CSPAN - Washington Journal 07/01/2025

All Episodes

Previous Next

July 1, 2025 07:00-10:00 - CSPAN

02:59:53

Washington Journal 07/01/2025

Participants

Main

donald j trump

admin 07:09

pedro echevarria

cspan 38:43

Appearances

chip roy

rep/r 01:14

john kennedy

sen/r 00:57

john thune

sen/r 02:08

Clips

patty murray

sen/d 00:06

rachel maddow

msnow 00:07

Callers

chaz in new york

callers 00:15

donna in west virginia

callers 00:11

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Show episode speakers

Speaker	Time	Text
unidentified		Giving you a front row seat to democracy.
		Coming up on C-SPAN's Washington Journal, we'll take your calls and comments live.
		Then the Constitutional Accountability Centers Elizabeth Wydra and John Malcolm of the Heritage Foundation discuss key decisions by the Supreme Court and Aaron Harkey with Americans for the Arts on efforts by the Trump administration to cut federal funding for arts and culture programs.
		Washington Journal starts now.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		This is the Washington Journal for July the 1st, a live picture for you.
		Even after 20 plus hours, the Senate is still voting on a series of amendments to the One Big Beautiful Bill Act with expectations of a final vote on the bill today.
		However, through the night, Senate Majority Leader John Thun having a series of conversations with Republicans who might be the make or break on if this bill will pass.
		You can call in with your thoughts on the One Big Beautiful Bill Act itself, the process as it plays out, the Senate, and other things related to it on our lines.
		202748-8000 for Democrats, 202748-8001 for Republicans, and 202748-8002 for Independents.
		Maybe you want to text us your thoughts on the bill itself or the Senate's work with it.
		202748-8003 is how you do that.
		You can also post on our social media sites.
		That's Facebook at facebook.com/slash C-SPAN and on X at C-SPANWJ.
		Over 20 hours has passed as the Senate has been voting on a series of amendments on the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.
		This is all a lead up to the final vote that's expected sometime today.
		If you look at the Senate Periodical's website on X, they give you a list of what other amendments are being considered right now.
		It's the Warner Amendment, which takes a look at issues with the FAA and avionics.
		But the Senate Periodical's website saying also other wants to be considered, the Van Holland Amendment, an amendment by Senator Kennedy as well.
		This was posted about a half hour ago.
		So that's where we're at as the process.
		Whether it leads up to final vote is a question, and that depends on several Republicans to keep an eye on.
		Someone who's been keeping an eye on it through the night and the early morning, Stephen Dennis of Bloomberg, who reports on Congress, joining us now.
		Stephen Dennis, good morning.
unidentified		Good morning.
		It's been a long night.
		Not a whole lot of actual progress on the floor of actually changing the bill.
		But there's just been sort of a non-stop effort to try to woo Lisa Murkowski of Alaska.
		I think without her, they're going to have to make some very uncomfortable and tough decisions to pass this bill.
		So they've been working very hard to try to find a way to satisfy her concerns.
		And her concerns include food stamps and how the changes in this bill would affect Alaska, the Medicaid cuts, and how those would affect Alaska, as well as the phase-out of the green energy tax credits.
		And so they've got a they have been working, but they have, as far as we know, not yet gotten her approval.
		Basically, the way these things work is if you have the votes, you would be voting.
		We would have text, and we have yet to see text of a final amendment.
		Although, you know, we can see the senators on the floor sort of negotiating with each other and passing paper around.
		There have been some senators who think they're getting close, but close doesn't mean you're actually there.
		If we're actually there, we would be voting.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		So it's been reported that Senator Thune talking to Lisa Murkowski through tonight reported that even he's been talking to Rand Paul.
		But when it comes to Lisa Murkowski, you said that if they can't convince her, then tough decisions have to be made.
		What are those decisions?
unidentified		Right.
		So Rand Paul has been a no from the beginning because of the inclusion of the debt limit.
		And he has said he would vote for the bill if they shrunk the debt limit increase to $500 billion, which would be enough really for a few months, but not nearly the $5 trillion that Trump and the Republican leadership wants, which would push the need for the next debt limit increase until after the next midterm election.
		And this is something that the president has very much wanted to avoid.
		Republican leadership has very much wanted to avoid.
		They don't want to have to go through this process again in a few months or have to go hat in hand to the Democrats to try to strike a deal for a debt limit increase.
		So I think that's why this is so difficult, because you either have to take the most moderate member of the GOP, Murkowski, or get Rand Paul's vote.
		And part of the problem here is that Tom Tillis had announced that he is a no over the Medicaid changes in the Senate bill.
		The other option I just talked to Tillis not that long ago, he's still willing to vote for the Medicaid cuts in the House bill, but not the Senate version, which would really hurt North Carolina because of this provider tax issue.
		I think his last estimate was somewhere between $26 and $32 billion being cut out of North Carolina over the next decade because of those changes made in the Senate.
		So his vote's gettable, but they haven't made any effort to get him.
		And then you have Rand Paul.
		You could potentially flip his vote if you shrunk the debt limit increase, which they don't want to do, or you have to get Murkowski.
		You can only lose three Republicans.
		Collins has said that she is leaning no on final passage.
		She had an amendment on the floor that theoretically could have made it easier for her to vote for this bill, but that amendment failed.
		She proposed increasing the taxes for people for income over $25 million to the level it used to be, which is 39.6% before the 2017 tax bill.
		And that money would go to increasing this new rural hospital fund from $25 billion in the bill to $50 billion.
		But the Democrats oppose that, thinking Ron Wyden said that that was a band-aid on an amputation.
		And what they should do is just not do the Medicaid cuts and the other health care cuts, which are close to $1 trillion in this bill.
		So, you know, the Democrats decided to tank it.
		If they had voted with Collins, theoretically, that could have gotten the 60 votes she needed.
		But, you know, now Collins still has a tough decision to make, but it doesn't look like they're working that hard to try and get her vote.
		They're working much harder to try to get Murkowski.
		So if the three votes that they can afford to lose are Collins, Rand Paul, and Tillis, then you have to get everybody else, and that includes Murkowski.
		And that's why she's been the focus of attention for quite a long time.
		And even on the motion to proceed vote, she was holding out for a few hours to get some commitments.
		And clearly, those few hours that they delayed the final calling of the motion to proceed did not quite get her on board.
		Or at least the commitments that they made to her have not yet been able to hold up.
		And keep in mind, this whole process, all these amendments, any side deal you want to cut has to meet the approval of the parliamentarian and the bird rule.
		So I think that's been particularly tricky if you're trying to craft something that works for just one state.
		Gotcha.
		It can be hard to write that in a way that both complies with the Byrd rule and doesn't get other senators upset who might say, well, why is she getting a special deal and not me in Idaho or some other state?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		That's Steve Dennis with the latest on what's going on in the Senate.
		Again, we're showing to you it on C-SPAN2.
		You can always watch it there, our app at C-SPANNow, and follow along on our website at c-span.org.
		Steve Dennis, before we let you go, what's the one thing you're watching for to kind of tip off on where things are going?
unidentified		Well, first, we'll hear about a wraparound amendment, which would have whatever deals that would be right before final passage that could clean up any amendments they didn't like.
		And, you know, we're waiting to see what that final wraparound amendment would be.
		But there are two amendment votes that are coming up that are pretty big deals.
		One would sort of extend the life of the solar and wind tax credits.
		That's a big deal for a lot of solar companies in particular.
		And that's something that Joni Ernst is leading out of Iowa.
		And it looks like that will have Democratic support, so it has a good chance of passing.
		That will anger, however, conservatives, particularly in the House.
		And so you could have problems passing this in the House, which they will have to do as soon as Wednesday.
		And then there's also a Medicaid issue where Rick Scott and other conservatives are trying to basically phase out the Medicaid expansion in its 90% match.
		This would be it's hard for me to imagine this getting anywhere close to 50 votes because it would be a big cut for many, many red states that have expanded Medicaid.
		And it would also potentially be a poison pill in the House.
		So we're watching to see how that vote goes down as well.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Steve Dennis of Bloomberg, watching this throughout the evening and the early morning, you can see his reporting at the Bloomberg site.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Steve Dennis, thanks for the update.
unidentified		Anytime.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Democrats 202748-8000.
		Republicans 202-748-8001.
		And Independents 202-748-8002.
		On this poised final vote on the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.
		As you heard Steve Dennis talked about, a lot of ifs if that will happen today.
		And you can still watch out for it on C-SPAN too.
		John is in Maryland Democrats line.
		Thanks for holding on.
		Your thoughts on the efforts in the Senate.
		Good morning.
unidentified		Well, first off, I'd like to say it's really devastating once this will do people's headaches.
		But something I need to comment on is how we have federal agents in masks just snatching people up all over the place.
		Like, this is just horrible for democracy in general.
		People, like officers without any accountability, whatever.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Well, back to the topic, sir.
unidentified		And I also say how this is going to be abused.
		We've already had fake fake agents commit crimes with this kidnapping one woman on right.
		Okay.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
		Let's go to Jim.
		Jim in Florida, Independent Line.
		Go ahead, please.
unidentified		Thank you.
		I love your program.
		Been watching it for ever.
		Okay, so I have a couple of points.
		I think, and I've read the bill, is all people have to go to is the section on the debt limit increase.
		And this amount of money is just for 25 and 26.
		So we're already halfway through 25, going into 26, and they want $5 trillion to increase the debt limit.
		That's all people need to know about the phony accounting that's coming out of the CBO and also the Republicans.
		So that's a problem.
		Number two is Warren Buffett said we should just have 3% of GDP as our amount that we're allowing the people up there to spend over and above what they take in.
		And he further said if they can't do that, they should lose their job because then maybe we'd be back to 3% of GDP, which is almost $1 trillion.
