on the hill is that that meeting was where speaker johnson basically was working really hard to try and get his colleagues on board with the bill that he was trying to get

onto the floor yesterday. it's still not clear if that conversation moved the needle at all. it's pretty on par for any bill, where there has been internal strife with the republican party, there's always a conversation where speaker johnson is pushing to get what he needs through to get some sort of cooperation with people buzzing. some of the lawmakers that were there last night walked out of the meeting unclear on what would even happen today. it's pretty early in the day and i'm sure that by 5:00 this afternoon, the conversation will be completely different. it is still pretty white and see with meetings and calls, it's really kind of up in the air as we head through today. host: there was also a classified briefing with intelligence community officials after the vote failed. one member of congress said that the 19 republicans who voted against the rules were not at the briefing. guest: yes.

host: so, why hold the briefing? what is the point? you can't tell us about the classified briefing, but what is the point of holding them? guest: it was scheduled before yesterday's vote, so i have to imagine the intent would be that the colleagues who voted against the bill, hopefully it's to educate lawmakers about the use of the program. part of the challenge that the intelligence community has had so far is that what they do cannot be public all the time. so, they would argue that there is a lot of misinformation about the program and misunderstandings about how it's used and these classified briefings are able to go into more detail about the types of investigations that 702 has helped with and really just help members understand the program, ask questions in a way that maybe they cannot ask during a public hearing. that was the hope.

it had been scheduled before hand. i think that the intention was to have people think, but of course the floor vote went out. host: independent line, alan. caller: hi, greta. hi, sam. i thought i would call in. it's in verse -- interesting, i had a conversation with someone a few days ago, asking if -- i have been hearing about the fisa , they were telling me kind of what sam is saying, this congress hasn't really bought in. but you know, as far as things that are like happening, from my understanding, obviously a huge amount of platforms are being utilized. fisa only controls a certain realm of it, listening to phone calls with americans. and i have heard stories, which

i even recounted once on the phone with you guys, when you had another journalist about it, a person who objected to the phone call because they knew the conversation was going to maybe be heard in hawaii and they terminated the call, even though the person asking them to transcribe it said please transcribe the call and they said no way, because this is, this is that, these are obviously americans, or at least one person is american, because they are in hawaii. but i am curious about -- will there be legislation that will actually affect the other types of things that edward snowden released, prism, just a huge amount of differences that are available to engage bulk handling of data, of people's data, and also, of course, you know, what happened with carter

page is indicative of -- he couldn't sue, because he couldn't find the person to basically -- basically turn to the investigation on him. he was suing the government but the government said no, you can only sue one person and if you don't know who the person is, you can't sue. there are a lot of things to discuss and i know it's not an easy topic. host: thanks, alan. sam sabin? guest: you are hitting at the crux of the situation right now. the program on the table right now is intended to mostly just surveilled foreigners not u.s., right? but faiz of course includes programs that allows for surveillance of americans. there has been constant back-and-forth, constant debate. part of that is passing short-term extension, causing

division, because anytime you talk about fisa, the act overall, questions on how we surveilled and collect information for intelligence purposes while balancing the need for privacy, right, i wish i had an answer for you. it's an existential question constantly on the mind of lawmakers and really fueling division right now. host: here is a post from one of our viewers on x, "is there a provision regarding fisa, section 702, regarding collecting relevant intelligence data under the act?" guest: interesting question that i haven't even been asked yet, kudos to whoever sent that in. i'm not aware of any provision that touches on ai and general, of course it has been mentioned that intelligence agencies are looking into how to use ai, it is fair to assume that maybe they are looking into it for

various programs. i cannot speak to 702 in particular and i don't want to misinform the audience, but it is an interesting question to think about and if anything, i think that the intent would be to use ai mostly to assess the data that's in there, right, and model things of that nature, rather than ai surveilling people or anything like that. host: christopher wray, fbi director, might get -- mike asked about that today, and you can watch that on c-span.org, c-span, and c-span now, our mobile video at. joe, you are next. caller: good morning, ladies. was it hillary clinton who was an expert on this, pfizer, -- fisa, and the fbi signed off that all of this was actually true information? i'm a little lost on this fisa thing, how the

