coming o washington journal, we ta your calls and commen le and then a look at the new tariff increes in certain chinese imports, including computer chips, and medicalroducts. kristi mcdaniel with georg -- and tom mcclintock on u.s. military aid to israel immigration and other congressional news of the day. georgetown law's cheryl gaskin discusses brown v. board of education's anniversary and the impact today. washington journal starts now. ♪ host: challenge except did. president biden and former president trump agreed to two debates, one in june hosted by cnn and the other in september hosted by abc.

with this deal, the two candidates have shunned the commission on presidential debate, proposing three gatherings in the fall. this morning, we would like to get your reaction to the development in campaign 2024, democrats, (202)-748-8000. republicans, (202)-748-8001. independents, (202)-748-8002. you can also join us with a text with your first name, city and state at (202)-748-8003. or on facebook.com/c-span and also in a post on x with the handle @cspanwj and welcome to the washington journal this morning. we start with the new york times reporting, they say the public back and forth began over the debate started wednesday morning after biden's campaign chair sent a letter to the commission on presidential debates notifying the group that mr.

biden would not be participating in a free general election debate, scheduled for september 16, october 1 and october 9. then president biden later posted this video with his offer to debate the former president and what he would like to see the format look like. [video clip] pres. biden: donald trump lost two debates to me in 2020 and they did not show up, now he is acting like he does not want to debate me now. i will do it twice. i heard you are free on wednesdays. [end video clip] host: president biden and a video challenging the former president to the debate on true social. this is what mr. trump had to say, crooked joe biden the worst debater i've ever faced. he cannot put two sentences together. crooked is the worst debater.

he can explain his highly disruptive border policy, his ev mandates, high taxes, is weak foreign policy, allowing the world to catch on fire. i'm ready and willing to debate crooked joe biden at the proposed times in june and september. i would starkly recommend more than two -- i would strongly recommend more than two debates, and a large venue, although biden is supposedly afraid of crowds, only because he doesn't get them. just tell me one and i will be there. let's get ready to rumble. president biden in a tweet says i received and accepted an invitation from cnn for debate on june 27. over to you, donald, as he said, anywhere, anytime, anyplace. the former president went on hugh hewitt's radio show and this is what he had to say about the debate challenge . -- challenge. >> i wonder whether or not he

will show up. he also challenged me to golf, and he knows he will never play. this is sort of like that, but i hope not. i hope he knows he has to debate and he just gets it over with. host: he also put on true social, it is my great honor to accept the cnn debate that will take place at the end of june against crooked joe biden, the worst president in the history of the united states and a true threat to democracy on june 27. likewise, i accept the abc news debate against crooked joe on september 10. your reaction to this proposed format of the debates, the host of them, rob in new york, independent. good morning. caller: good morning. this is going to be hilarious. i remember the last debate, trump made biden look like

canadian. he kept saying, that is not true but everything he said was true. what do you think biden will say when trump brings up those shell companies or the money that hunter or his brother and all these bidens have taken from russia and ukraine? it will not go well. by the way, i returned from an almost 2000 mile trip driving and i saw 1000 trump signs and two references joe biden, one was an expressly in pennsylvania and another was an rv that had f jb on the window. host: it sounds acutely watch the debates. caller: you that. -- you bet. i will watch joe because you remember how he was so revved up like he was on hunter's crack or something, i wonder if you will just come in and be a screaming old man like before. host: what do you think about cnn and abc hosting them? caller: i think it is terrible.

i think cnn is the biggest garbage network and abc is tied with them. they had all that stuff on epstein, abc did, and amy robach admitted they had all the proof against biden for three years or trump -- i'm sorry. host: so why do you think the former president agreed to do the debates them by cnn and abc? caller: because he is going to eat joe biden's lunch. joe biden cannot debate with trump on a level playing field so that is why they have to get anderson cooper and these smokes on these horrible networks to be the moderators. and if they do it without a crowd, that is wrong. this is election interference from top to bottom. that is not even getting into these horrible court cases. host: rob, noting the criteria from the biden campaign, no crowd in the debate auditoriums.

sam, san diego, independent. what do you think? caller: i think this is crazy. these two guys -- doesn't one have dementia and struggles to put together two sentences, and have a geopolitical conflict, and is in the other one have like 91 felony indictments in four states? putting these two elderly men in a back cage together is going to be, i would say, tragically volcanic. host: duane, new york, independent. duane, you are listening to your television. you have got to mute it and talk through your phone. alright, i will put you on hold

and see if we can get you straight out this morning. the washington times front page, sinking pools gives biden no choice on debate questions. that is from the washington times this morning. as we said, the biden campaign sent a letter to the commission on presidential debates yesterday notifying them that the president would not participate in their planned debates fofall. from the letr, the commission del was building huge spectacles with large audiences with great expense is not necessary or conducive to good debates. the debatuld be conducted for the benefit of american voters, watc on television and ate, not as entertainment for an in person audience who consume valuable debate time by approving or jeering. they went on tsa that the commissio's failure to schedule debates that wl be meaningful to all ver not just those that cast ballots late in the

fall were on election d, understands -- underscores the limited and outdated approach. this is from the washington examiner'reporting on the letter. they also accused the commission of beingnae or unwilling to enforce the rules in the 2020 debate and said it was far from the inconsistent and formally processed the voters deserve and 2020. the reaction from the debate commission, they said they will continue to move forward, executing their plan for the debates. the cofounder and current co-chair of the debate commission was on bbc to give his reaction to the news. [video clip] >> this was a shocker today for everybody. there was no news anywhere that this was going to happen. we normally do not have contact with candidates until after the conventions when they become officially nominees of the

parties of the ballots of every state, so this was interesting because at that time the first debate is scheduled, june 27, only about seven states will have completed their ballot question of who will appear on their ballots. what happened here is he said it correctly. they are trying to get leverage against each other and they may be successful, they may not, but i wish i could be a fly to see how they are discussing who was going to sit where and how long each one has to answer the questions and so forth. the reason the commission is created in 1987 was to have people making the decision, the commission, so we will see if they are able to do it. it will be a long shot. [end video clip] host: the co-chair on presidential debates reacting to the development, former president trump and president

biden agreeing to not participate in the traditional format done by the commission. instead, they agreed to one debate engine and the other in september. -- one in june and the other in september. we go back to duane in new york, independent. good morning. caller: i'm sorry, greta, for having my television on. host: no worries. caller: so far, the two callers in front of me sound like they are not keen on having a civil debate. i feel like it can and would happen, but trump has to be serious. the name-calling -- he thinks he is on "snl." we are looking to hear what is going to happen to the country. they are talking about inflation, the border, we would like to hear serious conversations and we will not with trump. i guarantee that. host: before you go because in this letter to the debate

commission, the biden campaign outlined what they would like to see in the debate to address coerns you just talked about. so this is what th said, this should be posted by any organizationha oversaw republican primary debate in 2016 that trumparcipated in and democratic one i 2020 that biden paicated in, that means eludes fox news. it should be one-on-one. they do not want rp junior on the stage with them. broadcast hostshould select moderators from regular personnel. cnn halected two. note in person aience is also part of their stipulation here. time limits should be set for answers and responses to make sure time is evenly split, and the microphone for the candidates should be active only when it is his turn to speak.

if that is the criteria and many details still have to be worked out between these two camps, but if they can agree to those stipulations, do you think it is a bitter debate? caller: i really think so -- letter debate? -- a better debate? caller: i really think so. the republican gop debate before, they were calling hayleigh names, they were trying to be a standup comedian, if we do it with no audience, just hear what you have to say, cut the microphone if you go over. i think it should work and see nothing wrong with it. host: mark, indiana, democrat. caller: how are you doing? host: morning. caller: how are you doing? host: we are good, go ahead. caller: i'm 65, and i've seen

the debates all these years, and you know that yelling at each other, maybe this time with no audience it might work, but everyone in the united states and anywhere else would like to hear trump speak from his mouth exactly what he will do about the border or anything else. i don't want to hear them yelling at each other. i would like to hear the facts, so i think you all should not let us hear it. host: what do you mean, do it so you don't hear it? caller: mute the tv. host: well, they are going -- if it is agreed to, the biden campaign would like them to turn off microphone when it is not the other candidates turn to talk. caller: that will be wonderful as long as they both do not get sidetracked because they might be trying to hear the other person on the microphone.

host: that stems from what happened in 2020 when the debate commission and the biden campaign was upset with constant interruptions. let's go back to one of those debates and this is how it went down. [video clip] pres. biden: before covid, manufacturing went in the hole, number one. number 3 -- >> no, you are at number two. pres. biden: they said it would take a miracle to bring back wen yu -- >> they said it would take a miracle to bring back manufacturing. they gave up and manufacturing. pres. biden: i'm the guy that brought back the automobile -- i was asked to bring back chrysler and general motors and we brought them back in ohio and michigan. he blew it. they are gone. he blew it -- >> ohio had the best year it has ever had last year. michigan had that last year they have ever had.

many car companies came in from germany, went to michigan and ohio -- >> mr. vice president, go ahead. pres. biden: take a look at what he has actually done. he has done very little and his trade deals are the same way. he talks about great trade deals, the art of the deal, china perfected the art of the steel. have a higher deficit with china now than before. -- mr. trump: china aid your lunch. china eight your lunch, and no wonder, your son goes and takes out billions of dollars, takes out billions of dollars and makes millions of dollars, and also, while we're at it, out of curiosity, the mayor of moscow's wife gave your son $3.5 million. what did he do to deserve it? what did he do with her to deserve? pres. biden: none of that is true. mr. trump: really? >> mr. president, please.