		Third point I want to make is I think we really need a balanced budget amendment.
		And I have talked to a senator about this, and he just put it back in my face and said, well, it's your fault.
		We don't have it.
		It's not in the Constitution.
		It's not anywhere.
		And I thought that is really irresponsible.
		And the last point I want to make is Trump wants to get the Federal Reserve PAL out of there because he wants to lower rates.
		So we're going to go back to World War II yield curve control just so he can lower the interest expense so those bozos up there can keep spending our money.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
		Justin in Ohio, Republican line on this expected final vote of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.
		Hello.
unidentified		Good morning.
unidentified		How are you?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		I'm fine.
		Thank you.
		Go ahead.
unidentified		Well, I'm not sure what your guys are all arguing about this morning.
		I just turned the show on, and I'm glad that the Republicans are doing something drastic, whether it works or not, to turn this fiscal nightmare around.
		There's so much noise in the media, and the Democrats can't even tell you that you'll hear one guy say $12 million are getting off Medicaid, and another guy says $17 million are getting off Medicaid.
		It's all just smoke and mirrors in Washington, D.C.
		And until this country and the people start to realize the fiscal cliff we are walking off, nothing will change.
		So I'm happy they're passing a controversial bill.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		But you also said that whether it works or not, why are you happy in light of all of that?
unidentified		Well, because what we're doing right now is not working.
		Now, you and I are old enough.
		We've been around a long time.
		We've been listening to the same argument for decades now, decades.
		And they just keep going along, going along, doing the same thing, printing money, printing money.
		And it's really what the politicians do in D.C.
		They don't want to turn this stuff back to the states because they know the states have to balance a budget.
		That is the key to this.
		Make the states pay for these services, and we'll see if the voters really want the services or not.
		Because we can't trust anybody in Washington, D.C. Because they will just print and print and print and print and spend and spend and spend and tell us how wonderful they are.
		And that's what this bill, to me, is all about.
		Putting it back on the states, let the politicians really go to the people and say, do you want more Medicaid?
		You got to pay for more Medicaid.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
		Justin there in Ohio, you heard our guest at the top of the hour, Steve Dennis, talk about the House.
		If it passes in, the Senate goes back to the House for their approval.
		The House Freedom Caucus releasing on X at 1:30 in the afternoon yesterday, saying the House budget framework was clear.
		No new deficit spending in the one big beautiful bill.
		The Senate's version adds $651 billion to the deficit, and that's before interest costs, which nearly double the total.
		The House Freedom Caucus ex posting finishing off saying that's not fiscally response, that's not fiscal responsibility.
		It's not what we agreed to.
		So that could be a foreshadowing of what happens if it does indeed pass the Senate, as we might see today, and go back to the House for their approval in light of this July 4th deadline that has been talked about.
		You can give your thoughts on the text itself, what's in the various aspects of the bill, your concerns about it, if you support it or not.
		202748-8,000 for Democrats, 202748-8,001 for Republicans, and Independents 202748-8,000.
		A short overview of what's in it from the Washington Times this morning saying it's a permanent extension of the 2017 Trump tax cuts, including lower rates and higher standard deductions for individuals, no tax on tips and overtime pay, tax deductions for some seniors and auto loan interest, phase-out of solar and wind subsidies and other clean energy tax credits, rollback of some of the President Biden's energy regulations, a $40,000 cap on state and local taxes that can be deducted on federal returns,
		new work requirements for Medicaid and the food stamp program known as SNAP, a crackdown on states using provider taxes to inflate federal funding on Medicaid, 5% to 15% cost share of SNAP benefits for states with high payment error rates, $46.5 billion to finish building the border wall, and $150 billion for national defense priorities.
		That's just an overview there.
		Let's hear from Mark.
		Mark is next in Silver Spring, Democrats line.
unidentified		Yes, good morning.
		Thanks for the opportunity.
		First, within 90 seconds, I'll deal with the budget and health care.
		What I did regarding the budget, I did what those AI durals do, Nadella, Pichai, Zuckerberg.
		I went to ChatGPT as my program.
		And this is what everyone can do.
		How do you decrease the budget deficit by $2 trillion, minimize disruptions, minimize job losses, maximize maintenance of services, maximize revenue increase, and charge federal services?
		Without going into details, the summary is: well, guess what?
		IRS audits can increase $700 billion.
		Closing tax loopholes adds $2 to $500 billion.
		And expenditure reductions include health care reform and social net efficiencies of $100 billion.
		So now, regarding the credit rating of the bond, we'll see what SP and Moody think with the voodoo accounting of the Republicans.
		They may say it's perfectly fine, but we saw what happened with the bonds and tariffs.
		And health care, everybody's health insurance will be affected.
		Everybody.
		The government payment for the Affordable Care Act premiums will go away.
		People, it's late in the year, and insurance companies will need to readjust their expected premium charges.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay, Mark there in Maryland giving us his thoughts.
		Elon Musk giving his thoughts as well, in light of what's ever going on in Capitol Hill on his ex-feed saying, it is obvious with the insane spending of this bill, which increases the debt ceiling by a record of $5 trillion, that we live in a one-party country, the Porky Pig Party.
		He says, in all caps, time for a new political party that actually cares about people.
		Continuing on on his thoughts, saying if this insane spending bill passes, the America Party will be formed the next day.
		Our country needs an alternative to the Democrat-Republican Unit Party so that the people can actually have a voice.
		So you can talk about Mr. Musk giving his own thoughts, not the first time he's commented on these issues.
		The president responding to that off of his true social site, saying that Elon Musk knew long before he was so strongly endorsed me for president that I was strongly against the EV mandate.
		That's one of the aspects.
		It is ridiculous and was always a major part of my campaign.
		Electric cars are fine, but not everyone should be forced to own one.
		Elon may get more subsidies than any human being in history by far.
		And without subsidies, Elon would probably have to close up shop and head back home to South Africa.
		The president also asks, adding, no more rocket launches, satellites, or electric car production, and our country would save a fortune.
		Perhaps we should have Doge take a good hard look at this big money to be saved, all in caps.
		So that's just some of the back and forths that have been going on, not only on the Senate floor, which you're seeing there, but also behind the scenes, so to speak, when it comes to the work on the passage of this bill on the Senate side.
		Thomas in Kansas, Independent Line.
		Hi.
unidentified		Good morning.
unidentified		How are you?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Fine.
		Thank you.
		Go ahead.
unidentified		Yes.
		I oppose the bill for reasons others have expressed and because they're rushing through it so quickly without knowing what the details are and for increasing the debt limit so much when the Republicans claim that it actually decreases the national debt.
		But I have something else I'd like to bring up about this bill.
		I listened to it early Saturday morning and I tuned in and they were talking about a $20 trillion trillion dollar expenditure, I guess, for the space program in the International Space Station.
		And at first I thought that maybe the reader meant $20 billion instead of $20 trillion, but I continued listening and they went on further about $1,300,000 for fiscal year 2026, $1 trillion, $300 billion for fiscal year 2027.
		And I didn't know what they were talking about.
		I missed the lead up to it, but nobody's brought that up.
		And I don't know if they're going to spend that money or not, but I don't know why they would have it in the bill if they weren't.
		So I was hoping to catch your earlier guest, the reporter, and ask him to look into it.
		But if anybody knows anything about that, I'd sure like to find out.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		You said you were listening to the reading of the text on the Senate floor of the bill?
unidentified		That's correct.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		What did you find of that exercise?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		What'd you think of it?
unidentified		Well, it was kind of boring for one thing.
		But another time when I listened in, the clerk or whoever was reading it was reading so fast that there was no way that any taxpayer listening to it could have understood what they were talking about.
		And so I was pretty disappointed in that.
		The original estimate was like 18 hours to read through it, and they did it in about 16.
		So I would assume that others read as fast as they could, also, which, as far as I'm concerned, violates the spirit of, you know, they did what they were supposed to do, but it kind of violates the spirit of what was intended by reading it, at least in my opinion.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Gotcha.
		Thomas in Kansas, let's hear from in Tennessee.
		This is John, Republican line.
unidentified		Hi.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		John in Tennessee.
unidentified		Hello.
unidentified		It's John Kennedy.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Oh, from Tennessee.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Yep, you're on.
unidentified		Yeah, I'm sitting here watching, and I've been watching a bunch of people wandering around.
		And if I had to run a business like that, I would have some major issues.
		I'm really disappointed in what's going on because they're all wandering around with their hands in their pocket.
		Get the damn thing done.
		I mean, come on, how long does it take for anybody to make a decision?
		That's the problem.
		Somebody say, okay, let's get it done.
		It's ridiculous.
		These guys wandering around, pockets in their hands, talking, wondering what the heck's going on.
		You've got to get me.
		Get the thing passed and get on with it.
		We didn't pay you guys to wander around, go to lunch, go to dinner, trying to figure out things.
		Get it done and go on and help our country.
		The longer you guys wobble, and that's where I call it, the longer everything is.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		And I apologize, I'm going to stop you there only because the signal you're on breaking in and out, but we did get your point.
		This amendment process that you've been hearing about has been going on for 20 plus hours.
		The various senators coming to the floor, introducing their amendments.
		There is Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana that you just saw.
		As they present their various amendments, they take votes on it, and that's what they're seeing now.
		This is not final passage.
		This is just amending the bill before a possible final vote.