democrats can use it to their advantage. someone could explain that to me better, i would appreciate it. have a great day. host: sam sabin, any thoughts on that? guest: my understanding of fisa, i don't have it -- have a recollection of it being used that -- by a presidential candidate, unless i'm mistaken. my understanding is that it is ruled by the court, dictating how it can be used. it is data that is intended to be used for intelligence investigations assisting in drug trafficking cases, crime, or terrorism, from what we know. i'm not entirely sure if that's the data you are referring to. yes, this is mostly -- speaking of things that maybe the nsa and

other agencies are up to, yeah. guest: -- host: what do we know about the fisa court, who is on it, how it operates, cetera? guest: not a lot. [laughter] the intelligence agencies probably know. it's very classified. i don't want to to seem like we are operating in the dark for no good reason. it would be a threat to national security if our adversaries new that the cia was looking into fbi, etc., i don't wanted to seem like they are operating in the dark for nefarious reasons. it's a court with the judge basically overseeing the way the program is authorized, right? if there were to be a warrant requirement, it would also dictate whether or not agents would be able to search a database for various reasons. the court also reviews how the program is used every year and are the ones releasing report dictating abuses or missteps in

terms of search queries in the database. so, if someone missteps or overly searches the database, the court is the one usually keeping the program in check. host: and who are these judges? guest: great question. they haven't appointed, they are like a typical judge with security host: sam sabin, cybersecurity with axios, think you for the conversation this morning. guest: thank you. host: coming up, conversation on a range of issues, aid to israel, abortion, and up first is the representative from california, and later a representative from wyoming. we'll be right back. ♪

>> the house is planning to send peach with articles against the homeland security secretary to the chamber next week. several republicans requested a delay in order to have the chamber conduct a full trial, instead of the democratic plan to quickly dismiss or table the articles. live coverage, next week on c-span two, c-span now, and online, at c-span.org. >> the c-span bookshelf podcast feed makes it easy for you to listen to all c-span podcasts that feature nonfiction books in one place, so that you can discover new authors and ideas, making it convenient for you to listen to multiple episodes with critically acclaimed authors discussing biography, current events, culture, from our signature program about books, afterwards, book notes plus, and q&a. listen to the book notes podcast feed today. you can find it, and all of our

podcasts on the free c-span now mobile video app, or wherever you get your podcasts, and on our website, c-span.org/podcasts. >> american history tv, saturdays on c-span two, exploring the people any events that tell the american story. at 5:15 p.m. eastern, an army helicopter pilot shares his experiences flying attack helicopters during his two tours in the vietnam war. and then joan mulholland discusses activism during the civil rights movement, including her participation in freedom rides and sit ins in the 1963 march on washington. 7 p.m. eastern, the american history tv series, congress investigates, looks at historic investigations that led to changes in policy and law, and a senate committee led by estes

kefauver examines organized crime around the country in the 1950's. exploring the american story. watch american history tv, saturdays on c-span two, and find a full schedule on our program guide or watch online anytime at c-span.org/history. >> c-span now is a free mobile app featuring your unfiltered view of what's happening in washington, live and on-demand. keep up with the biggest events of the day with live streams of floor proceedings and hearings from the congress, white house events, the courts, campaigns, and more from the world of politics, all at your fingertips . you can also stay current with the latest episodes of "washington journal," as well as a variety of compelling podcasts. c-span now is available at the apple store and google play. scan the qr code to download it

for free today. c-span now, your front row seat to washington, anytime, anywhere. >> "washington journal" continues. host: joining us from capitol hill this morning, congresswoman sam sabin -- congressman judy chu. your response to the arizona supreme court decision on the abortion ban? guest: outrageous and based on a law is passed arizona was a state women had the right to vote. to deprive women of the ability to have an abortion player, for 50 years before the dobbs decision, this arizona law, it's

very drastic, doesn't even provide exceptions in the case of rape or incest. it it's a people of arizona in a terrible position. host: from the ruling, "in light of this opinion, physicians are on notice that all abortions, except those necessary to save the woman's life, are illegal." how do you determine when you need to save a woman's life? guest: well, this is exactly why she -- why we should not such as this. i spoke to a woman in texas who was carrying a fetus who had abnormalities, they needed an abortion to save their lives. officials were not willing to do it because they thought that

this would be considered an abortion, therefore illegal. what determines the question, including having an abortion for a fetal abnormality, which could actually endanger a woman's life? host: former president donald trump was asked in atlanta about the abortion ban in arizona. here is what he had to say. [video clip] >> did arizona go too far? >> they did. it will get straightened out. it's all about states rights, that will be state -- straightened out. i'm sure the governor and everyone else will bring it back into reason and that will be taken care of. >> what about florida? >> florida is probably maybe going change also. it's the people, it's a perfect system.