totally discredited. mr. vice president. pres. biden: that is not true. >> mr. president. it is an open discussion, please. you have raised an issue, let the vice president answer. mr. trump: with no experience in energy? pres. biden: my son did nothing wrong. mr. trump: i think it'd. >> mr. president, let him answer. pres. biden: he doesn't want me to answer because he knows i have the truth. his position has been disclaimed by the media, by our allies, by the world bank. by everyone. it has been discredited. [end video clip] host: from 2020, the first debate then between those two candidates. now they have agreed to forgo this commission on presidential

debates and instead, two debates are scheduled for the end of june, hosted by cnn, and then in early september, hosted by abc. many news observers are saying that it is not a done deal yet. this morning, we would like to get your reaction. in addition to the interruption, among other grievances with the commission, biden aids are still curious that mr. trump debated biden in 2020 and visibly appeared under the weather, announcing that he has tested positive for the coronavirus. the biden team was livid that members of the trump family took off their mask when they arrived the audience for the debate. still, the decision to sideline the commission offers clear advantages to mr. biden. for starters, the agreed to two debates but the commission had already scheduled three. also, biden's campaign officials would like the debates to be held in a television studio

without an in person audience that could cheer and derail the conversation as trump supporters to urinate town hall last year. the commission always invites the audience to watch its residential debate and there is a chance that mr. kennedy reaches the 50% polling threshold to qualify for the commission's debate. biden campaign viewers view mr. kennedy as a spoiler candidate and people close to the president are worried that he could attract support from voters who might otherwise support mr. biden. that is the new york times analysis of this development. mark, indiana, independent. your reaction. caller: my reaction is back to the 2020 debate, biden continually lied about his son. [indiscernible] the second thing, biden

[indiscernible] he is always acting like a tough guy, and i think it was in iowa during the primaries four years ago, i will put it this way, if you like to challenge somebody, i would like him to challenge me, i'm 77 and they walked 35 miles a day, and if you wanted to go behind the barn, i would be willing to oblige him. and sometimes [indiscernible] i think biden would be out of

gas and trump would land one punch and that would be the end of it. host: all right, we are talking about debating with words, so are you going to watch? caller: yes, i will watch, evidently. and trump will have his one hand tied behind his back, so cnn will cut him off on the mic and biden is a liar, he is lying about the amount of people coming across the border, lying about his son, and he has lied about inflation being 9% one it came in but it was only one going forward. host: we heard you. i'm going to move on.

dan, atlanta, democrat. caller: hey, gerda. how are you doing? i would love to see -- have you noticed that all the trump fans, they think this debate should be about punching biden. no. it should actually be about how about let's whatever terms medicare policy is, how about terms to abortion policy? they only want to make this about physical harm to the body because they know trump is there and they have nothing else. let's debate the actual problems. trump will never do it because he is incapable. let's go to the other side. how about let's debate donald

trump having unprotected sex with stormy daniels four months after his wife had his baby. how about he would like to throughout barron trump to try to disguise -- i don't want to go there, but the next debate, and let me say one last thing. all women of america, close your eyes and just think about surrendering your body and yourself to donald trump and mike johnson and the republicans. this is the republican version of sharia law. it comes from the taliban, republican party, off to control women's bodies.

host: we will go to paul, louisiana, independent. caller: good morning. i would like to comment on this. i don't think there's any way joe biden is going to debate. they're going to pull some trickery. i'm not sure what it is going to be, and something is going to happen, i promise you, he cannot debate trump, he got flattened last time. this is called referencing, and this means people are going to become cowards, and i have listened to all these people calling in, and they don't know what they are saying. it is just confusing to hear him.

if you could just name me any democrat after i called, just name one godly democrat that you can say, man, he is a godly man. just one. i don't think there is one that exists. they are just full of paint, and they cannot even vote to help themselves. they keep voting for people like biden, and look at where we are at. host: you view the former president as a godly man? caller: actually, i know he got saved years ago, and he has got a harsh mouth, but i tell you what? he talks about god more than any other. i have never heard a democrat say a word about god. i don't believe democrats believe in god, i really don't. host: do think the former president should move forward with these two debates he has agreed to on paper with no audience? caller: you could not have an

audience because every time trump speaks, they go crazy. who knows what abc and cnn, they would have a stacked audience. it would be all democrat. we know that. they don't play fair. i promise you he is not going to debate because he cannot. host: we heard that point. bobby, oklahoma, democrat. caller: yes. we believe in god, but we don't believe their religion like trump does. he is a phony. -- and biden is going to wipe the floor with him. host: what about?the debate caller: biden will wipe the floor with him when they start

talking about medicare and medicaid, what the republicans want to do to people, he is going to wipe the floor with trump. trump is a clown, always has been, and he will always be a clown. host: r two debates enough before a general election? -- are two debates enough? caller: two or three, it will not matter. when people decide who they would like in there, and they look at trump and biden, and biden has done more for the country than trump ever thought about doing. when trump was in there, he was trying to have people drink bleach. we may be democrats, but we are not crazy enough to ingest ourselves with bleach -- inject ourselves with bleach. host: david, massachusetts, independent. caller: good morning. first, greta, you look great in

green. credit in green is great. -- greta in green is great. but what i would like to say is the biden commission is totally setting up everything for them. let these two men get out there -- host: the biden campaign? caller: the ones who made up all these rules that you cannot have an audience, and i agree, no audience let these two men go at it on stage however they would like. don't set up anything because they know that biden is going to fall apart. so why are we even talking about having a debate is beyond me but besides that, you look great in green. host: david, you said these two men, so you agree that it should be one-on-one and no other candidates allowed? if rfk gets on enough ballots

and has the percentage in polling that he needs to meet, should he be allowed to debate with them? caller: for me, probably not because he will not have the percentage, but if he does, all three of them go at it. we used to do that all the time, not have the narrator or whatever his name into a, let them answer. if they would like to interrupt each other, that is the way it is. host: so you don't think the microphone should be turned off? you think they should be allowed? caller: the microphones on the whole time. what are they trying to do? i know what they are trying to do, to silence somebody and they see something against somebody else. that is not about it. let them say what they want, how, and when. that is it in my opinion. host: alright, well, if you are

a supporter of robert f. kennedy, jr. and you would like to see him on the debate stage, we would like to hear from you. robert f. kennedy, jr. tweeting out -- i'm happy to report that i will meet the criteria to participate in the cnn debate before the june 20 deadline. i look forward to holding president trump and mr. -- president biden a mr. trump to account. cnn an abc'alification criteria for being ostage for their two debates, file a statement of candidacy with the election commission, have their name appear on enough state ballots to reach the threshold of 270 electoral votes needed to with the presidency, agree to the debate rules and format, and receive at least 15% in four separate national polls of

registered or likely voters that meet cnn and abc standards. from the wall street journal's reporting this morning, it says that they note they have to receive 15% in national polls that meet their standards. kennedy is polling at 10% and has qualified for the ballot in only a few states. however, this is from the washington post this morning, a trump campaign official says a cnn producer had given assurances in a call wednesday morning that rfk will not be on the stage after describing the criteria for the event, but aides to kennedy could -- said he would be on track to get enough ballot access by june 20 if they speed up their timeline returning and signatures. the editor of ballot access news agreed that there was a clear path for kennedy to win the ballot access in enough states

before that date. rfk junior was in texas earlier this week. c-span covered that event. it was a rally in austin, texas, and here he talked about getting on the ballot in that state and elsewhere. [video clip] >> texas only gave us 45 days to collect 100 13,000 signatures and we got more than double that. and we were just upstairs talking to the team, i was completing the signature, and they said we are on the way to new york tonight because new york is the next one for us. we have 10 days out, i'd 45 days, the two hardest days are new york and texas. we already got more than we need to new york.

the dnc has done everything in their power to stop us, and they will continue to do that, but we are going to get on the ballot in every single state. i would like to thank you for being a part of this. [end video clip] host: rfk junior in austin, texas, earlier this week. go to c-span.org/campaign to find oliver campaign 2024 coverage there. we are talking about president biden agreeing to debate in june and september, foregoing the commission on presidential debates. the former president agreed on social media yesterday to the two debates, and then also calling for two more. he would like fox news to host one of them. he posted that on his truth social page and then retreated that daschle re-tweeted that.

bernie, kentucky, democrat. caller: what i think is i'm so glad i saved my call for today because this topic, you all hit a homerun. very spirited debate. but this is a debate, i believe, not wrestlemania 51. their stuff is coming right out of wrestlemania, on these comments. anyway -- host: comments by the candidates or callers or both? caller: both. honestly, it is fun. i'm having a great time and i think the viewers are having a great time, but as far as the debate, i found the most interesting part to be the pregame analysis and postgame analysis because you guys actually know what is going on and you have experience, but definitely going to be watching

the debate as far as rfk being involved. bring everybody. it makes it a lot more interesting. i think politics is now moving into sports entertainment which is cool. everybody has to have a job. host: it appeared spontaneous yesterday, however, there was news reporting by alan smith that trump campaign officials said contact between the two campaigns related to debate began after president biden told howard stern in that interview late last month that he was happy to face off with president trump. while there was a public back-and-forth between the two candidates yesterday behind-the-scenes, according to news reports, their cabs were negotiating these two debates that they agreed -- their camps were negotiating these two debates they agreed to. it is not attendee and there are details to iron out. eric, republican. caller: i'm glad you took my

call. you had a caller who called a couple of calls back named paul. i agree with him. they are going to cheat. i have no doubt. i would not doubt if the questions they are going to ask, they did not already sent out to bidens team. i don't doubt it. host: what could cnn and abc do to show you that this is a fair process? that everything about it was fair, leading up to it, the format, how everything -- look at they do? anything? caller: yes. that is a good question. this is what they could do. we will have it on cnn and abc, but we would like to have tucker carlson is one of the moderators. we would like to have him as one of the people who ask the questions.

somebody that they know is going to [indiscernible] listen, everybody out there who thinks this will not happen, remember when the president would be at the airport talking, the other networks would not let you hear what he was saying. that right there, i will you know what is going on. the next thing i wanted to ask, was a few -- why don't you want fox? the next question is, all you people out there that are claiming, how are you four years ago? are you better now than four years ago? no. biotin is a politician. not a real person. he just goes for the wind. trump is just a person and not a politician. people prefer smiley liars.

neither one of these guys is it was so clean. i guess he just get the guy who is not as dirty. i'm the type of guy who believes in whoever will do the job because i will benefit as an american. one last thing. remember, that he would reach in his pocket when asked the question and he will pull out a paper and say, this is what they told me to say. host: stephen, florida, democrat. caller: good morning. this is stephen from fort lauderdale. i had a couple of comments. one is to the republicans that defended and said they did not think it would be fair, trust me, if it comes out that trump won the debate, they will all be applauding that he won. of course it is going to be fair. the second thing, the biden campaign should never have agreed to a debate with trump.