		If we can, let's dip in a little bit on Senator Kennedy.
john kennedy ▲ ● ▼		Taxes at $10,000.
		I liked it then.
		I like it now.
		The bill before us dramatically raises that cap.
		I think it's a mistake.
		I think it's bad policy.
		But I realize that my instincts are not infallible.
		Some people don't realize that.
		But mine aren't.
		And for that reason, I respect this entire body.
		And I respect everybody in it.
		And I don't think my intellect is superior.
		And I don't think my instincts are infallible.
		For that reason, I asked to withdraw my amendment, whatever the hell the number was.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Kennedy, there, you can continue on following the amendment process as it plays out on C-SPAN 2.
		You can talk about it and give your thoughts on it on the following lines: 202-748-8000 for Democrats, Republicans, 202-748-8001.
		Independents, 202-748-8002.
		And text us too at 202-748-8003.
		This is Anthony in New Jersey, Independent Line.
unidentified		Hi.
		Hey, Pedro.
		Thanks for coming in.
		Anyway, this is an important bill.
		I think we're at a turning point here right now because the big thing with Congress, since they have like about a 20% approval rating for the last 50 years, They don't really do their jobs.
		And this big, beautiful bill is just another omnibus bill that keeps going through, and it's just so much pork attached to it.
		Congress needs to do their job, and they need to just take each individual part of the bill and make just a separate bill.
		As an example, the tax cuts.
		Yes, that's important.
		And the tax cuts, no matter what the media says, does help the people who are working class people like myself.
		And I appreciate that.
		Although, we could trim a little bit of the paddle to the top.
		We got till December to do that because that's when they expire.
		You know, there's other things that we need too.
		I'm concerned about Social Security.
chaz in new york ▲ ● ▼		Now, Angie Craig from Minnesota, she has a great bill that will, when you make over $125,000 a year, I believe it is, that you don't pay any more for the Social Security.
unidentified		Well, she wants to just raise that level and have people pay a little bit more who are making over $125,000 a year, which I think is a good thing.
		Two more things, real quick.
		I've been a Democrat my whole life, and I'm calling on the independent line because I switched over because I can't stand what the Democrats are doing these days.
		And the big thing, too, the last thing, is that I want to ask you a question, Pedro.
		How do you know when a politician is lying to you?
		I'll give you the answer when her listener needs moving.
		All right.
		Thank you, and God bless America.
		Happy 4th of July.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Claris from West Virginia.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		This is on our line for Republicans.
unidentified		Hi.
		Hi, good morning, and thank you for taking my call.
		I just wanted to say this morning that it always seems we come down to the same people, whether it's, well, mostly Lisa Murkowski and the other one.
		And it makes you wonder: is this more about personality than it is the country?
		When the same people stand out and will hold out and hold out from their own party and then turn around majority of the time and vote for the other party.
		It makes you question how they were elected in their individual parties to start with.
		But in this bill, I've noticed over the years, I'm a senior citizen, but I try to notice things, especially in Medicare.
		Things that are so outrageously priced.
		For instance, if you have to receive home care for anything, at one time, one company wanted to charge near $100 for a wheelchair cushion.
		And my husband and I requested they come and get the cushion and take it back.
		We would keep the chair and use the cushion, and they could have the cushion.
		Just small incidentals.
		If people would be more mindful and stop taking everything for granted that they have available to them and question things sometimes, and especially our representatives.
		I wanted to make one more statement and then I will close.
		The representatives that we have that have never held a public or a job out in the workforce.
		For instance, Chuck Schumer, how on earth would he know anything about a working family when he's been in politics his entire life?
		Okay.
		I just don't understand.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Claire is there in West Virginia.
		Again, one of the many calls on the work expected pass or working towards a passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act in the Senate, which we've been showing you as we've been going along this morning and getting your comments on it and what you think about the process as it plays out in Massachusetts, Democrats line.
		We'll hear next from Pete.
		Pete, good morning.
		You're next.
unidentified		Yeah, good morning.
		Hey, I mean, I'm echoing a lot of sentiments of your callers or have been calling for days.
		I mean, but the takeaway I get is this is not a functioning democracy.
		And this body is just, this is just abhorrent.
		We used to be the envy of the world, but I mean, this is just a spectacle that's and like somebody said, rushing through this thing, the size of it, the pork.
		I noticed some things for the NRA in this thing.
		Why, you know, about silencers.
		I mean, there's so many little things in here that are just so disturbing that it's beyond comprehension.
		But, you know, Democrats aren't much better, but the Republicans are showing their true colors of being pure evil.
		And it's a reflection of the executive branch that this legislative branch, by virtue that they are so afraid, it's almost like a mafia boss that's in charge.
		And I don't know how other way to describe it, but we need some real, I don't know how we get ourselves out of this mess one way or the other here.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		That's Pete there in Massachusetts.
		What you've been watching as this amendment process goes on in multiple hours is something called a Voterama.
		You probably know that if you watch the network quite often, Frank Thorpe from NBC posts this this morning just after 7 o'clock.
		He posted the Senate Voterama just started vote number 45.
		This was earlier on, that's just after 7, which means this Voter Rama now has the record for the most votes in Votorama history.
		There were 44 votes during a 2008 budget resolution, Votorama, which had previously held the record.
		So that's the part of the history of what you're seeing go on when it comes to the effort to pass this bill.
		You can comment on the amendment process.
		You can comment on the bill itself, the politics behind it, all in our lines.
		You can post on social media too.
		Let's hear from West Virginia, Republican line.
		This is Rick.
unidentified		Hello.
		Hello.
		Concerning the Big Beautiful Bill on NASA, the bill has approximately a $10 billion supplemental, which was created basically by Ted Cruz.
		It's an excellent supplemental.
		It includes $700 million for commercial procurement of a Mars telecommunications orbiter for a Mars sample return and a manned Mars mission, $2.6 billion to fully fund the Lunar Gateway Space Station, $4.1 billion to fund two space launch systems for Artemis 4 and 5, $20 million for extra funds for the Orion crew vehicle, $1.25 billion for the International Space Station operations over five years,
		$325 million to fund the U.S. de-orbit vehicle to safely deorbit the SISS when we get into commercial versions of a space station that will occur after the ISS, and $1 billion for infrastructure improvements to many of the NASA centers.
		This is an excellent supplemental.
		Some of these programs...
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Do you work in aerospace, or is this just something that you follow?
unidentified		This is something that I follow.
		I'm just reading from some of the articles on it.
		The president's budget did not include a lot of this, especially things like the gateway, which is largely being funded by our international partners.
		Although the president's proposal for NASA does have a lot of very important elements of it, especially approximately a billion dollars to fund the first sections of a manned Mars mission.
		So it has a lot of good points, but there were some areas where the Congress disagreed, so they decided to fund extra money to NASA to take care of those areas, or at least many of those areas.
		Like I say, Ted Cruz has done an excellent job with this, and I think it will, with the NASA budget that the president wants for a manned Mars mission and other areas and this type of supplemental, I think it would be a very excellent NASA budget coming out of the Congress.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay, that's Rick there in West Virginia.
		The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget on their website put up a series of charts taking a look at aspects of the bill saying, starting off with that the Senate version would increase annual deficits up by $600 billion, saying after 2025, which is driven by a one-time accounting change or accounting changes, the Senate reconciliation bill would increase deficits every year over the next decade, including by $620 billion in 2027.
		Chart two, the Senate bill would add $3.9 trillion to debt as written, $5.3 trillion if permanent, saying that the debt through 2034, with almost $3.5 trillion borrowing from the finance title, which is taxes and Medicaid, nearly $300 billion of borrowing from other deficit increasing titles, and about $500 billion of savings from deficit-reducing titles, nearly $700 billion from interest.
		It also says that debt could rise to 130% of the gross domestic product, saying that under the bill, that 100% rise from 100% of GDP to 126% by 2034 compared to 117% under current law, and that's 124% in the House bill.
		If the Senate bill is made permanent, debt would reach 130% of GDP.
		More charts there.
		CRFB.org.
		If you're interested in seeing about their analysis, their take on the impact of the bill, if it passes the Senate, whatever changes it sees in the House, as we are seeing play out in real time, at least on the Senate side right now, whatever passes and the version they pass, if they pass a version, goes to the House for their consideration.
		Let's hear from Tony.
		Tony in Maryland, Independent Line.
unidentified		Hi.
		Yes, good morning.
		Thanks for taking my call, and good morning to everybody in America.
		Look, I'm calling in reference to just one item in there.
		There's a bunch of things that I could probably talk about, but one in particular is the proposal to cut retirement benefits for carriers.
		Now, everybody in the United States knows that their letter carriers are working their asses off to do this damn job, and it's not an easy thing working in the weather, hot rain, snow, and this is very difficult, very difficult job.
		And their proposal, from what I understand, is they want to cut some retirement benefits for carriers that's already worked for 30 years and take their supplement out so they can't get their supplement.
		So I want them to eliminate the proposed retirement benefits for carriers.
		It's not fair for them.
		And I appreciate you taking my call.
		Thank you very much.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		The New York Times takes a look at the cost and savings of the bills and the version that's passed.
		This was updated yesterday saying over 10-year costs, most of them going to those tax cut extensions and other tax provisions, including temporary tax cuts, spending for defense, Homeland Security, and other category.
		The 10-year savings come from Medicaid, green energy and environment, as the category goes, student loans, food benefits, other health care, and then natural resources.
		This is based on Congressional Budget Office estimates.