for years, people wanted to end roe v. wade, give it back to the states. we did that, it was an incredible thing. we did that, now the states habit and the states are putting out what we want, the will of the people. so, florida is probably going to change. arizona is going to definitely change. you are getting the will of the people. it's been pretty amazing, when you about it. host: the former president saying the arizona law goes too far, he predicts arizona will have to change and bring it back to what he says is within reason. guest: trunk goes to where the political winds fall. on the ballot, we know that they have voted on the side of reproductive rate -- rights. we have seen that in states that are very red. like kentucky. trump knows this is a losing

issue for him, especially with regards to women and people who care about women. so, i think that he changed his position, to some extent, by saying it should be states rights. saying look, actions speak louder than words. he has been campaigning on overturning roe v. wade. he was the first president to be in a march for life rally. he has been doing everything possible to get restrictions on abortion, including actually advocating for the 2017 house bill, which would have provided a national abortion ban.

his opinions, let me say, our influx. host: what is the women's health protection act? guest: it would provide the protections of roe v. wade, women in every state regardless of zip code. they would be able to make determinations over her body it would ensure that states could not erode the right. it would make sure that every woman has the right to the supreme court decision. host: has the white house endorsed your decision? guest: president biden said he would sign the bill into law once it passed the house and senate. it passed twice.

we look forward to passing it. host: the president has said that if the american people give him a congress that would approve legislation like yours, roe v. wade would become the law of the land again. here's abc news, major hurdles to the promise, the reality check behind the big abortion promise, taking back the house, reclaiming the majority in the senate, no easy feat, congresswoman, as you know. on top of that, there would certainly be legal challenges to any legislation. when your bill stand up to legal challenges? guest: i believe it stands on strong legal grounds of any court challenge. i know that once we are able to take back the house, i believe

that we have the vote. when the votes went out of the house previously, it was the strongest pro-choice pro-abortion vote ever taken in history of congress. we know it will continue. i believe that abortion is a decisive issue in the united states for this november election in every state, in every congressional election. abortion is top of mind for many women, regardless of their party regardless of independent. it's a fundamental right for every woman, the freedom to decide what to do with her body. host: the women's health

protection act passed in september of 2020 one. just one democrat affected, henry cuellar of texas, who joined every republican to vote against it. nbc says that there are still quiet divisions among democrats on how far to go on legal abortion, which could come to the forum. the president says he wants to restore the rights that existed before dobbs, but many abortion rights advocates believe those rights were too narrow and allowed for state-based restrictions. would you put yourself in that camp? guest: i think the states tried to erode the rights of roe v. wade, they chip away at it, and in fact they passed over 400 state laws that were nonsensical, dictating clinic doors and abortion clinics, saying that physicians had to have admitting rights in hospitals when physicians did not need to have that, requiring

very invasive kinds of procedures, like ultrasounds. those invasive state laws were an attempt to take away abortion rights one by one. that is why i actually introduced the woman's health protection act in 2013. i knew that we could not play whack a mole with these different state laws. instead, we needed to make sure that this right is available in every state and every zip code. host: congresswoman judy chu is with us this morning, democrat of california, it's your turn to ask her about these questions, and any topic and other policy debates. barbara, good morning.

caller: i believe that if the woman's life is in danger when she finds out she is pregnant, that if the doctor, if it is his opinion, she can have an abortion. but i don't believe anything after that, that should be in abortion after that, because that's taking a life and i'm a christian. i feel that's taking a life. i know sometimes kids are women, the woman gets pregnant and the man doesn't care -- what am i trying to say, they are thinking like they are in a trauma, they have an abortion and they regret it the rest of their life. that's how i feel about it. host: congresswoman? guest: kate cox was in texas,

pregnant, when her doctor said that her fetus had a genetic abnormality and that the fetus would not survive, but that also kate cox's future fertility would be endangered and, in fact, possibly her life would be in danger. her doctor actually advocated for her to have an abortion. but the courts would not allow her to do that. at great danger to herself, she had to cross state lines when she was sick in order to have an abortion. her doctor actually agreed with her. yet because these abortion laws have gone to such an extreme level in the antiabortion states, people like kate cox, who simply wanted to have a child, had their life endangered. that is not right. host: we are talking with congresswoman judy chu, democrat

of california. here is how you can join the conversation this morning. republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. text us as well, we will share those, at (202) 748-8003. roberta, san diego, republican, you are up next for the congresswoman. caller: i'm a little embarrassed you are up there. to begin with, you are one of the 70 people who did not even respect the people's vote when donald trump got elected to. i find anything you have to say to be two-faced, not genuine. i would say that since you and your democrat party have been running on abortion, the dirtiest thing we can ever ask a woman to do and never used the word condom for any man, we would therefore not even need abortion.