first of all, he is an insurrectionist and he does not even believe that president biden won the election fairly in 2020, so why would they give this man, the gravitas, of standing on the stage with the president of the united states is beyond me, and i'm disappointed as a democrat that they did not just come out and say, we do not debate insurrectionist, unless mr. trump comes on stage and agrees that president biden won the election fairly, i don't think they should even allow him to stand on the stage with. it is an insult to our election. host: let me get your reaction to this headline from the washington times. sinking polls give biotin no choice on debate question. do you think that is why he agreed to the two debates? also, the commission on presidential debates had scheduled their debates for the fall. widens camp is saying we need --

bidens cap is saying we need to do it before, and many people would have already started early voting. do you think is the washington times said, because of his poll numbers, he had no choice but to debate? caller: i cannot answer for them why they would agree to something other than the fact that they truly believe they could win the debate and biden will look better. they know that he has a problem with his age, and i think maybe that was the reason. i think if the biden campaign came out and said we do not debate insurrectionist for people who do not believe biden was not elected truly, we will not get on the stage with him, and that would be a more powerful statement. that is what they should have said. host: stephen and fort lauderdale, so will you watch? caller: of course. i'm addicted. i'm so frightful that there is

any chance that trump could end up back in the white house. i think this would be the end of our democracy as we know it. this is a sad state of affairs. host: the former speaker of the house, nancy pelosi, agrees that there should not be a debate. here is what she told cnn. [video clip] >> i myself would never recommend going on the stage with donald trump. but the president has decided that is what he would like to do. i think the format he is suggesting is a good one. i think you all should have separate townhall meetings, challenge them with questions about the future, and at the public make its decision -- and let the public make its decision. [end video clip] host: nancy pelosi saying she does not think they should debate it all and instead do town halls. what is your reaction to that idea? lloyd, west virginia, republican. caller: good morning. i don't think they should have any debates. it is a waste of time.

we all know what biden is doing, how he is, and we know what trump will try to do. he will try to handle the border, take care of it, and besides, they cannot do what they say because they don't know what is going to happen, just like trump did not know covid was going to happen to him, and he did not get a lot of things done that he wanted to. people say that that is the republican way and i think it is a waste of time, money, and i think we are paying biden to take care of the country. host: so you think no debate, not even the commission on presidential debates? caller: right. host: joe, florida, independent. caller: thank you. i'm a strong independent, but i'm repulsed at the trump supporters that call in have

called for violence, they want this and that. this debate should be about the future, policies going forward. nobody's going to change any of the trump supporters, and nobody is going to change any of the democrat supporters. what is going to change is who -- will be the independent. saying that, kennedy should be on that cold. we should start talking about independents because it is a prounion where we are going. there will be an independent president in the next 20 years and we should set the stage and start allowing them into these conversations with these two people. these people have strong baggage. and people should be able to see another light to this tunnel.

host: given everything you just said, who is best? what group is best to host the debate you were talking about? is it a network or the commission on presidential debates? caller: it should be as neutral as it could possibly be. host: that is why the commission was set up. caller: i agree. if you let cnn and abc do -- even though i know they are going to be fair because they will have to be, the trump people are going to say it was rigged. that is to reason. you have to eliminate this. host: how do you do that? caller: you let those two guys go on the stage and let them just hammer it out and let kennedy be in that conversation or any independent. it should not be a cnn or a fox

news. it has to be an independent and we should have a commission for that. host: well, we do. from the washington post reporting, the organization, the commission on residential debates began sponsoring presidential debates after the two major presidential campaigns in 1984 struggled to agree on terms. televised debates starting in 1960 were held in the final month of the campaign after the candidates had been formerly nominated until either party, but the early debates had also been inconsistent events. subject to significant disputes between candidates. richard nixon and john f. kennedy for the first to meet in a televised presidential debate during the 1960 election campaign. the next major party presidential debate took place in 1976, followed by debates in 1980 and 1984. the commission sought to

standardize the practice of a neutral arbiter, creating a candidate qualification standard of at least 15% international polling and about access requirement that provided a path to victory in the electoral college. the commission pick the location, moderators, and format, eventually setting a pattern of threefold presidential candidate debates, including one town hall style event and one vice presidential candidate debate. which, by the way, on the vice presidents debate, the biden campaign said that there should also be one vice presidential debate that takes place. now, the presidential commission, the commission on presidential debates, and they held the debates, obviously, all television stations could take the debate, and we did here at cnn -- c-span, as well, cnn, abc, everybody took the debates when the presidential commission offered them.

yesterday, abc said they would offer a simulcast of their debates they are holding on september 10. c-span sent out this tweet -- we thank you you at abc pronouncing you will make this presidential debate available for a wide audience. c-span looks forward to simulcasting it live and helping to bring an historic event to as many americans as possible. mark, north carolina, democrat. caller: hello. thank you for taking my call. longtime listener. i've always loved your show. first time calling after numerous years. i'm going to watch. it is going to be like wwe. if it was me doing it, they would have to be at separate rooms, and you would have to cut trump's microphone.

you cannot let him bully and interrupt like he did the last time because there's nothing of substance. we get nothing out of the debate. it should be about the issues, and that is why he is going to interrupt. women's choice. how he handled covid. he blew that. he had a great opportunity to lead this country and he screwed that up. bleach? that is crazy. january 6 insurrection. these issues are stacked up against him. not even the court cases stuff, the stuff that affects our lives, women's lives. biden has had to clean up the economy after trump messed it up so bad for how poorly he handled covid. that is why he is going to interrupt. i think that is what is going against trump in the selection. it is a shame he can even run after january 6, which is appalling. on the biden side, we don't worship the sky, he was the

person at that moment to get elected. i don't know. host: democratic caller, mark's thoughts. david, republican, new york. caller: good morning. i definitely agree with a lot of the callers, but i don't agree on how they would like to handle the debate with cutting off the microphone and having control over how somebody can answer or debate. we would like to see how these people are. i would like to see how trump is, how biden's, and i would like to see how kennedy is before i cast my vote. i'm not like committed to any party, but i don't really agree with the democrat ideology. i definitely don't believe that trump is trying to kill social security or dedicate or medicare or the foodstamp program.

the national debt is 215 trillion in the ready. if you ask me, it is already dead. i don't know where the whitney went -- i don't know where the money went, but nobody is taking care of it. host: those are the issues you would like to hear, are two debates enough to make a decision? caller: no. i think they should be closer to november. i think they should be in the fall. i don't think that we are going to gain any type of knowledge out of this debate that we do not already know. we know the two ideologies are clashing. it is separating the whole country. biden promised to unitas, and we are more divided today than ever before. host: do you agree that the commission on presidential debates should be hosting these debates? they wanted to do it september 16, october 1 and ninth, you

said it should be closer to november. caller: i think that would be more fair. i think the people and the public would have a better decision, and they would remember in november rather than in june. it is the people's country, not biden's or trump's, and we would like a leader who will bring us to prosperity. host: david, new york, a republican, has not made up his mind yet. other front-page stories to share. wall street journal, inflation eases and stocks hit highs. that is the latest economic news. core prices post smallest gains in 2021, fueling hope for a fed cut this year. and there is also this from front page of the usa today with this picture of the key bridge in baltimore, the ship that hit

the bridge lost power twice before the bridge collapsed. ntsb and other officials, like the coast guard testifying before a committee yesterday on what happened that day when the key bridge was struck, and also plans for rebuilding, how much it will cost, and the timeline, covered here at c-span. you can find it at c-span.org, on our app, c-span now, and also go to youtube. if you don't have hours to watch the hearing, we did a short take on youtube. you can find it there and on x, facebook, other social media platforms. you can learn key moments in less than 10 minutes. allen, delaware, democrat. caller: good morning. how are you? host: doing well. caller: ok, greta, a of things.

i guess they have already been talked about. number one, two debates is enough because most people already know who they are going to vote for. number two, i think that two debates is enough. number three, no audience because if i would like to hear cheering or booing, i would be at a ballgame. host: one more thought. caller: yes, one more thought. and i think that the moderator should be neutral and should be able to face who they voted for in the prior election. host: you think that would provide enough transparency? caller: yes. host: what does it matter how they voted before? caller: because i'm wondering how they are going to be as a

moderator. are they going to cut off the microphone if someone is interrupting or are they going to let them continue to talk like mike wallace did in 2020? host: you don't think a moderator can separate their vote from a previous election to the job they have to do that night? caller: i think it is very difficult to do. i think there may be some, but i think it is difficult to do. host: richard, baltimore, republican. caller: can you hear me? host: yes. caller: yes, she was watching on cnn, and she had questions and give them to her recurrent and. -- to hillary clinton. that should alone disqualify cnn because now when they get someone [indiscernible]

let's be removed. please, remove her. host: ok, richard, i apologize, you are difficult to hear. you keep going in and out. monday in phoenix, arizona, independent. caller: good morning. i concern is the debates are just going to be more like a reality tv show. i don't really think we are going to hear anything about policies going forward or anything like that out of either one of the candidates. up to this point, i really have not heard a whole lot on what directions they are going to want to take things. i hear a lot of things about grievance and things like that.

but i just don't think we are really going to get anything out of the debates at all. host: monte, do you know who you are going to vote for? caller: actually, i don't. host: so without debates, you do not know who you are going to vote for, so how are you going to decide? caller: i will probably have to decide in the last five minutes because quite frankly, i'm very disappointed that these are the two candidates we have. i don't think we heard enough from other people out there who had good things to say. disappointed that nikki haley is not in it, did not hear anything from a guy by the name of binkley, and i thought his platform was pretty interesting, but we never heard anything from him. host: what if the former

president were to reach a deal with nikki haley if she would agree to be his vice presidential candidate? caller: pardon me. host: what if the former president were to have nikki haley as his running mate? caller: that would be interesting. quite frankly, i think we ought to have harry truman back. host: from another news media headline, fight at nbc over left tilt from msnbc. it says that the move at msnbc has made in recent years to have opinion nests -- opinionists angular programming have been hit with viewers -- anchor their programming has been hit with viewers and they have secured second place in cable news behind the perennial leader of fox news.