		A lot of debate you've probably heard over the last few weeks and months about the congressional budget analysis and the various takes on it.
		But that's more there if you want to see graphs and other things related to cost and savings found in the bill.
		In Georgia, Democrats' line, we'll hear next from Linda.
		Hi.
unidentified		Hi, Pedro.
		I'm a first-time caller.
		And I just have one comment I want to make.
		I pay close attention to politics.
		And the one thing I don't think our government is functioning correctly, because the one thing I believe that they forget is, regardless of what party's in charge, they also represent people of the opposite party in those states.
		And they should be working for both sides.
		And they should be coming to an agreement that works out for both sides in some way.
		If we don't, we're always going to have this where the one side will not do anything to help the other side and vice versa.
		They have to compromise.
		It's we the people, not we the party, you know, and I have never understood that and I just get so frustrated.
		But that was my only comment.
		I would never vote for this bill.
		It hurts way too many people.
		And regardless or not, if they're not in your party, you're hurting them.
		And like this one woman that talked about the cushion, you know, everybody's just focused on their own needs.
		And that was my only comment.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Well, when it comes to topics like Medicare or Medicaid, where do you think compromise could come?
unidentified		Well, that's what I think they don't do.
		I mean, in every business I've ever been in, and I was in IT, we had a Greece board and we sat down and we discussed pros and cons of everything and who it would be impacting and how it would be impacting and see where the best benefit is.
		There just has to be compromise.
		You can't, if you're going to cut people off of their health care, people are going to die.
		And is that really what they want?
		I mean, it makes you think that if they can't deport them legally and they can't get them to leave legally, the people that they feel comfortable being with, they're going to try and kill them off by taking away their health care.
		And the elderly that are sick, the poor that are sick, they're going to be eliminated that way.
		So I think they need, they're not dumb people.
		They need to get together and really look at everybody because this is we the people.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		That's Linda there.
		That's Linda there in Georgia.
		We've been showing you the Senate floor.
		That's what you're seeing right now.
		But behind the scenes, other reporting when it comes to what happens if a tie happens.
		This from King 5 out of Seattle saying that Vice President JD Vance arriving at the Capitol on hand to break a tie vote if it's needed.
		The story adding that it's a pivotal moment for the Republicans who have control of Congress racing to wrap up the work with just days to go before the president's holiday deadline of July the 4th.
		And more there when it comes to the behind the scenes of what happens when it comes to this bill.
		Steve is another, this is from California.
		Steve joins us.
		Our line for Independence, your thoughts on the efforts on the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.
		Hello, Steve.
unidentified		Hi.
		Basically what I want to say is, Tim, we've all been here, all of us.
		Everybody that's in the United States, as far as people.
		The only original people that are here are the Indians who were here when this land was discovered.
		So everybody should just be deployed.
		That's the whole thing.
		You can't say the birthright should be taken away from anybody.
		Everybody who was born here should be allowed to stay here unless they've done something wrong.
		Okay.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Eduardo, Eduardo in New Jersey, Republican line.
unidentified		Hi.
		Hey, how are you?
		I believe this bill is great.
		You know, I just, it's not clear as to, you know, when it comes to overtime taxes and tips, how is it that the American people are going to be able to keep most of that money when it comes to overtime?
		Do we have to, I guess, do we have to file it at the end of the year for income tax?
		Or would the government not tax us immediately once they see that there's overtime?
		As long as you make a certain threshold.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		But even that aside, though, you call the whole thing great.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Why is that?
unidentified		Well, it's great.
		I think there's some pieces of the bill that's great.
		I think that we shouldn't be taxing the Americans overtime and tips, especially for waitresses and restaurants.
		There's certain keys of the bill that's great.
		I don't believe, though, that we should be cutting on Medicaid.
		There are people who still need Medicaid.
		So there's some keys I don't agree with, but I agree with others.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		That's what Eduardo there in New Jersey, the New York Times analysis, when it comes to no tax on tips, as you've heard it described, saying that it would allow workers to deduct tips from taxable income for tax years 2025 to 2028.
		The deduction is capped at $25,000 and decreases for those making more than $150,000 a year.
		That's $350,000 for couples.
		The estimated costs for that proposal, $32 billion.
		It also has something called Trump accounts, which would create new tax advantage savings accounts for children with a government contribution of $1,000 per child born.
		That would be from 2024 to 2028.
		That expected costs, $15 billion.
		From Daryl in North Carolina, Independent Line.
unidentified		Hi.
		Hey, good morning.
		I appreciate you guys taking my call this morning.
		Just a few things.
		One that you just mentioned, the Trump accounts.
		It's a double-edged sword.
		I think that's a great idea.
		But taking government funds and investing it to the stock market, you know, somewhat fishy because that's pretty much putting money in the 1%'s pocket.
		If it's an ETF like Berkshire and Hathaway, that you put that $1,000 in, then over time, that ETF is going to make money.
		So there is that the government's funding the stock market at that point.
		The second thing I want to talk on, Gentleman, the tax system itself.
		People have to understand that the economy is a revolving system.
		It's going to be up.
		It's going to be down.
		So to make a permanent tax cut, it's going to put that actual system in a raid.
		You can't always cut taxes.
		So people have to understand there's going to be a point where we're going to have to raise taxes because we have to get some type of money moving into our economy.
		If not, the American system is going to fail because the tax system in itself, at the end of the day, is a pyramid scheme.
		It's a working pyramid scheme.
		It literally looks like a pyramid.
		The people at the top don't pay into it as much as the people at the bottom, even though the people at the bottom actually make less money.
		Even though we outpopulate them and put more into it, it's still literally a pyramid scheme.
		So I need everybody in the American economic system to understand it's a revolving cycle and that this is a tax, the tax system is a pyramid scheme at the end of the day.
		And the less money you put into it, the more likely it's going to fail.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Tax cut extensions by the New York Times analysis, $2.1 billion in cost for those marginal tax rates to permanently extend those.
		The standard deduction would increase by $750, $1,500 for couples in 2025.
		It would make permanent with inflation adjustments, $1.4 billion, the alternative minimum tax, which permanently extends the individual increased alternative minimum tax exemption amounts and revert phase-out thresholds to 2018 levels, but phase out faster.
		Also, provisions for the child tax credit, permanently increasing that to $2,200 in 2026.
		And we require a social security number from one parent.
		It goes on from there as far as the breakdowns of everything or nearly everything as they describe it in the GOP bill and the estimated cost or savings from that.
		If you want to take a look through that, you can comment on the lines as well.
		Lorraine in Indiana, Democrats line.
unidentified		Hi.
unidentified		Hello.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Hi, Iran.
unidentified		Yes.
		Hi.
		I'm just calling because I want to make a statement and say that I think this bill is the most horrible thing that has happened in America since I've been alive.
		The taxes that are going to be, well, the bill itself, I wish at least some of the Republicans would stand up and face Trump and vote this bill down.
		This is horrible.
		We live in a country where everyone should have the right to health care.
		Okay.
		Children are going to suffer.
		Elderly people are going to suffer.
		This is horrible.
		I can't believe that I live in this country right now.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Tam in Indiana is where Lorraine is.
		Chris joins us from Tampa, Florida.
		He's on our line for independence.
		Chris, hello.
		You're next up.
unidentified		Hey, I was curious on why they always say Social Security and Medicare is going to go insolvent whenever they keep stealing from that account.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		And what does that have to do with the Senate bill that we're talking about?
		Or how does it relate?
		Let me ask you that.
unidentified		Well, they keep saying that people they need to cut the bill and cut Medicare, cut Social Security when they keep stealing all the money out of it to fund other projects and pet interests.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay, Chris in Tampa, Florida there.
		Axios adding that when it comes to those SALT deductions, which you've probably been hearing about as well, the state and local taxes, that cap set to 10,000 in the new text.
		It's far below the 40,000 limit that the House landed on after weeks of intense high-stake negotiations between leadership and a handful of states.
		The 10,000 is intended as a placeholder as the chambers continue to work towards a final compromise number.
		Republican senators have almost no incentive to pass a generous SALT cap, but understand the number to be critical of the House Speaker Mike Johnson's ability to pass the final bill in his chamber.
		Again, once this passes the Senate side, it has to go to the House for its consideration.
		The House dealing with various aspects and changes of the Senate, and that could be a sticking point for them.
		That again, if you want to comment on the work on the Senate side, when it comes to the One Big Beautiful bill, again, Democrats 202-748-8,000, Republicans 202-748-8001, Independents 202-748-8002.
		In the lead up to what you're seeing play out today, it was Senator John Thune, the majority leader, speaking out in favor of the bill, talk specifically when it comes to the benefits of the first Tax and Jobs Act that was passed in the Trump administration in 2017, how it relates today.
john thune ▲ ● ▼		Mr. President, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act was one of the most successful economic policy pieces of legislation in history.
		And the data bears it out.
		You look at what happened after the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act passed, unemployment hit a 50-year low, poverty levels at record-level lows, and incomes grew.
		Incomes and wages increased most among lower-income Americans.
		We started to narrow the wage gap as a result of the passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.
		So what is this about?
		This is about extending that tax relief so the same people that benefited from it back in 2017 and for the last eight years don't end up having a colossal massive tax increase hitting them in the face come January 1.
		Now who are those people, Mr. President?