i find it amazing that you have the nerve to go up there and act as if you are really representing the women. you are representing a group of people who will do anything they have to do in order to get their way about something. we use the women every day by using abortion to run on things and get elected and so on. we have seen this for years. i would say that as a woman, a mother, grandmother, great-grandmother, had a great great mother, it's so offending to me, i don't even know what to say that you are up there representing the state of california. host: congresswoman, your response? guest: i am proud to stand up for the women of america. i am proud to stand up for the right of a woman to choose what happens to her own body. there are so many women, like kate cox, the woman i was just talking about, who want a child.

yet when her doctor tells her that that child would endanger her life, had to do something about it, obviously, to save her life and save for future fertility, and then i think about the 10-year-old in indiana, in ohio, who was raped, and was pregnant, and her little 10-year-old body probably would not be able to tolerate a pregnancy to full term, but also it is not right for her to carry that baby to full term. so this little 10-year-old had to go to indiana to get an abortion. thankfully, there was an incredible doctor who was willing to do that, and that abortion was done.

we are talking about a woman's right to make a decision on her body, but we are also talking about basic humanity and decency. host: congresswoman, is there a compromise on the limit on when people can seek an abortion with the exceptions that you're talking about? is there a compromise in this country, at some point, where we would say you cannot have an abortion? guest: well, i know that there are states that are talking about the week of cut off for an abortion. i would say to you -- if a state passes -- say -- say a 16 week abortion ban, what if a woman needs an abortion and the -- she passes that 16 weeks by one day?

is that fair? is that right? i don't think it is. of course, the states are going even further in their restrictions, wanting a six-week band, even before a woman knows she is pregnant. in other words, meaning and elimination of all abortions. so, what i think should be done is that the decision should be made between a woman and her doctor. the doctor has the best sense for how that woman could survive and how she could best have that baby or not have that baby. it's the decision of the woman regarding her future choices in life, but also with regards to her health. that is a very private decision. if we don't respect that woman's private decision, we don't

respect women at all. host: we will go to joe in iowa, democratic caller. caller: representative, think you for everything you do. greta, love your show. in iowa we have a specific governor who is very much telling women what to do with abortion rights. i also believe -- i was on a plane with a banker, talking about how you deal with your money and what you do with your money and how you use your money . he said he was afraid the biden administration would have too many regulations. then i said to him wouldn't it be interesting if jared kushner had the point to tell you how you have your abortions are not and how to do your money or not. my question to the representative is -- how can people of solid foundations and good religious people, which they tend to lean towards the trump, i can't figure out how people with good values would go

into such a state as we are doing with, you know, money and abortion. my question is, how do we get to this point with republicans, representative chu? and thank you for all the good you are doing, i appreciate the things you are doing. thank you, greta. guest: well, thank you. i'm the democratic representative, just to be clear, but i would say that president biden is doing what and to help the american people. it is to make sure that everybody has basic rights. for instance, basic rights to be healthy. that is why president biden was so involved in the inflation reduction act, which ultimately brought the price of insulin down to $35 a month for seniors, as well as put a cap on prescription drugs to $2000 a

year. and he was instrumental in getting the affordable broadband act passed so that there would be a discount on broadband for everyday people. this is really important, you know? yeah, you point out that there is a wealthy person who may feel uncomfortable about some policies, but i tell you, wealthy people employ people who may not be so wealthy. there is a huge and growing wealth disparity gap in this country with -- of the haves and have-nots. and our country doesn't work very successfully when there are so many in the have not category. so, we need to equalize that and that is why we reduced the price of insulin.

that is why we know we have to make prescription drugs affordable. that is why we have to cancel student debt for the most needy. these are important quality-of-life issues for the american people. host: ray, independent line. pittsburgh. caller: just an observation, your congresswoman here presents one side of the issue and paints the picture as a lot of politics , which she seems to have in her decision-making, but when you break it down, really, everywoman woman has the right to choose and most of the abortions -- i don't know the percentage -- are just people having sex for fun and then decide, if they are lucky enough to get pregnant, decide they want to kill the baby.