but msnbc's success has had unintended consequences for nbc, a broadcaster that still strives to appeal to mass american audiences. nbc's traditional political journalists have been between rancor and resignation. local stations have demanded again and again that executives in new york tomorrow to preserve nbc's nonpartisan brand. list msnbc's bleak state alienate their viewers. taking a look at reports, there is a section on the news race from a 13, 2024 -- from may 13, 2024, that shows the viewership out of a population of 340 million in this country, abc's david mirror leads with 7.2 of

that population -- david muir leads with 7.2 of the population. you can see going down the line how other networks and their anchors have performed on that day in comparison. cnn last with their show, erin burnett's show, at 738,000. let's go to liz, new jersey, democrat. your thoughts on these two debates, june and september. caller: yes. i don't think you can really have a constructive debate with trump because he comes to the table with nothing. the knowledge of our governments, no respect. he instituted the january 6

problem that developed in the congress, and i think what he will do, he will pull out of one or both of these debates. he was unable to find his way to the debate schedule earlier this year when other republicans were running. and he will claim that there is something wrong with the format and he will back out of whatever he has agreed to. i think there is more than enoughinformation for americanso make a clear decision on who is the best qualified to run the united states government. if you think it is the person sitting in new york at his trial , then you should vote that way.

but i don't think that his ability to run his life has ever been such that it is what an american president should be emulating. host: all right, liz, democratic color. that was our last thought for this first hour of the washington journal. we will take a break. when wcome back christine mcdaniel discusses the's decision to put tariff increases on chinese imports. and later tom mcclintock will be here to discuss the israel-hamas war and military aid to israel. we will be back. ♪ >> friday nights, watched

c-span's 2024 campaign trail, a weekly round of campaign coverage providing a one-stop shop to discover what candidates across the country are saying to voters along with firsthand reports from political reporters, fundraising data, and campaign ads. watch c-span 2024 campaign true friday nights at 7:30 p.m. eastern on c-span, online at c-span.org, or download the podcast at c-span now our free mobile app, or wherever you get your podcasts. c-span, your unfiltered view of politics. >> if you ever miss coverage, you can find it online at c-span.org. markers guide you to interesting, newsworthy highlights. these points of interest markers are on the right side of your screen when you hit play on

select videos. this tool makes it easy to get an idea of what was debated and decided in washington. scroll through and spend a few minutes on c-span's points of interest. >> c-span has been delivering unfiltered congressional coverage for 45 years. here is a highlight from a key moment. >> let this stay with you, ladies and gentlemen. this flag is a symbol of our victory in this war. we stand, we fight, and we will win because we are united. ukraine, america, and the entire free world. [applause]

>> c-span, powered by cable. >> washington journal continues. host: at our table this morning, christine mcdaniel, a former white house senior trade economist during the george bush administration and now a senior fellow at the george mason university mercatus center. we are talking about trade policy with china. what is a tariff, before we get into our policy right now under the biden administration? guest: a tax on imported products. let's say that you buy this pen, you import this pen at a dollar. the government puts a $.10 tariff on it then you pay $1.10 instead of a dollar. host: why do countries like the

united states have tariffs? guest: a long time ago countries had tears because it was a good revenue raiser. over time countries got better at having income taxes, personal income tax, corporate income tax, collecting taxes, and now tariffs are very diminutive part of the revenue stream. host: compare terrace put on products by the united states to other countries. guest: u.s. tariffs are still pretty low even though they are used a lot right now and have been the past few years. u.s. tariffs are still pretty low, the average is still 2% to 3%. now we have big spikes. other countries, their average tariff can range from 5% to 25%. some countries, like india, a lot of their tariffs will go north of 35%. host: who thinks that tariffs are a good idea?

guest: it depends on who is in office. a lot of it is political. i think if you talk to any member of congress, any member of government, policymaker, no cameras around, it is clear it is a tax on imports. imports, that is consumers. consumers are also businesses. imports are intermediate inputs like primary goods, raw materials, capital goods, things that u.s. manufacturers need to make stuff here. so, i don't really think many people think that a tariff is a good idea. some people are well-intentioned but misguided and feel that tariffs may help to balance our trade deficit. that doesn't work like that. host: why doesn't it work like

that? guest: our trade deficit is driven by macro factors. in the u.s. we have a pretty big propensity to consume and a low propensity to save. other countries are flipped. basically, they finance our spending and investments. the u.s. is a pretty popular place to invest your money. we bring in a lot of capital, but we also -- they make a lot of money here, but we tend to run a capital account surplus and government deficit. they will know what i'm talking about. look, i mean, a tariff does not affect trade balance. some countries have trade surpluses, some have deficits, it has nothing to do with trade policy. it is driven by saving and investment behavior. host: our viewers may have questions on that.

if you do, we will take your comments as well. democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. you can text, include your first name, city, state, at (202) 748-8003. join us on facebook.com/c-span or on x @cspanwj. [video clip] pres. biden: back into thousand when cheap steel from china flooded the market, pennsylvania and ohio were hit hard. more than 1800 iron workers worked in ohio and lost their jobs. i won't let that happen again. that is why today i announced tariffs and key sectors of the economy to ensure that our workers are not held back by unfair trade practices.

that includes the thing i'm announcing today, 25% tariff on chinese steel and aluminum products. we will counter china's overcapacity in these industries and make investments in clean american steel and aluminum. it's a big deal. clean because of the way that we manufacture here. it is half the amount of carbon as produced in china. a large investment in manufacturing, up to $1.5 billion in clean steel products across america. supporting thousands of union jobs. next, a 100% tariff on electric vehicles made in china. people say, wow -- we aren't going to let china flood our market, making it impossible for american auto manufacturers to compete fairly. a 25% tariff on electric vehicle

batteries from china and 25% tax on critical minerals to make those batteries. i am determined that the future of electric vehicles will be made in america by union workers. host: christine mcdaniel, was this announcement significant? guest: yes. any presidential announcement on trade and trade policy i think is significant. it -- there was an economics aspect of this and a political aspect of this. the chinese are interesting, but this comes at a time when the current administration is trying to increase the number of electric vehicles on the road, trying to increase the share of electric vehicles on the road, and that is going to be a big transition for the u.s. auto industry. the administration is trying to do what it can to make sure that transition happens in a way that doesn't wipe out the u.s. auto industry.

so, when china can sell and make an ev for $10,000 to $15,000, and if they do invest heavily in that and start to ship those cars to the u.s., it would be great for consumers and great for our climate policy but very disruptive to the u.s. auto industry and those workers. host: you heard the president say that he is doing this because of overcapacity in those industries that he named.when did he mean ? guest: overcapacity is a term that a lot of people are using a lot lately. it basically means that there is more supply than demand. often this happens in any market, we often have -- we are never at equilibrium. we are always hovering around equilibrium.

sometimes the supply is greater than demand and sometimes demand is greater than supply. the things that -- as long as those are market-driven, that's one thing, but when they are driven by other government actions, foreign government actions, and those actions can be disruptive and harmful to u.s. industry and workers, that is when policymakers, lawmakers, tend to want to step in and invoke tariffs. over the past year it is really referring to china. they have a largely non-market economy. their government is very involved in their economy. when they decide these are our top five sectors we will invest in, they go for it. owing to their sheer size, when china wants to make a lot more they can literally flood the global market. that's great if you are a consumer, but if you're working

in the sector or are a small or medium business, or large business in the sector, maybe you just invested a lot, that will be very disruptive. when that overcapacity is driven by non-market forces, that tends to be a real problem. frankly, it is not compliant with wto rules. host: calls, independent, hi, ron. caller: good morning. i have two questions. we can get into this thing pretty deeply, because i do some trading on the stock market. number one, i think the amount of trade deficit that you put on the companies from outside the united states by 100%, that to me is a diluting factor that is going to cut competition going forward. number two is, why is biden -- i

am not a democrat or republican, i am totally independent -- but why is biden doing it now? why didn't he do it last year, your before, the year before? it seems this being an election year, he is almost trying to breast-feed the fact that you will be making more money in the long run by putting this on. i think competition is very important in any manufacturing. that is all i have to say. guest: that is a great point. i think obviously, definitely, tariffs eventually hurt the competitiveness of u.s. industry. especially when half of our imports are intermediate products. we put tariffs on those things. it has a cascading effect.

over the long run it definitely hurts u.s. competitiveness. it also raises prices. and it tends to be inflationary. so, well it can have short run benefits for the industry and workers that are directly affected, it has medium to longer term adverse effects, nontrivial costs, on the rest of the economy. the cuts are split out but it is death by a thousand cuts. any one individual is a paper cut, but there are a lot of paper cuts in the economy. the competition effects are worrisome to many people. host: how can china retaliate? guest: they can retaliate. we saw the u.s. trade representative yesterday talking about this. they are watching closely how china will respond. china could retaliate in terms

of putting tariffs of its imports from the united states, it could decide that -- and other country's agriculture. ox look more attractive men u.s. agriculture products -- agriculture products look more attractive than u.s. agriculture products. last year, china started to talk about putting in place the option to control its exports of the key raw materials that they are one of the only producers of right now, so far. they haven't used it yet, but it was definitely a warning that they could if they wanted. whenever you see trade tensions heat up like this, you worry that china is going to start

cutting off things that the u.s. is going to need. host: roger in middletown, ohio, republican. caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: i would like to say that we need to clean washington up. the chinese, because of cheap labor, put all of our mills out of business in the united states . the cotton mills. people looking for cheap stuff had to pay for it. if the chinese bring the cars over here, electric cars are subject to catch on fire. chevrolet had one that caught on fire under the driver's seat. we can't compete with the labor because they make $20 a day and our people make $20 an hour. host: let's take roger's last

point. christine mcdaniel? guest: they definitely have lower labor costs than the united states. labor and production hasn't been an advantage and hasn't been for a long time. our comparative advantage is in the higher and advanced manufacturing. we don't import many autos from china. there are very few imports of chinese electric vehicles in the u.s. right now. this was largely -- it's not like we are importing these chinese cars and will be putting tariffs on them. we aren't importing them anyway. maybe it was a warning shot of don't even think about it. or maybe it is an election year, and we have the other candidate who is also talking about doing this.

getting tough on china seems to be popular across the aisle. even if we did start to import chinese cars it's not clear that they would be that popular. there are safety concerns, rules and regulations on safety, on data privacy, on other things, so there are a lot of hoops that would have to be gone through. it was largely for s -- for show. we don't import ev's from china anyway. host: next, republican. caller: christine said why i was calling in. when former president trump spoke about tariffs he was talking about the cars made by china in mexico. that if the tariffs were to be put on, they should come in from the cars from mexico being made by chinese engineers and whatever.