		It's people, it's families making less than $400,000 a year on whom the bulk of this would fall.
		$2.6 trillion of this tax hike that they're supporting would hit families making less than $400,000 a year.
		It would hit small businesses to the tune of $600 billion in tax increases.
		These are pass-through businesses, the businesses who are out there creating the jobs every day.
		If we don't do this, they're going to face a $600 billion tax increase.
		That's what we're talking about.
		And if you want to put it in plain terms, if you're one of those families making less than $400,000 a year, the child tax credit would be cut in half.
		The standard deduction would be cut in half.
		And you wouldn't get the benefit that many taxpayers are going to get under the legislation that we're going to be debating today, which would allow tips to go untaxed, allow overtime to go untaxed.
		So those nurses and those firefighters that are working the long shifts, not watching the bill be read here on the Senate floor, actually get something out of this that makes their families more able to cope with the challenges that they face every day.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		I want to correct something that I read earlier about those salt taxes.
		It was from an older story.
		This is from the story that's posted on today from NBC News when it comes to those deductions saying the provision demanded by the House Republicans who hail from high-tax blue states would allow people to deduct up to $40,000 per year for five years from their federal taxes.
		That deduction would phase out once an individual's annual income hits a half million.
		As part of the compromise with Senate Republicans, the cap would go back to $10,000 per year after five years.
		That projected cost, $142 billion, according to the Senate Budget Committee staff members.
		Let's go to Denise.
		Denise in Ohio, Democrats line.
		Hello.
unidentified		Yes, hi.
		I'm a Democrat from Cleveland, where Republicans just passed a $600 million be given to billionaire Brown's owner Taslums to fund the new Brown Stadium and decreasing funding to public schools.
		Just horrible.
		This is kind of how the Republicans are going.
		They're going that people, the defenseless, the poor get nothing.
		And this Trump's horrible bill just follows along the Republican agenda.
		I hear that this bill is also going to cut a lot of funding to hospitals in rural areas, health care that's needed.
		And quite frankly, these are the people that funded and voted for Trump.
		So they're going to see how their actions are now good.
		This is their actions.
		This is what they're going to get.
		And it's horrible to say, but they voted for him, and now they're going to see what their actions have cost.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Nico is next, also from Ohio.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Republican line.
unidentified		Hi.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Hey there.
unidentified		I'm calling in because, honestly, as a Republican, this bill is actually kind of outrageous.
		I mean, we think about adding more money to the depth of state right now.
		I support our senator from Kentucky who's currently trying to, who's not going to ready agreeing, he's not going to vote for this bill.
		Because as you kind of look at it right now, we cannot afford this debt.
		Cutting more taxes or continuing the tax cuts will not actually help us lower debt.
		As humans, we're going to invest in things for ourselves, not for our community.
		As a strong believer in God and Christ and community, this is not what we're supposed to do.
		We're supposed to look at how we can help our poor, help our needy.
		And that's not what this bill does.
		Thank you so much for your time.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Independent Line in North Carolina.
		This is Carl.
		Hello.
unidentified		Hey, Petro.
		Hey.
		Good morning.
		Hey, just wanted to let you know that I think the Republicans, when the senators, when they're talking about this bill, they're shielding the truth about it because they keep on talking about tax benefits and the provision of this new tax bill.
		But the thing about it, no tax on tips for service industry workers temporary expires in 2028.
		The no tax in overtime expires in 2028.
		Acrease in state and local tax salt deductions, primarily benefiting the wealthiest households.
		Increasing child tax care temporary, 500 increases to 2,500 through 2028.
		Now, if they really wanted to benefit the working class, they would have made it permanent like they're going to make the permanent tax breaks for the wealthy.
		But no, they're using a lot of gimmickery, and this is going to create a lot of problems down the road for us Americans.
		And also, they reinstated the one reinstated 100% first-year bonus depreciation and increased sections of 179 deduction cap.
		Increased a state and gift tax exemption threshold.
		And what is added benefit?
		That just benefits the wealthy.
		And so this is a very disingenuous tax bill.
		It should not be passed.
		This is going to create so much problems for us down the road.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay, let's hear from Stella in Indiana Democrats line.
unidentified		Stella, go ahead.
		Paul, I have to agree with that last guy, although I'm a Democrat, the Republican, had a very good point, just about everything I would say.
		If I were in the Senate right now and I were getting ready to vote on this thing, I would not vote on this thing because these people all have to go home over the 4th of July to their 4th of July Independence Day parade and face their voters.
		And I think that probably should happen.
		If they vote this thing in, I wouldn't want to be them.
		I think that would just be a terrible experience.
		I can't imagine.
		Many people be happy to hear that.
		That's all I have to say.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		And from North Carolina, on our line for Republicans, this is Emma.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Emma, hello, you're on.
unidentified		I would just like to say in reference to Senator Tillis, Senator Tillis does not have to worry about getting reelected if he wants to run again.
		And I have to stand up for him that he's taken a strong backbone to this bill and everything.
		And Trump doesn't have everybody around his finger like he thinks he does.
		And in North Carolina, anybody would tell you that that cannot be.
		So I'm here for Senator Tillis.
		We're rooting for you.
		If you decide to run again, we will vote you back in again.
		Thanks a lot and have a blessed day.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Emma there in North Carolina finishing off this hour of your calls taking a look at action in the Senate.
		Again, if you want to continue on and see the amendment process, you can still monitor it as it plays out on our network, C-SPAN2.
		We'll keep you updated on anything that happens as far as the vote is concerned during the course of this program.
		Several guests joining us to talk about various topics later on in the program.
		We'll talk about the future of federal funding for the arts.
		That will feature Erin Harkey, the CEO of the advocacy group Americans for the Arts.
		But after the break, we're going to look at the key decisions of the recently concluded Supreme Court term with Elizabeth Wydra of the Constitutional Accountability Center and John Malcolm of the Heritage Foundation.
		That conversation coming up on Washington Journal.
unidentified		If you ever miss any of C-SPAN's coverage, you can find it anytime online at c-span.org.
		Videos of key hearings, debates, and other events feature markers that guide you to interesting and newsworthy highlights.
		These points of interest markers appear on the right-hand side of your screen when you hit play on select videos.
		This timeline tool makes it easy to quickly 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.
		America marks 250 years, and C-SPAN is there to commemorate every moment.
		From the signing of the Declaration of Independence to the voices shaping our nation's future, we bring you unprecedented all-platform coverage, exploring the stories, sights, and spirit that make up America.
		Beginning July 4th, join us for remarkable coast-to-coast coverage, celebrating our nation's journey like no other network can.
		America 250.
		Over a year of historic moments.
		Only on the C-SPAN Networks.
		In a nation divided, a rare moment of unity, this fall, C-SPAN presents Ceasefire, where the shouting stops and the conversation begins in a town where partisan fighting prevails.
		One table, two leaders, one goal, to find common ground.
		this fall ceasefire on the network that doesn't take sides only on c-span cspanshop.org is c-spans online store Browse through our latest collection of C-SPAN products, apparel, books, home decor, and accessories.
		There's something for every C-SPAN fan, and every purchase helps support our nonprofit operations.
		Shop now or anytime at c-spanshop.org.
		Washington Journal continues.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		A discussion on the recently concluded Supreme Court term, the key decisions from that, and two guests joining us to talk about it.
		Joining us in studio is John Malcolm of the Heritage Foundation.
		He is the vice president of the Institute for Constitutional Government, also served in the Bush administration from 2001 to 2004 as the former Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Criminal Division, and Elizabeth Weidra of the Constitutional Accountability Center.
		She serves as their president.
		To both of you, thanks for giving us time today.
unidentified		Of course, great to be with you.
unidentified		Great to be with you.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		If you look at each term as a chapter, so to speak, of the Supreme Court, Elizabeth Wydra, let's start with you.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		How would you characterize the chapter that just closed out?
unidentified		A little scary, concerning.
		You know, you leave it at the end of the chapter with a little bit of a pit of anxiety in your stomach.
		You know, and I say that in large part because of, you know, this series of rulings that we got with respect to individual rights, the upholding the ban on gender-affirming care in Tennessee, the ruling out of Maryland that allows parents to opt out of books, simply including LGBTQ characters in public school.
		And then, of course, concluding with the, you know, I guess denouement of the terms chapter, the court's decision in the birthright citizenship injunction case, where in my view,
		they completely turned their back on long-standing history of equity, which is supposed to provide complete relief, and especially when you're talking about the denial of a fundamental right that is unquestionably protected by the Constitution and more than 150 years of Supreme Court precedent, the right to equal citizenship at birth for all who are born here.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		John Malcolm, same question to you.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		If you take a look at the chapter, how to conclude for you?
unidentified		Well, I have a different characterization of all of the cases that Elizabeth just mentioned.
		On the nationwide injunctions case, it reigned courts in so that they could fulfill their constitutional duty by dealing with the parties who are in front of them and not overreach to decide cases for non-parties when there's no case or controversy as to them.
		In terms of the Mahmoud case, that was the case out of Maryland.
		It gave parents who had religious objections to having their pre-K kids indoctrinated in the current sexual ethos to give them the ability to opt out.
		It didn't say that they couldn't teach these things in school, but it gave them the right to opt out their children.