you don't ever presented that way, you present it as a woman's right to choose when she certainly had a right to choose in the beginning before conception. then you bring anecdotal evidence of somebody's hardship because they have to cross a state line, like they have to get a passport or something instead of a 3 hour drive just to kill the baby. you should just present the whole issue. nobodies -- she's never saying we are taking a human life here, and that's a serious, serious thing to consider. host: all right, we'll get a response. congresswoman? guest: you know, as you were talking, ray, i thought about a woman i met in text this. i went to a hearing in texas and she testified very bravely in front of the ways and means committee. she told her story. she was so excited to be told by her doctor that she was pregnant with twins.

she really wanted these children. and then her doctor told her that one of the twins was going to die because his brain did not have the fluid necessary to become a full human being. now, prior to texas passing its ban on abortion, she could have easily gotten an abortion for that dying twin. but now, even though she appealed to the hospital, even though she appealed to the court, they all said no. and so, she was sick. she was sick, vomiting, and the only choice she had was to drive for not three hours, we are talking about many, many hours, to get up to colorado to be able

to have an abortion of that fetus. thank goodness her other fetus did survive and she had a healthy baby. but you know what? you are not in the shoes of women who are experiencing such incredible difficulties because of these state abortion bands. so, think about them. host: congresswoman, what about the woman who does not want to have children? there are not the medical reasons or the exceptions of rape and incest, but simply do not want to have children. do they have a right to seek an abortion? guest: well, you know what? the question is whether we respect women are not. a woman knows what is right for her in her particular period of

decision-making. one thing we know, there is something called the turnaround study done in the last couple of years. it was about poverty and women who are pregnant. those women who do not have access to an abortion are five times more likely to go into poverty, because they cannot make the decision about whether to continue in school or continue in a job. those decisions are robbed from them. as a result, they cannot make the decisions that are best for them. i think we should respect the ability of women to make a choice about what is best for them at a particular time in life. host: kansas city, missouri, democratic caller, next. caller: i want to speak to the

representative speaking out about this. it's a shame that you have crusty old men telling women what to do with their bodies. it's shameful, it shouldn't be happening. that should be between a woman, her physician, and her family, or her god. that should be a personal thing. these men get orders and prescriptions about viagra to keep they self big in viral and everything else -- and vero, everything else -- veral, no one says everything about that -- any thing about that, but women are always told what to do. i think that's not right and i think we will show them how we feel about that in november. thank you so much for what you do. host: congresswoman? guest: thank you for that.

yeah, it's very one-sided. women should not be told what to do by senator marco rubio in washington, d.c. why should he have something to do with their decision about having a baby? i also want to point out another male who is trying to stop women , the judge who is trying to take the first stone away as -- as -- as an ability to have an abortion. method for stone is the abortion pill that is used in half the abortions in this country. it is safe, it is effective. yeah, there is a male judge who thinks he knows more about medications than the fda. the fda. the food and drug administration, who has all the scientific knowledge, approved method for stone 20 years ago. they went to all the scientific studies. they found that it was safe.

and it has been in use for 20 years safely. and yet this male judge in texas thinks he knows better about, about pills, about abortion,. i think that is not right. also nonscientific. he has thrown science out the window. we should not let these judges make this kind of decision. you know, if this male judge gets his way, he could just say hey, i want to outlaw this other fda drug, a drug that might be critical for your life. no, we should make our decisions based on the science. also on respecting women's rights.

congresswoman, we have about a minute left. what are your thoughts on reauthorizing section 702 of the foreign intelligence surveillance act? guest: section 702 needs a warrant requirement. i understand the fisa is important in terms of figuring out what's going on with that actors outside the u.s.. i understand that. we need to be able to protect u.s. security interests. sometimes, those inquiries have led to data coming out from u.s. citizens. i have to tell you, and 2021 a fisa found that there were

278,000 improper of u.s. citizens. these were black lives matter protesters. it was not proper. that is why i think there should be warrants. host: congresswoman judy chu, thank you for the conversation. guest: thank you. host: the house is about to gavel in briefly to prepare for the joint address from the japanese prime minister who is in washington, this week, who was there for a state dinner last night. we will go to the house for this brief session, then when we come back we will talk with congresswoman. heideman of wyoming. a republican. stay with us. ♪