it's a total part on the president to try to keep up with what former president trump is talking about. anyway, christine took what i have to say. we are not importing cars from china. host: anything to add? guest: a great point. a great point about mexico. that is where a lot of people are watching. whether or not china will invest in mexico, build there, and use mexico to send to the u.s. that might be next. washington might want to renegotiate the u.s.-mexico-canada agreement. we will see. your callers may remember we went through a lot of this with japan and autos in the reagan administration. there were tariffs and trade restrictions.

they built a tariff wall around the united states. finally japan said we will jump over the wall and start building cars in the united states. some would argue that that is what reagan wanted. in that case it worked. now, here we have japanese transplants are a huge employer of u.s. workers, very successful here, but it's not easy to see that happening with china. host: william in connecticut said if tariffs are bad why not subsidize u.s. companies temporarily? this is ate get sending jobs overseas. these products are dangerous in regards to battery and 40% less battery life. address these issues. what about subsidizing u.s.

companies instead of the tariffs? guest: that is another tool that washington has and this administration is using. they provided a number of subsidies through tax credits, investment credits to automakers in the u.s. and across north america with a lot of rules on that. subsidies are a big part of the administration's overall plan. they use carrots and sticks. carrots are the subsidies and tax credits and the sticks are the tariffs. host: new york, independent. caller: yes, i am an economist. i understand -- i have listened carefully and i understand your point that workers in the auto industry would be -- are going to be adversely affected if we let marketing of chinese

vehicles in the u.s. however, in the long run, wouldn't this be a bit like trying to hold onto buggy whips in markets that involve non-gas-driven automobiles when henry ford brought in the internal combustion engine and all that? aren't we better off in the long run notwithstanding -- auto industry would be adversely affected? host: did you understand? guest: rick is totally right on. there are a couple of things going on. trade and technology. the technology point is well taken. i think back in the day farriers did not like the auto industry coming in. i'm glad that that happened anyway. guess what, farriers still have

jobs today. then there is the trade side that is a little different than the tech side. trade is basically when you compare advantage, if someone can do something cheaper, why not let them do it and you focus on what you are better at? this is econ trade 101. the administration, they say that they are trying to protect the u.s. industry and help them through this transition. if it is just protecting them against china, that's one thing, but protecting them from all trade and technology changes is another. i have never seen a u.s. president join a picket line like we saw president biden do. they seem to be really concerned about that part of the

citizenship. absolutely. it is always better to rip the band-aid off and go through a lot of pain up front and let the market work it out. this administration doesn't really seem to want to embrace trade in the same way that previous ones have. host: this is one of our viewers on x posting, can you comment on the former president's belief that tariffs don't raise prices per this time magazine interview he did recently? guest: well, tariffs are a tax on imports and taxes raise prices. that is what we saw with the trump tariff. there have been a lot of people who have done a lot of really hard work and have shown that the trump tariffs led to higher prices for businesses, the

higher prices to consumers, and while they did save some jobs in particular industries, they cost a lot more downstream in terms of higher costs and retaliation that cost even more jobs. there is no doubt about it, tariffs raise prices. it is just a matter of to what extent. if i were there -- i heard that the other day that link between tariffs and prices have largely been debunked and i don't know where that's coming from. it hasn't been debunked. it is there. they're probably feeling under political pressure here and economists are like, what are you talking about? yes, tariffs raise prices. we don't think it's going to raise prices that much in this area and the benefits will outweigh costs from those small price rises. i think that that is the more

honest way of going about this. yeah, every time that we have tariffs it either does very little or raises prices. it is just a matter of how much it raises prices, and how much companies can absorb the prices, or how much they have to pass it on to consumers. even if companies are absorbing the prices, it still means less investment, less hiring, and less growth for them. we absorb it one way or another. host: what are the similarities and differences between president biden and the former president on tariffs? guest: there is really not a lot of difference on paper. the way that it is delivered i think there is a lot of difference. i have a colleague who says biden's trade policy is trump wine in a biden bottle.

it makes sense. it is the same policy just delivered with -- in a different way than president trump. look, this administration has definitely continued with all of president trump's tariffs and are even doing more of them. on the other hand, this administration is doing other things. like investment credits, tax credits. so, they are having the carro t and stick approach. that may work or may not work. so, we probably won't know if it will work for another five or 10 years, but if history is any guide, unfortunately, the odds are not very good on all this. host: christine mcdaniel, thank you for the conversation. we appreciate it. when we come back we will be

joined by california republican tom mcclintock. we will talk about the israel hamas war and aid to israel. later, it has been 70 years since the supreme court ensured education equality with the brown versus board of education decision. georgetown law's sheryll cashin joins us to discuss its impact. stay with us. ♪ >> they wrecked their country so they want to come here and collect our welfare instead. so, no asylum cases. >> most people come here to make a better life. if not for them, for their kids. my italian grandparents never spoke english. i never had a conversation with

them. yet, they made america great. >> author and coulter and a columnist debate nicholas b and a young turk over the question, should the u.s. shut its borders? the debate is moderated by a journalist. watch friday at 9:00 p.m. eastern at c-span and online at c-span.org. >> the tv features leading authorized latest nonfiction book. at 8:00, fox news has talked about the relationship between president theodore roosevelt and booker t. washingtonith his book, teddy and booker t. theologian, author of the false white gospel says help must be used to dismantle christian

white nationalism. watch book tv every sunday and find a full schedule in your program guide. >> the house will be in order. >> celebrating 25 years of celebrating congress that no other. we have been your primary source , providing balance, unfiltered access. all that the support of america's cable company. c-span, 45 years and counting. >> washington journal continues. host: back at our table is -- i think i need another cup of

coffee. sorry about that. let's talk about the debate and possibly a vote. what is the legislation and do you support it? >> i very much support it. remember, it was president biden who asked for arms and munitions. congress provided that. these are precision munitions. they are needed to better target and minimize civilian casualties against an enemy that uses civilians as a shield. host: these are the details. it is passed by congress. any weapons currently being withheld would have to be shipped within 15 days. the bill would restrict funds, including the salaries of individual officials.

this is all -- guest: that is matter how modest it is. you cannot put out 80% of a fire. the sooner the day comes, the better. the more force israel can apply against hamas, the sooner that will come. host: president biden has said that munitions being supplied are killing women and children. guest: civilian casualties are a terrible price for war. that is why when it is forced upon you, you have a responsibility to get it over with as quickly as possible by applying all the force they possibly can. when we were attacked, franklin

roosevelt came the next morning to ask for a declaration of war against japan and he pledged all of the resources in the country and -- hamas attack not a military force but specifically targeted innocent and unarmed women and children. israel has a moral responsibility to its people and to humanity to wage war against hamas until its unconditional surrender and to bring all the force that it possibly can towards doing that as quickly as possible. the u.s. has voted to support israel in this effort. host: 7000 were killed october 7. many have been killed in gaza. guest: that is a must be here.

the u.n. not trust those figures. host: ok, but the percentage of women in children killed. how do you address that? should it be weapons supplied by the u.s., or should israel have its own weapon? guest: the sooner hamas surrenders, the sooner the killing stops. again, that is hamas not only targeting civilians, they use their own civilians as shields. that is the people we are up against and what has to be eradicated. you do not want partial responses. you want to muster the most disproportionate response you possibly can to bring all of your might and fury to that fight and get it over with as

quickly as possible. that is what israel is trying to do. that is what congress intended and what biden is obstructing. host: explain your votes there. guest: it is not complicated. history warns us. particularly in an unstable environment, things can quickly spin out of control. if hitler's had been stopped in his first aggression, world war ii would have never happened. we need to heed that. that is what the ukrainian aid is all about. i am not on some vague to those who say this is money that we do not have. it is affecting and undermining our defense. that issue. but as reagan said, defense is

not a budget issue. you spend what you need to spend to defend your country. although it is one step removed, i argue it is a good thing. host: we are talking with tom mcclintock. we will take your comments and questions as well about the israel and hamas were. ruben, let's start with you. democratic call. go ahead. caller: i experienced it in 1985 and they did that to get rid of one compound, but they destroyed a whole neighborhood. how are we going to bomb abbas and not wipe out the rest of the civilians out there? they resign because they knew that they were building tunnels

in hamas. why didn't they do something there? guest: civilian casualties are a terrible and awful consequence of war. it is inevitable. look at the number of civilian casualties in world war ii. if someone suggested that we needed to leave hitler's in power because look at all the civilian casualties, the main thing is to get the war over with as quickly as possible. that means the unconditional surrender of hamas. hamas started this and it needs to answer for its crimes against humanity. host: the united nations says it revised its tally as the health ministry and territory confirms most but not all identities of

the casualties. despite the revision, the u.n. maintains that the overall death toll of more than 35,000 people killed in ongoing military offensive in gaza is reliable. the u.n. humanitarian agency citing the health ministry said 4900 99 women were killed in za as of april 30. it accounts for 70% of deaths fully identified. any further thoughts on that? guest: civilian casualties are a terrible consequence of war. the only way to do that is for hamas to surrender. host: democratic caller, we will go to you. hello. caller: what you are talking about makes no sense.

you have more loyalty to israel than he do to the u.s. abortion -- also, marijuana and drugs are illegal. you hate this country so much. you hate black people so much. host: what evidence do you have of that? guest: listen to yourself. caller: you hate the united states. you have loyalty to israel and he would not do anything -- host: what did the congressman say that you believe what you believe? caller: greta, please let me finish my thought. what i'm trying to say to you is , your loyalty should be to the u.s. you only have jewish people.

you do not support israel or jews. host: all right. caller: that is the kind of sickness that we have in our society. you see that sense of anti-semitism growing on the left, seeping not only into our college campuses but into the halls of congress. this is something that we all have to condemn. this anti-semitism that we see on the left today. host: donald, kalamazoo, michigan. caller: i'm surprised that i got through, so i'm not really prepared, but it is awfully strange to hear these democrats complain. truman was president. on purpose.