		I would also note in the Nationwide Injunctions case that the court did not reach the merits of the constitutionality of birthright citizenship.
		I forget which the other cases are, but let me say, oh, there was the Schermetti case, which was the ban on highly questionable transgender treatments and surgeries.
		It upheld the rights of states to have different rules when it comes to medicating minors and also how medications are used in line with the state's traditional role in terms of regulating medical practice.
		I would say actually there were very, very few cases decided, only 62, and about 40% of them were unanimous, which is really surprising when you consider that the cases that reach the Supreme Court almost invariably get there because there have been a split among some very bright judges in the lower courts.
		And I would even say that there were unanimous decisions in some of the most controversial decisions of the term, one involving Catholic charities out of Wisconsin, another involving a suit by Mexico against Smith ⁇ Wesson, another involving whether or not majority groups, so straight people or males, have to have a different standard of proof when alleging that they've been discriminated against in terms of their employment.
		And also the TikTok case.
		Those were all unanimous decisions.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Elizabeth Wydrow, a wide scope of cases, a wide amount of decisions.
		Mr. Malcolm had brought up the breakdown.
		What did you see from that in this term?
unidentified		Yeah, we see usually every term, you know, there are a large number of cases that are unanimous or don't break down across ideological lines.
		That's something that happens nearly every term.
		But nonetheless, the cases that are the most high profile, perhaps the ones that touch Americans' lives more deeply on a daily basis, often are those ones that break down along ideological lines, like the birthright citizenship injunction case.
		Last term, of course, the Trump immunity case.
		And, you know, there were also cases that John didn't mention that I would bring up, the ghost guns case, which is where you can order a kit and assemble a gun.
		That the regulation put in by the Biden administration to regulate ghost guns was upheld by the Supreme Court.
		That was a decision that I thought was absolutely correct.
		But, you know, we see here with this court a very deep division on fundamental questions of the rule of law, the role of the court in a constitutional democracy, and the role of the court in protecting the rights of the vulnerable versus the powerful.
		There were many business cases, as there always are in this court.
		And as always is the case, my organization, the Constitutional Accountability Center, does an end-of-term analysis of just how well big business did before the Supreme Court.
		And we found yet again that the Chamber of Commerce did better than the average litigant.
		And in fact, it was noted, and it is sent by Justice Katanji Brown Jackson, that this court frequently seems to open the doors more widely to litigants from the business community than to the everyday folks who try to seek access to justice.
		So that's another theme that I would add.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Let me introduce our viewers and get them into this conversation.
		202-748-8000 for Democrats, 202-748-8001 for Republicans.
		Independents, 2027 for 8-8002.
		Text us your thoughts at 202-748-8003.
		I think Mr. Malcolm wanted to respond.
unidentified		Yeah, very, very briefly.
		So Elizabeth has said, well, if big business wins, the fix was somehow in.
		Justice wears a blindfold for a reason.
		They're supposed to decide cases based on what the law is, not on whether you're a little guy or a big guy.
		She talked about the ghost That would be another example in which there was, it wasn't a unanimous decision, but it was not a pure six to three decision along the way.
		She quoted Justice Katanchi Brown Jackson saying, Well, money and interest appear to do really, really well at this court.
		I would notice that there are other studies that question that, if not outright debunk it, and that no other justices, including Justices Kagan and Sotomayor, joined that dissent by Justice Jackson.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Again, our guest with us to talk about these issues for the Supreme Court.
		Ms. Wyder, I want to read a little bit on that birthright citizenship case when it comes to the opinion from Justice Barrett saying that some say, she wrote in part that the universal injunction gives the judiciary a powerful tool to check the executive branch, but federal courts do not exercise general oversight of the executive branch.
		They resolve cases and controversies consistent with the authority Congress has given them.
		When a court concludes that the executive branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power to.
		That's only in part, but can you respond to that?
unidentified		Yeah, absolutely.
		So obviously, courts only hear cases or controversy.
		The issue in the case rather is given the parties before the court and the claims before the court about the unconstitutional birthright citizenship order, what is the remedy when the district courts found that the executive order from President Trump limiting birthright citizenship, when the courts found that that was blatantly unconstitutional.
		And because the courts were exercising equitable jurisdiction, that's a legal term, but it comes from this tradition of courts and equity in England having more discretion, more flexibility to provide remedies than courts of common law.
		When the courts are acting in their equitable capacity to provide complete relief, and that term is important to the parties before it, based on a finding that the executive has acted lawlessly and is seeking to enforce an unconstitutional infringement of rights, what can the courts do?
		Now, the majority opinion obviously has its view of what those equitable remedies are.
		The dissent, I think, particularly Justice Sotomayor's does a great job of providing an alternative reading of what the equitable power is.
		But there's no dispute that it's a case or controversy.
		It's what is going to provide complete relief to the parties.
		And if you only stop the Trump order from going into effect with respect to the particular pregnant people before the court, does that provide complete relief for everyone experiencing that deprivation of an individual right unless they come into court in their own lawsuit?
		Or are there countervailing concerns that were raised, for example, by the states and by associational plaintiffs?
		That means plaintiffs who are groups who have members who live in all 50 states who are also parties before the court.
		Can you give them complete relief from this unconstitutional order if you do something other than a broader order?
		And I would note that Justice Barrett did leave the door open on remand when the case is sent back to the lower courts for the court to consider whether that complete relief does require a broader injunction, particularly with respect to the state plaintiffs who argue that, you know, people move state lines all the time.
		Children are born in other jurisdictions.
		A lot of the federal programs that states implement require children to have a social security number.
		If the children move from a state where there isn't an injunction and they don't have one, what do they do then?
		So there is the possibility of a broader injunction for complete relief under equitable principles.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Mr. Malcolm, you could answer what she said, but as part of her dissent, it was Justice Sotomoya said, no right is safe in the new legal regime the court creates.
		The court's decision is nothing less than an open invitation for the government to bypass the Constitution.
		The executive branch now can enforce policies that flout settled law and violate countless individual constitutional rights.
		It goes from there, but go ahead.
unidentified		Sure.
		First of all, the Supreme Court did not decide the constitutionality of the executive order for birthright citizenship.
		I think they will eventually.
		That will likely come next term.
		I think that language by Justice Sotomayor is somewhat hyperbolic.
		That if there is something that is blatantly unconstitutional, Elizabeth would say this is that case, I would disagree with that.
		The case can make its way up to the Supreme Court very quickly, and they can enter a stay.
		And there is no reason to believe that the administration will ignore that.
		Indeed, the Solicitor General at Oral Argument said that the court would comply with an order by the Supreme Court.
		Alexander Hamilton said that the judiciary is supposed to be the least dangerous branch.
		There are roughly 700 federal district court judges.
		Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson, and Elizabeth would empower any of them to shut down a governmental function or order or edict across the entire nation, well outside the jurisdiction of the judge where the judge sits and involving all kinds of non-parties.
		That would make it the most dangerous branch, not the least dangerous branch.
		As Justice Barrett said in response to Justice Jackson's dissent, that Justice Jackson would replace an imperial executive with an imperial judiciary.
		That is not what the nation, that is not what the laws allow, or either our nation's history, as Justice Barrett pointed out, or the powers that Congress has given to courts.
		Elizabeth said that courts should be able to apply complete relief to the parties.
		That is true, but not to non-parties.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Let me pause for a second for both of you, and I apologize.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Here's the president before leaving for Florida.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		Alcatraz, it's an East Coast region and it should be very exciting, very good.
		Worked very hard on it with Ron and everybody and I think it's gonna be great.
		And then I'll be back here fighting for the bill, and I hear it's going okay.
		We'll move it along.
		But we'll be back here pretty early.
unidentified		Do you think the president on a bill used to know warnings some Republicans not to go too crazy with the cuts?
unidentified		Are there parts of the bill or amendments that you think cut too much?
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		We're going to have to see the final version.
		I don't want to go too crazy with cuts.
		I don't like cuts.
		There are certain things that have been cut, which is good.
		I think we're doing well.
		We're going to have to see some very complicated stuff.
		Great enthusiasm, as you know.
		And I think in the end, we're going to have it.
		What do you think, Caroline?
unidentified		Yeah, I think it's a good question.
		I'm so relying on God.
		He's been having such a hard time condemning the phrase globalized against Nevada.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		I think he's terrible.
		He's a communist.
		The last thing we need is a communist.
		I said there will never be socialism in the United States.
		No, he's a communist.
		I think he's bad news.
		And I think I'm going to have a lot of fun with him watching him because he has to come right through this building to get his money.
		And don't worry, he's not going to run away with anything.
		I think he's, frankly, I've heard he's a total nutjob.
		I think the people of New York are crazy.
		If they go this route, I think they're crazy.
		We will have a communist in the for the first time, really, a pure true communist.
		He wants to operate the grocery stores, the department stores.
		What about the people that are there?
		I think it's crazy.
unidentified		What happened to Elon Musk?
		Who?
		What happened to Elon Musk?
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		Nothing.
		You know, he's upset that he's losing his EV mandate.
		Yeah, he's very upset about things, but he could lose a lot more than that.