not accident. these were done on purpose. women, children -- everything that breeds us in those areas was dead. now they are complaining about what is going on over in israel. guest: that is why ended the war and killing. i would not be here if they had not dropped the bomb because my father was in the division in italy. they were the first wave of assault. he probably would not have come back. tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands would not have come back. that is why i keep saying, we have to get this over with as quickly as possible. the only way to do that is to mac -- apply the maximum force. these half measures prolong the

suffering and the death. the business of sending billions of dollars of aid to gaza while the war is still going on, hamas controls that territory. and that is going to further pool on the war. the moment the war in, but not a second before. caller: thank you for taking the call. i just have tea to of questions and one comment. i guess i will ask the question and then take my response off-line. my first question is, do you expect -- except money from aipac? my second question, japan and the wiping out of an entire civilization in japan during world war ii. are you and others supporting

some kind of nuclear response in gaza? my comment is about the u.n. estimate. that is not true. they did not have the number of women and children that have died. those are the women and children they have positively identified. their identities remain under constant siege. two questions. guest: aipac is not a political committee. they do not make contributions. with respect to the question of dropping a nuclear bomb on hamas, i do not support that. i support the targeted munitions that congress has voted to provide to the israelis so that they can minimize those

casualties. remember, they use civilians as shields. there will be civilian casualties. that is a natural consequence of war, a war that hamas started by targeting israeli civilians. they targeted hamas and hamas uses civilians as a shield, and civilians get killed. that is a tragedy, whether it is one or 10,000. the only way to stop it is to stop hamas. it gets right back down to the action the president has take abstract the ability of israel to do so as quickly as humanly possible. host: the organization itself does not donate, rather the money comes from individual members.

the total for the 2024 cycle so far. have you accepted donations from individuals associated with aipac? guest: i do not ask what groups individuals are affiliated with. i have gone to dinners with members of aipac. but again, that is not what aipac is therefore. it is an educational organization and that is what they do. host: tallahassee, florida. republican. we are listening. a question or comment? guest: the quest -- caller: nothing much a question but a comment in regards to mr. mcclintock. i agree with him having been in the service. i have seen what happens with guerrilla fighters. i also feel at the same time

that the real problem is iran because even as they take out hamas, there will be another start up with another name to make it look like that system. we have to take them out to stop the terrorism. host: when you say we come even in the u.s. caller: they should. they said we would support our people. but then again, we act like jill biden is afraid to do this and that. it is a double standard. none of them trust us after a while. they need to depend upon us. they want to control everything. guest: i do not believe we should attack another country unless they attack us. we should provide arms admonitions where we can to support countries that are being attacked, but i think the powers

of congress should be reserved for an attack against our country. with respect to iran, there is a simpler way to do it. there is a huge resistance movement in iran. i have an expatriate community in my community. several times in the last decade, that resistance was about to boil over when the u.s. stepped in and essentially -- remember, cargo pallets of cash that the obama administration sent a few years ago. much of that money went to increase the resentment of the people of that country. we should be doing everything that we can to find iranian

resistance. that government has been very clear on its intention to fire nuclear weapons. iran will be dealt with. it will either be a terrible and plenty more or the internal collapse of that country. i think we should be doing everything we can to hasten it collapse. host: hauser publican files articles of impeachment over each cutoff. do you agree with that? guest: the constitution is very clear that the power of impeachment is reserved for treason, bribery or other high crimes or misdemeanors. it has to be a crime and it has to be related to that office. i oppose the impeachment of trump because they were not impeachable offenses. i opposed the impeachment of

mayorkas for the same reason. if the president is acting within his constitutional authority, no matter how bad his decisions are coming is not an impeachable offense. we know that because the constitutional convention specifically can. them as doing a very bad job. they did not want impeachment to be used to settle policy differences between the legislative and executive branches. unfortunately, that is what it is now becoming. host: what do you think will happen with the investigation done by your colleagues into president biden and his son? where is that heady? guest: i have no idea at this point. we have to lay out the facts to the american people and let the american people decide.

i think we are far too close to an election to initiate and impeachment against the president. host: we will go to the april, democratic color. caller: thank you for sharing your story about how you may not have come into existence, had a decisive action not been taken. i say that because i also need you to understand that for how grateful you are for your life, there were tens of thousands of lives not realized because of the bombings of nagasaki and hiroshima. that needs to be thought of coming in terms of the situation happening between hamas and israel. they are not just a byproduct of war, like you are saying.

you an appropriate word saying that it is a terrible side effect, but they should not be. my question is, what decisive, immediate action could be taken? i do not want to hear the name hamas. hamas did start building hospitals and schools for the people of palestine and gaza when israel put fences around them and put them in these large, open air prisons. what decisive action can be taken by the united states. it is a fine distinction to make. it is not an insult. we have different opinions and that is ok, but what decisive action could the u.s. take right now to end the destruction of these people. you are here because a war was

ended. i do not like how that war was ended. guest: let me stop you right there. he would not have dropped the bomb on hiroshima. you would have let it onto into 246 and 1947, millions of japanese and american casualties produce? i find that rather shocking. caller: sir, why are my people more important than their people? we are all human beings? guest: millions of japanese would have died during an invasion. caller: they did not have to invade. guest: of course they did. they attacked us. you have to put out the entire fire. caller: an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. we cannot keep retaliating and fighting and fighting.

at some point, somebody gets to be the peacemaker. we are the most powerful nation in the world. guest: with all respect, that is the most naive thing i have heard in a very long time. you cannot discuss this issue without discussing hamas because it was hamas that pledged genocide against the people of israel. they made it very clear that they have the ability -- if they had the ability to wipe out israel, they will. israel has that power but has not used it against hamas. the people of gaza were given self-determination by israel in 2007. host: april, one second. guest: look at what they have cleared with that, in terrible

conditions. it should be a mediterranean resort destination. not because of anything but they have done, but what hamas has done to gaza. when they export their terrorism beyond those boundaries, they have a right and a responsibility to engage. that is what israel has done. this did not start, except for hamas, and it will not be ending until hamas has been eradicated. host: took her question, what can the u.s. do? guest: but we just did, provide munitions that israel needs to bring the war to a close as quickly as possible with the unconditional surrender of hamas. we already did that. it has been blocked and that is what the resolution today is all about.

caller: i was coloring in to say , they are passionate about discrimination -- you said something about we had to drop the nuclear bomb. however the other workers finished without nukes? guest: the more force you can bring, the better. host: let's let the congressman respond. guest: i'm saying it was the most effective way to bring it to a close.

millions of japanese lives and american lives were saved. they would have been lost had the work continued on in japan. host: let's go to frank, republican. caller: i'm calling because this whole thing -- you can go back and read the comments about why they wanted to drop the first nuclear bomb. guest: that is just bad history. host: let him finish. caller: look at. and what kissinger did. you can see that overwhelming force did not work. we still had that were active. guest: that is just bad history on 70 different fronts with

respect to korea. we did not bring our force to bear, to win that war. he came to the u.s. congress and he said, in war, there is no substitute for victory. that was true then and it is true now. that is what this entire debate is about. host: i want to share one last text with you. do you support this holding merrick garland and content? guest: i do. i think he has been unresponsive to opinions that were biden asserts executive privilege ahead of the house contempt series.

guest: can he exert professional privilege over a criminal investigation? an interesting question i don't know the answer to it. host: if he has held in contempt by congress what happens next? guest: nothing because they cannot prosecuted contempt that would be merit parliament. that's a flaw in our system. host: this contempt of congress will take place before to committees and people can go to our website c-span.org for more. denise from colorado. caller: i am glad that us in northern california are represented by you if you think what is going down with israel

is ok that's evil, that is wicked and not of the lord. netanyahu has over killed people and you go along with it and you support that evil perverted president you had. guest: genocide is wiping out people. that is what hamas has said against israel. when the government of palestine attacks them they have every right and reason to respond and to eliminate that threat and that is only done through a war with the surrender from hamas and the sooner they surrendered the sooner the war is over. host: thank you for this

spirited conversation with their viewers. when we come back, we will repeat the question from this morning to get your reaction to the president's agreeing to to debates. we will be right back. >> do you solemnly swear the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you god? watch american history tv congress investigates as we explore major investigation in our country's history. each week we have a historian

discuss the story. this week we look at the investigation the follow the siege of the branch davidian compound and what it is meant in the years that followed. watch congress investigates. c-spanshop.org is c-span's online floor browser collection of products, apparel, books, home to court and accessories. there is something for every c-span fan. shop now or any time at c-spanshop.org. get information from government right in the palm of your hand when you order your copy of the 2024 direct three with contact information, federal

agencies. it caused $32 ninety-five senses in every purchase helps to support our nonprofit organization. scan the code according to -- or go to c-span.org. our question we asked you earlier and that is your reaction to president biden and former president trump agreeing to to debates. this arrangement means they have shunned the commission on presidential debate. that group is set up and began organizing and preparing three debates in the fall and instead, the two candidates want a one-on-one debate.

they have agreed to host june 27 and studio. abc agreed to host december 10 and the two candidates have said they will be there. some observers say this is not a done deal. the public back and forth over debate started on wednesday morning. the letter notified the group that mr. biden will not be participating in the three general election debates. president biden released this video. [video clip] >> trump lost to debates in 2020 and now he is acting like he wants to debate me again? make my day pal. i will do it twice. host: president biden saying

make my day, pal. the former president on his social media website saying joad biden is the worst debater i've ever phase. the most crooked president by far it's time for debate so he can explain his open border policy the allowance of higher inflation, high taxes and foreign policy. i am ready and willing to debate crooked joe ending with let's get ready to rumble. president biden sending out a tweet yesterday and this back and forth. i received and accepted an invitation from cnn. over to you, donald.

the former president was on hugh hewitt. [video clip] >> i wonder whether or not he shows up. he has also challenged me to golf. he can't hit a ball 50 yards but he knows he will never play. i really think he has to debate he should get it over with. that was the former president on hugh hewitt show and then he did except both propose debates by cnn and abc. your reaction to the format these two have agreed to. the hosting of these debates and the shunning of presidential debates. alan from fayetteville a democratic color. caller: good morning greta, good morning c-span. what is he going to debate?

he has no policies. what is he going to debate? get up there calling him crooked joe biden? he has nothing. absolutely nothing to debate. he fixed nothing while he was in office. he ran on biden and obama's agenda. he blew covid. what is wrong with these people? he said he wanted to be a dictator. host: mark in ohio, a republican. caller: you guys are doing a fine job i've listened since the program started and the last caller, we were much better off. we had low mortgage rates.