		I can tell you right now.
		Elon can lose a lot more than that.
unidentified		The Press, President, if you were a little President, will you spend the entire time to be in the four or five minutes again, the other is going to send you?
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		The President We hope it's going to happen, and we're looking for it to happen sometime next week.
unidentified		The Press, President, will you get to the end?
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		We want to get our hostages back.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		We want to get the hostages back.
unidentified		What a bill, what is this beautiful bill?
		Does it pass?
		You have to go through item by item by item and pass this stuff one at a time or are you going to try again?
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		I think we're going to get there.
		It's tough.
		We're trying to bring it down, break it down so it's really good for the country.
		Trying to get a lot for everybody.
		And it's a big bill.
		And smaller bills would have been easy, but they wouldn't have been as good.
		I think it's going to do okay.
unidentified		And what the alligator alpha says, the idea that it's not going to be liberated that, hey, they just get eaten by an alligator or a snake.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		I guess that's the concept.
		This is not a nice business.
		I guess that's the concept.
		If you, you know, snakes are best, but alligators, we're going to teach them how to run away from an alligator, okay?
		If they escape prison, how to run away.
		Don't run in a straight line.
		Run like this.
		And you know what?
		Your chances go up about 1%.
		Okay.
		Not a good thing.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		The president, before leaving for Florida, this happened moments ago, as we wanted to show you as he comments on various states of the work in the Senate and otherwise.
		Back to our conversation here in our studio about the Supreme Court.
		Ed in Maine, Independent Line.
		You're on with our guests.
		Good morning.
		Go ahead.
unidentified		Yes.
		Thank goodness for C-SPAN.
		I'm going to try to get this out as quickly as I can.
		I wanted to talk about the birthright citizenship issue.
		And I hope that people realize the idea behind those three amendments.
		13 to eliminate, 14 to create a situation where you couldn't set up a second class of human again in this country.
		And the third was for them to be able to determine their future.
		If that birthright citizenship is overturned, you're going back to the founding, to the creation of the Constitution where the founding fathers lied about the Declaration and those four critical rights.
		And I'm wondering why we don't hear more about that.
		Thank you.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		That's Ed in Maine.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Mr. Malcolm, you want to start?
unidentified		Yeah, I don't know quite where Ed is forming this opinion.
		No one is imperiling the 13th, 14th, or the 15th Amendments on the issue of birthright citizenship.
		There's one clause within the 14th Amendment.
		It was clearly done in order to provide citizenships to black Americans who had been brought to these shores against their will and also, frankly, freed black men who were also deprived of various rights.
		The question becomes whether the birthright citizenship clause applies to people who are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
		And it's actually a very discreet question.
		It means, if you are here, do our laws apply to you?
		If the answer to that is yes, then if you are born on this soil, good enough.
		If it has an element, though, of allegiance, that you have to have and be subject to the jurisdiction thereof means you have to have at least a minimal allegiance to the United States, then you get a very different answer.
		So for instance, if you are the son of an ambassador and you are born, that son is born on these shores, that son is not a citizen because the father or mother who's an ambassador from another country has allegiance to another country.
		Same thing with Native American tribes.
		The birthright citizenship clause did not give automatic citizenship to Native Americans who were born in the soil.
		That was done by an act of Congress several years later.
		So it's really just a question of what does that phrase mean in that one discrete clause of the 14th Amendment.
		This is not about doing away with the 13th, 14th, or 15th Amendment.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Ms. Wydraw.
unidentified		Yes.
		So Ed, I thank you so much for that call.
		Just to briefly respond to what John said, you know, the Supreme Court has never, and the debates around the 14th Amendment never focused on that allegiance.
		It was the exceptions for children of diplomats relate to the fact that they are not subject to the jurisdiction.
		People have probably heard of the term diplomatic immunity.
		There's this kind of legal fiction that they're still on the land of their home country, so our rules don't apply to them.
		But an undocumented immigrant who, you know, gets caught speeding, gets a speeding ticket.
		A diplomat who gets caught speeding will get out of the speeding ticket.
		But anyway, back to the fundamental point that Ed raises, which I think is really, really important.
		I'm so glad you raised it.
		So many have thought of the amendments passed after the Civil War, particularly the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, as our nation's second founding, because we did, for the first time, truly write into our Constitution the principles of the Declaration of Independence, that all are created equal.
		And he's right.
		The 13th Amendment eliminated the institution of chattel slavery.
		And then the 14th Amendment was intended to answer the question of what does it mean to be free?
		And what can we put into the law that will prevent the return of the conditions of enslavement that will, put another way, ensure that equal citizenship for all is a reality.
		And one of the key parts of that was writing equal citizenship at birth through the birthright citizenship clause into the 14th Amendment.
		And that made sure that people's citizenship were, you know, this very sacred status is not something that is subject to the whims of politics, that wouldn't change from administration to administration.
		It was something that was written into the Constitution.
		It was that important.
		And it was something that people could rely on.
		And it was something that manifested the American ideal that everyone born here is equally American and that it doesn't matter whether your parents were rich or poor, whether they came over on the Mayflower, whether they were brought here on a slave ship, whether they came here as an immigrant to make a better life for themselves and their family.
		If we are born on American soil, we are all equally American at birth.
		That was the idea and the great genius of the 14th Amendment.
		And yes, it was in many ways a response to the horrors of slavery and the awful Dred Scott decision by the Supreme Court that said that children of black Americans were not citizens and that black Americans did not have rights of citizens that needed to be respected.
		It was a deep repudiation of that horrific decision.
		But in the debates around the 14th Amendment, it was also made very clear that they knew it would apply to the children of immigrants, even those children, as it was termed in the debates, whose parents committed trespass in the United States.
		So this question is very clear, and the Supreme Court has interpreted it that way for over 150 years.
		Very, very briefly.
		I don't think it's clear that the court will decide this.
		Elizabeth is right.
		It doesn't matter whether you're rich or poor, black, Asian, whatever.
		It may matter whether you have some allegiance to this country and whether you get those rights if you come here illegally and give birth on this on this soil.
		And we'll see what the Supreme Court says when they ultimately decide the issue.
		And they will.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		In Atlanta, Bill joins us.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Democrats line hi.
unidentified		Good morning, Pedro, and good morning, TIGS.
		I have a question on the birthright citizenship brewing as well.
		And I'm not going to be as eloquent as the guy from Maine, but let me try.
		Let's imagine that a Democratic president put into effect a EO that restricts gun rights ownership.
		I would bet the Supreme Court would step in immediately and suspend that executive order.
		So I'm wondering why they didn't do the same for birthright citizenship.
		And that's my question.
		Thank you.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Ms. Weiser, you want to start?
unidentified		Well, you know, I would point out that the injunction issue, whether or not courts can issue nationwide injunctions, is something that has applied to both Democratic and Republican administrations.
		I'm not familiar with John's entire body of work, so maybe he was decrying them when they were being used against the Biden and Obama administrations.
		But certainly the ability of courts to restrain what they perceive to be unlawful executive action has been used against both Democratic and Republican presidents.
		So, you know, this is going to obviously in the short term deeply benefit Donald Trump, who will be able to likely go forward with more of his blocked initiatives that were blocked by courts as unlawful as soon as they came to the courts.
		But it will also apply to presidents after Donald Trump who may be on the other side of the aisle.
		And so, you know, this is something that the court could have dealt with when, you know, the student debt relief under the Biden plan was blocked by a nationwide injunction, for example.
		And so, you know, I do think that it's important to recognize that whatever you think about the birthright citizenship order, you know, the fact that this could mean individual rights are more vulnerable, you know, meaning that you might have to wait years while a case works its way up the system before your rights are protected, unless you are able to go into court, hire a lawyer, file the filing fees,
		and get relief as an individual plaintiff, or join a class action, overcome the substantial hurdles that exist to certifying a class, which I would note the Supreme Court has made more difficult in recent years, then your rights are more vulnerable as a result of this decision.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Mr. Malcolm.
unidentified		Yeah, well, Elizabeth is correct that nationwide injunctions have applied in the past to presidents of both parties, just not nearly to the same degree.
		Since they started tracking these things in 1963, something like two-thirds or three-quarters of the nationwide injunctions were entered against the Trump administration.
		During President Trump's first term, there were 63 nationwide injunctions entered against him.
		So far, in five months into Trump's second term, there were 40 nationwide injunctions entered against him.
		There were 22 in the entirety of the four years of the Biden administration.
		But that will be the law of the land going forward.
		Now, to answer Bill's question, the reason Bill, well, first of all, the Supreme Court, as I said before, can step in and enter an injunction stating something that will apply to the nation.
		And the reason why the court didn't do so here with respect to birthright citizenship is because it's still more of an open question than with respect to the Second Amendment hypothetical that you posed.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Republican line from South Carolina.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		David, hello.
unidentified		Yes, sir.