i don't know where these people come from with ideas that he didn't have a policy. the problem with the current policy is that his policies are meant to destroy our nation. you can look at the border and inflation rates and the deficit. that will be the end of our country. host: what about the debates? caller: abc and cnn, no one managed donna purcell giving the question to hilary and 2016? do people forget that went on? you are moderating but they want control of it. they will ask easy questions to biden and trump tough questions. i guarantee you that september debate will not happen. he will come up with basement

joe. i bet my house that debate will never happen. host: anything these networks can do to convince you their preparations for an format as well as they conduct these debates will be fair? caller: i'm a senior citizen and i watch the evening news and just their history of the evening news shows how biased they are. nothing will convince me, they are corporate owned. george soros puts a lot of money into these people. they want to destroy the nation. if trump does not when, we are done. i don't even know if we can make

it to his inauguration? i am a senior citizen and i have seen good days but our days are over. host: in ohio from the associated press is reporting the second debate will take place on september 10 and be hosted by abc while abc has yet to detail where the debate will take place it said the same 15% pulling threshold. david near and lindsay davis -- david muir debate. it also says the first debate will play out and a jammed packed calendar. scheduled to begin july 15 or republicans in august 19 for

democrats the june 27 matchup will come after the conclusion of the hush money trial foreign trips by biden to france and italy in the end of the supreme court's term which includes a ruling on whether he is immune from federal prosecution in the insurrection it will also come before the start of two criminal trials on opposite coasts for president bidens child, hunter. host: you are with us in chicago, it's your turn. from birmingham, alabama, and independent. caller: thank you for c-span. it would show the world the condition of politics in america. when you think anywhere between

60-80% this would be a great indicator why nobody wants either one of them. thus all the world needs to see. host: what is a great indicator that people don't want either candidate? caller: statistics already shows they don't want either one of them. host: are you going to watch these debates? caller: i will watch the first debate because i know what will embarrassing for both sides. that's why am an independent. we need to find a candidate for president. host: the letter that started it from the biden campaign bred this way from the washington post, the commission model of

building huge spectacles large audience at great expense is not necessary or conduc good debates it should be nducted for the benefit of voters watching on television, not us entertainment with disruptive partisans a donor who consume valuable time with noisy spectacles of approval or jeering. that is what the campaign chair for the president said in a letter to the debate commission about why their camp did not want to participate in the commission debate set for this fall. instead asking for networks to host two of them cnn accepted for june and abc said they would host. the reaction from the debate commission. co-founder and co-chair on the bbc.

[video clip] >> this was the shock of the dave there was no news that this was going to happen. we normally don't have contact until after their conventions when they become official nominees of the parties on the ballot. this was interesting in particular because there first debate scheduled was june 27 only about seven states will have completed their ballots and who will appear on their ballot. they are both trying to get leverage against each other and they may be successful, they may not. when they sit around the table i wish i could be a fly in the ointment to see how they discuss who will sit where, how long will be able to answer questions and so forth. that is the reason the commission was created in 1987

which was to have multiple people making this decision. we'll see if they can do it. host: that was the cochair of the commission who believes that it's a long shot they would agree to participating in these debates. in the meantime they will move forward as if there debates will happen this fall. how will the deep is prepared? they are expected to engage in intensive preparation sessions. ron klain who now works at airbnb said he will use vacation time to help biden get ready for trial. new jersey governor help trump prepare for previous debates but unlikely to reprise that role as he suffered a falling out with the gop nominee.

kate in michigan, and independent. caller: good morning. i watched you facilitate a wonderful discussion between the congressman and callers i hope someone like that is a moderator for this debate. how will we keep them from shouting over each other and losing control? i hope jake tapper as good as you. host: one of the rules the biden camp would like is that microphones are turned off when the other candidate is talking? would that help? caller: that would take care of the problem. i'm glad to hear that. host: this is what the biden mpaign would like to see it

shou bhosted by a broadcast that oversaw trump debat. that would exclude box and nbc because they did not host one or the other of those. from the biden campaign they wanted to be one 11. they don't want rfk junior the stage. and know i person audience. time limit should be set for answers and responses and the microphone should be active only when it is his turn to speak. your reaction to that criteria. according to the new york times that criteria has yet to be agreed to by the trump campaign. phil, let's go to you. caller: thank you for taking my

call. great discussion this morning. as we all know it will not move the needle and it's always fascinating to see the live spectacle but one of the things i wanted to touch on, you have to give donald trump credit for the fact he was willing to go into what is traditionally more of a left-leaning network and it's never the democrat, in this case joe biden offering to go on fox, newsmax regardless of the outcome i don't think it will move the needle much. i just wanted to say regardless what you think of the candidate is, you have to give credit to donald trump for not hesitating

and agreed to go into the belly of the beast where he will not necessarily have things in his favor and he will be against a moderator as well as joe biden. host: do you think there is anything cnn and abc can do to prove to you and others that the moderators are being fair? caller: think outside the box. any one of the moderators could do anything it is go beyond the washington bubble your typical mainstream medium. look into the blogs, podcasts and get into the outskirts. i'm not talking about the french. -- fringe. there are things being discussed outside of the major networks and it would be great to see a question asked

that would not normally be discussed on cnn or major networks. host: crag is next from prince george, virginia. caller: good morning greta. if i remember right, when they started the debates when kennedy /nixon debated they were in some type of studio. personally, i think it is good for them to debate but i do remember the last time these guys debated each other president trump backed out of the debate. they gave him a lot of leeway while he was debating. he constantly talked over to joe biden.

he was disrespectful to hilary clinton and trolled her on stage. it would be a good idea to keep them 30 feet apart, control the mike's and have it in a studio. they know the questions being asked so they can study it. in order for us to know what trump's agenda as well as widen agendas and asked them the same question on the same stage. host: cnn has agreed to have an in a studio in atlanta. there will not be an audience. they have to work this out between the two camps. does that satisfy your concerns? caller: some of them. one other thing that like to get out here. in 2012, 2013, donald trump and howard stern were buddies he was on one of his broadcast and

stern asked him if you decide to run for president, which party will you run under? you are a democrat. and he said, if i do run i will run as a republican and he said why? because republicans are the christian right and they will believe anything you tell them. that came out of his mouth. they are not smart. you can look that up. host: crag and virginia referencing the previous debates in 2020 and that is why according to the biden campaign they did not want the commission to host the debates saying they did not have control in 2020. take a look at this portion of the first debate that took place between the two candidates in september of 2020.

[video clip] >> before covid, manufacturing went into a hole. number three. >> chris, chris they said it would be a miracle to bring back manufacturing i brought 700,000 jobs. they gave up on manufacturing. >> i was asked to bring back chrysler and general motors. he blew it, they are gone. >> ohio had the best year they ever had last year. >> that's not true. >> many car companies went to michigan and ohio. you take a look at what he's actually done. he's done very little his trade deals are the same way. he talks about the art of the

deal and china has perfected the art of the steel we have a higher deficit with china now than before. >> china ate your lunch and no wonder your son goes in and takes out millions of dollars, and also, just out of curiosity the mayor of moscow's wife gave your son $3.5 million. why did he do to deserve it? >> none of that is true. >> mr. president please. >> totally discredited. >> he got $3.5 million. >> mr. president it's an open discussion.

>> totally discredited. >> with no experience in energy. >> my son did nothing wrong with burisma. >> he doesn't want me to answer because he knows i know the truth. everyone has discredited it. host: the first of eight and 2020 it was cited by the biden campaign as to why they did not want to participate in the commission on presidential debate forum set up this fall. the washington examiner quotedhe serious limitation of

its outdated approach thoughts from the letter from the biden campaign. she also accused the commission of being uto enforce the rules in the 2020 debate and it was far from an inconsistent with the orderly and informed process the voters deserve. that is why this time around the biden campaign in the trump campaign accepted there is an earlier debate in june, a month away, because they did not think they should wait until the fall the whole debates with early voting is getting underway. one debate june 27 hosted by cnn and a second debate hosted by abc.

jim in west virginia, a democratic collar. -- caller. caller: you are asking about the debate and it's a difficult proposition with someone like former president trump who lives constantly. he is loud, rude, and erupts. he spouts out talking points. you listen to his rallies and they did a fact check at his rally and that guy called in earlier from ohio and he was saying how trump is trying to save us from corporate takeover, george soros and blackrock. any republican that will talk about investors, that's what they're all about his wealth and money investing.

that guy from ohio that only listens to right-wing media and only hears --they portray trump as a hero of the working man. he has golden toilets. look at mar-a-lago. he is not a working man. he speaks crudely he spouts out national enquirer headlines but those people believe in. host: from kimberly, alabama, a republican. caller: i can't wait until i hear the questions given to donald trump. he has stepped in it when he agrees to something too quickly. host: i apologize, our connection is terrible it's hard to listen and hopefully you can call back on a better line. host: the criteria for appearing

on the debate stage. the the same qualification. tutionally eligible to be candidacy, have their name of appear on enough state ballots and agreed to debate rules and format and receive 15% and for polls that meet their standards. rfk junior tweeting out that the two candidates were trying to keep them off the debate stage and then tweeted out i will meet the criteria to participate before the june 20 deadline. i look forward to holding them accountable to give americans the debate they deserve. according to the washington

post, a trump campaign official said a cnn producer had given assurances on a call wednesday morning that rfk will not be on the stage after describing that criteria. but he said he would be on track to be given ballot access. richard wenger agrees there was a clear path to get access to enough states before that debate. bobby in west virginia, a democratic caller. caller: good morning greta. i am a former united mine worker out of west virginia where the massacre happened in the 1920's. as a union member and part of

the public i'm looking at the moderators to really put the hammer down. i understand former president trump and these politicians are pretty shrewd and evading questions. president biden is spot on the issue at hand. i am looking for the moderators to back up and from what i've heard, they say they are going to do this. the question is asked by the moderators and answered by trump or biden and they need to stay on issue and once they start straying if they have a minute to speak fine, if they stray,

it's going to happen we know that. the moderator has the button and if there men and is up, cut them off immediately. we don't deserve a bunch of foolishness and we want to stay on top of the issues that the moderator is asking and if they have time to respond. that 30 seconds or whatever. or whatever the moderator is asked. he gets off key, and in other words. that's what i'm looking for. i am looking for accountability and staying on the issue. we deserve that. host: bobby agreeing that mike should be shut off while they are talking.

mike, in florida, a republican. caller: hey, how are you today? i was just wondering, do you hear me? host: yeah, we do. caller: trump made a comment about giving biden a drug test before he went on stage. host: and? caller: that might be a good idea because i don't think he can last an hour talking. they were talking about how trump lies and biden was on with erin burnett and they had him down on a lie a minute. i wonder if donna brazil in the hillary clinton debate she

gave him all the questions ahead of time. host: erin, alexandria, virginia, a democratic caller. caller: i'm upset to use my 30 day call for this and i'm glad you played the clip of the last debate. it was very embarrassing for all of us. the republicans don't like biden because he's not trump that we don't like trump because he is trump. i'm not going to watch the debate because it was an embarrassment. they are not focusing on any of the issues, it is four years later after the last debate and what were going to see his two people who are so angry with each other not focusing on the issues the american people want to focus on.

the moderators don't have the capacity to rein in the nonsense. it's a really bad book. i was also wondering since your playing clips donald trump likes to go on about the story of the snake. host: why do you think moderators are not able to control the conversation or debate? caller: i think because they are afraid of the backlash they will get. they work for organizations and they tried to show some sense of bipartisanship but the moderators have not done the job. just like when you do the job with the rest of speaking over the caller and you said that him finish his question. they will not cut off his mic because there is an entertainment value and i truly believe we are the country we deserve because we allowed a reality star as president and

allowed someone who did not have the best interest of black people in his career to become the voice of black people. we are getting a president rammed down our throats and i guarantee that the sentiment of most people. host: we have to leave it there. when we come back 70 years since supreme court secured brown v. board of education. sheryll cashin joins us to discuss that impact.

>> they left their country and they want to come here and collect our benefits instead. my italian grandparents never spoke english. i never had a conversation with them but they made america great. >> this sunday there is a debate should the u.s. closes stores? watch it live on c-span or online at c-span.org. >> do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you god? >> saturday watch congress

investigates as we e major investigation in our nation's history's. each week writers and historians tell the story. and examine the impact of key congressional hearings. we look at the investigation following the deadly siege of a compound in texas. c-span now is a free mobile app featuring your unfiltered view of what's happening in washington live and on-demand. keep up-to-date with livestream so floor proceedings and hearings of the u.s. congress, white house events, cords and more from the world of politics all at your fingertips you can stay current with washington journal and find scheduling

information for c-span network and radios and podcasts. c-span now is available at the apple store and google play. scan the qr code or visit our website. c-span now, your front row seat to washington anytime, anywhere. "washington journal," continues. host: joining us now is sheryll cashin who is an attorney of civil rights. it has been 70 years since the u.s. supreme court gave its decision in brown v. board of education. what has been the last big impact? guest: brown capture the imagination of a new generation of young people who were

inspired to believe i am a free and equal citizen i should be able to go to school and participate in any institution on a nonracial basis. that inspired people like my parents and that culminated in a social revolution and the civil rights act of the 60's. frankly, it was only after that social revolution that the court began to enforce brown. brown gets actively enforced by federal courts in 1968-1988 where you have this golden age of school integration which i benefited from. born and raised in huntsville, alabama. i am a proud, young baby boomer. we participated in integrated

public schools we are poor, working class and affluent kids of all races participated together, learn to get along and were able to access opportunities. that is what round stood for. host: what did your parents tell you about how this captured their imagination? guest: my father said, if we had to rely on his parents generation to contest jim crow it would've lasted another years because it was beyond their imagination to challenge the status quo of separate but equal. they stayed in the black world and cap there heads down. my parents generation were more

upstarts and they believed in equality before brown was decided and parents and school children were willing to risk their own livelihood in danger for their principal. host: what led to the supreme court hearing this case? guest: the naacp led by lawyers like thurgood marshall who happily, i clerked for. they had been fighting segregation incrementally in the courts. primarily in higher education and succeeded to getting to separate was inherently unequal in grad school. fortunately, there were some parents who were willing to risk their children and put their

children in a situation where they demanded to have the principle applied to public schools. you have five cases that culminated brown. host: what stood out to you in the oral argument of this case? guest: i was recently writing and reflecting on this case and justice marshall in his final oral argument before the court says something to the effect of why you said of all the people in this country black americans are singled out for this treatment of being excluded and not being worthy? schoolchildren black and white go play together? they played together but they're not allowed to go to school together?

that was profound to me and brought this idea that is state-sponsored segregation. 17 states including states in the former confederacy required by law the children stay separated in schools and that sends a message of inferiority and a message of superiority to white children. the destabilizing of this long-held culture of racial hierarchy. host: when did the court issue an opinion? guest: may 17 19 54. tomorrow is the 70th anniversary. a year later dealt with the

remedies and how it could be implemented. host: why did they wait? guest: plessy versus ferguson said separate but equal is the law of the land. states do not stop at schools. it got so ridiculous jim crow required schoolbooks had to be stored separately. black and white children could not play checkers together. you had a regime that separated people by law for more than 60 years in the culture and way of life. to try to dismantle that, even after it was decided it was massively resisted. in one county in virginia they

shut public schools down for five years. chief justice earl warren was aware that this was going to be difficult. after a social revolution, by 1968, millions of americans watching protesters get water hoses turned on them are beaten. by 1968, the majority of americans had come around to the idea, this is un-american. let's move forward. host: we are talking this morning about brown versus of education sheryll cashin is our

guest. democrats: that (202) 748-8000, republicans (202) 748-8001 and independents (202) 748-8002 you can text your city and state (202) 748-8003 and on facebook facebook.com/cspan and x cspanwj . guest: in brown versus it was a unanimous decision said that separate is inherently unequal. particularly because it sends a message of inferiority to black children as far as their development. they also talked about the importance of the common public school to cultivating shared ideas of citizenship. this is part of the opinion that

was speaking not only to black americans but also white america that our democracy requires education and common values of citizenship and implied us learning to get along together. those were the two main ideas undergirding the decision. it is not until 1967 loving versus virginia which the court struck down laws banning white people marrying nonwhite people. it says white supremacy cannot be squared by the 14th amendment. both of these cases bring us out of the jim crow caste system.

host: in the decision, what did they say? guest: as i recall and i taught this case many times, they don't explicitly overrule plessy. they say separate schools and public education are inherently unequal. and that violates the equal amendment clause. they imply it was overruled and to strike down segregation another realms. in swimming pools, interracial marriage, is the first step. host: were coming up on the 70th anniversary of brown versus

board of education. caller: good morning. i have a question for you. i watch the show on black history. how combination person can write a documentary about people of color. but you have asian people writing history of people of color? they are making a movie and cashing in on us and you go to mississippi, louisiana. we need to stop worrying about everyone else and think about our own kids. we need to start our own

communities and cities. host: are you calling for segregation? caller: they are segregating here. everyone has their own culture. we've been discriminated out of jobs. host: segregation continues. guest: thank you for your call. what i say is what you are suggesting is we still have a lot of segregation in this country which is true and that black people need and deserve to have fido communities and their voices and stories told. what i say to you is that the racial caste system that jim

crow represented has been dismantled and has been dismantled but what has not been dismantled is a lot of policies that encourage separation particularly in neighborhoods. it is very easy to identify neighborhoods and schools and unfortunately, we have politics that overinvest in majority white schools and disinvest in high poverty black neighborhoods. that was what my last book was about. it started with this idea of other people writing about their stories. i think there is a lot of content out there that are also telling proud african-american stories. host: axios had this headline,

take a look at this graphic to share of u.s. public schools with student bodies 90% nonwhite . guest: it's devastating. while i celebrate what brown stands for i have also written about since the 1990's we have segregated because the supreme court said it's time to get out of policing school segregation. to the extent that it represents housing thus not their fault. the average existence of a black or latino child in public

education is one where three quarters of their peers or minorities in more than half of their peers are poor and the average existence for white or asian child is opposite. most of their peers are middle-class. residential segregation undermines the values in its embrace of a colorblind constitutionalism budgeted and allow society to look the other way at the systems that encourage segregation and put no pressure on school districts over time. host: we will go to huntsville, alabama, democratic color. caller: how are you doing this morning greta? host: thank you. caller: a couple of quick points.

about the 70th anniversary of brown v. board of education. times have changed and this is a new generation and i feel that we should all be equal. students who are black can be in any type of school. host: i'm gonna keep us on topic because we only have a few moments left. you said you benefited? guest: i grew up in the same city that kevin is calling from. i graduated in 1980 from butler high school which was a well resourced integrated school where low income, middle income and wealthy kids all went to school together and butler high was a powerhouse.

champions and athletics, national merit scholars and i was able to take that education and get a scholarship to vanderbilt. meanwhile, 20 years later in the 2000's, butler had become overwhelmed by poverty so much so that they shut the school down. the kids did not have the resources i had. i agree with you that black kids can learn in any environment where they have resources. where they have excellent teachers in small class sizes. in this country, we spent $23 billion more in affluent, upper-middle-class goals. we have a politics of distrust

in public education such that we have a movement that is draining resources away from public education. the kids trapped in high poverty schools are not getting the resources to enable them to have an excellent education. host: we will go over to shanda in richmond, virginia. caller: i want to talk about how schools don't magically become impoverished. what happened for the school to become impoverished? it happened around me where many of the schools become poor, impoverished and their majority, nonwhite and they magically get closed. host: we just have a few

minutes. i wanted to push back on the fact that people are not fighting for civil rights. there was a teachers union that was pushing back for education for children. there were cases before brown v. board of education. guest: thank you shanda for mentioning mendez the first federal court case that took on separate but equal. that was on behalf of latino kids in california. i teach like case. let me quickly say, there are intentional, systemic creation of segregation, residential segregation and since the 2000s

residential segregation has gotten worse at the extremes of highly affluent neighborhoods and highly form neighborhoods and it's done through zoning. it's done through the federal government subsidizing affordable housing creation. i write about this. it's intentional and maintained and a lot of affluent walking neighborhoods have petitioned to secede from school districts. what happens in the system where you have highly advantage spaces and disadvantage spaces everyone has to scratch and claw to get as close to and opportunities.

a lot of people leave cities and go further and further out to get opportunity. the supreme court's jurisprudence undermines the government being racially conscious to counter that. host: we want to thank you for your conversation this morning. the house is about to gavel in and we will bring you up to the floor for a live gavel-to-gavel coverage here on c-span. the speaker pro tempore: the house wi