unidentified		How are you doing, sir?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Your honor's our guest.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Go ahead.
unidentified		Okay, yes.
		I just wanted to, I'm sitting here watching it on vacation.
		And I wanted to ask the question, I think it's Elizabeth in federal judges, district judges doing the injunction.
		It's a reason why they are called federal district judges.
		I don't understand the argument.
		And the reason why they have so many of them, I think it's 700 plus.
		They are district judges.
		They shouldn't be doing nationwide injunctions.
		And I guess the second question I would have is with the birthright citizenship, it seems like if you really follow the logic now, I haven't, it's kind of new to me since it came up.
		But would you just grant the child the citizenship and leave the parents?
		Because the parents are not, you know, wasn't birth here.
		That's something to think through.
		I understand it's not a final decision.
		But how would you do that with parents who are not birthed here?
		Would you just grant the child and then you separate the family?
		I mean, what is the logic here?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay, in that, and since he addressed Ms. Wyder, Ms. Wyder, you go first.
unidentified		Yeah, so on the last point, it has been the rule of the United States since it was colonies.
		It has been the rule of England that, yes, if a child is born here, no matter the status of the child's parents, the child is a citizen is, of course, you know, a separate question, you know, for families with mixed status, how the law treats them.
		But certainly when it comes to the idea of birthright citizenship, we have, you know, the old terms are eus soli, which means law of the soil, versus eus sanguinis, which means law of the blood.
		The United States has not used the law of the blood as a determination of citizenship.
		It is much more egalitarian to say if you are born on U.S. soil, you are a citizen.
		And that is how it has always been.
		That was what was codified in the Constitution in the birthright citizenship clause.
		It was recognized by the Supreme Court in the Wong Kim Ark case.
		Even though Wong Kim Ark's parents were not U.S. citizens, they could arguably have had allegiance to China.
		They were Chinese citizens.
		That did not matter to the Supreme Court.
		What mattered was that the child was born here, and that is what gives them birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment and has been understood that way since the 14th Amendment and by the Supreme Court.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Mr. Malcolm.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Oh, so go ahead.
unidentified		Go ahead.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		We'll let her finish.
unidentified		Oh, thank you.
		So on the other point about district courts, we have a multi-tiered system of justice set up in the federal court system that ensures that people who have a claim to justice are able to get into court.
		For most of us, if we have a problem that requires federal court attention, our experience will be mostly with the trial courts, the district courts.
		Not many people have a personal case that makes it wave to the Supreme Court.
		So it's really important to have a fully staffed district court and federal judiciary.
		And so, you know, the idea that those courts shouldn't have equity power just goes against the way the entire system is set up.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Mr. Malcolm.
john kennedy ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
unidentified		So first of all, as I said, there are about 700 district court judges.
		So here in Washington, D.C., there are, I don't know, 15 or so.
		And any judgment by that district court isn't even binding on the other district court judges that reside within the district.
		But here you have single district court judges not only purporting to bind all of their peers within a particular district, they're purporting to bind every court, including appellate courts, across the entire nation.
		That is a radical view of what equity allows.
		And Justice Barrett said that there is no history of that, nor has Congress given that power to the courts.
		With respect to the other argument about birthright citizenship, with all due respect to Elizabeth, I don't think the issue is a settled issue.
		There have been examples, not many, but a few, in which children have been born on our soil.
		The State Department has denied them citizenship, and lower courts have upheld that.
		The Wong Kim Ark case, which she referenced, involved a Chinese child who was born on this country.
		His parents were denied citizenship because of an act of Congress called the Chinese Exclusion Act.
		They were lawful permanent residents.
		They had been in this country for decades.
		They were not illegal immigrants.
		They had lawful status here in the country.
		And the court basically, the Supreme Court basically said, these are lawful permanent residents.
		An act of Congress has prevented them from becoming citizens.
		That is unfair.
		He is a citizen.
		Whether you are talking about a child born to parents who have no lawful connection to this country, that is an open question, which the Supreme Court will determine.
		And that will be based on the language of what, subject to the jurisdiction thereof in the birthright citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment means.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		You just heard from John Malcolm of the Heritage Foundation, also joining us for this discussion.
		Elizabeth Wydra of the Constitutional Accountability Center.
		Wayne is in Georgia.
		Wayne, Independent Line.
		Go ahead, you're first up, or you're next up.
unidentified		Sorry.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Wayne in Georgia.
		Hello.
		One more time for Wayne.
		Let's go to Christine.
		Christine in Michigan.
		Hello.
unidentified		Hi, this is Christine.
		I just was thinking, and on my calendar this morning, I saw that people that are Christians are actually citizens of heaven.
		And the only way that he can, that our president could deport us, well, he couldn't.
		Because we are citizens of heaven.
		We're ambassadors here on earth.
		And we are here on earth until the Lord takes us.
		But we are ambassadors.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Gotcha, Christine.
		Gotcha, Christine, from Michigan.
		Thank you very much.
		The birthright citizenship was one thing because it dealt with the lower courts.
		But I think one of the things I also read, and I'll answer this to both of you, what happens to class action lawsuits because of this?
		And how are they impacted?
		Mr. Malcolm, you go first.
unidentified		Yeah, well, Elizabeth pointed out that this isn't the end of the issue, and she was correct about that.
		So there's Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 that talks about judges certifying class actions, and one can certify a nationwide class action.
		And if you certify a nationwide class action and you grant complete relief to that class, that could have the same effect as a nationwide injunction.
		However, there are standards that you have to meet in order to certify a nationwide class action, and the mere certification of that class action is immediately appealable.
		There are going to be other issues about the scope of relief, for instance, and challenges under the Administrative Procedure Act and whether vacator, which is a judge decides that a law must be vacated, what the effect of that is.
		So those are the next cases that are going to be coming down the pike.
		And Elizabeth and I will come back on the show and we'll debate those two.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Ms. Wydra, go ahead, give your thoughts on the future of class actions.
unidentified		Yes, you know, it's class actions are an important tool to ensure that, you know, we've seen them a lot with respect to holding corporations accountable for wrongdoing.
		Often occurs, you know, maybe five cents at a time for each individual.
		But when you put us all together, you know, that's a big amount.
		There have been cases coming to the Supreme Court for decades about that that have recognized that the class action is an important tool to make sure that corporations can't engage in wrongdoing a bit at a time and get away with it.
		Here, obviously, the class action will be seeking to vindicate individual fundamental rights for all across this country and vindicate the idea that one's rights shouldn't depend on the zip code in which we live or the state lines between which we live, that all of us have the same rights wherever we live.
		And so, hopefully, the remedy that could come from such a class action with respect to citizenship would be to ensure that equal citizenship at birth is consistent throughout the country.
		As John mentioned, there are procedural hurdles.
		You know, first, even getting a class certified has become more difficult because of rulings by the Roberts Court.
		And there are immediate, you can have an interlocutory or immediate appeal of the class.
		And so that can, you know, make take time.
		But I do think it remains an important way for people to vindicate their rights.
		And that remains an open avenue to nationwide relief for lawless orders like this one.
		You know, again, as I mentioned earlier, there is still with respect to this particular birthright citizenship issue, there remains the possibility that when the case is heard again by the district court, it's called being remanded to the district court after this decision.
		There is a possibility that the state arguments about their needs for complete relief could also result in a regional or even nationwide injunction again.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		From Kennesaw, Georgia, Independent Line, we'll hear from Queen.
unidentified		Hello.
		Yes, hello.
		My question is first about immigration and stuff, right?
		And for the life of me, I try to understand how they figure that this land is their land.
		When I say this here, look at all the people who came in from Ellis Island.
		They too were illegal immigrants.
		You got people that came from all across this world here who are illegal immigrants.
		And what bothers me when I come across racism, when it comes to white people, they always telling somebody to go back to their country when this country was never theirs.
		This country was never theirs.
		There were Indians and blacks on this land.
		This land was stolen.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		So when it comes to the Supreme Court and its decisions, what question do you want to address to our guest in light of that?
unidentified		Okay.
		DEI to 2025 plan that Trump said that he had nothing to do with.
		We see this all playing right now and all the people who voted for him now are the ones out there in the streets picketing.
		They're picketing.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay queen, let me extend that a little bit.
		The court actions, particularly towards Trump administration actions aside from birthright citizenship.
		What did you see play out this term, Elizabeth Wyder?
		Any significant highlights there?
unidentified		Yeah, you know, I think we've seen most of the action with respect to kind of the more immediate Trump actions take place on what's known as the shadow docket, which is kind of this emergency docket where cases, you know, the normal way is that cases work their way up through the trial courts, through the courts of appeals, then through the surshierara process where the court decides whether to grant surshierara, which means grant review, or not.
		And then there's briefing and oral argument and an eventual decision after much back and forth and redrafting, et cetera.
		On the shadow docket, things are moving much more quickly.
		And so we've seen decisions with respect to the treatment of immigrants and whether or not Trump can deport them to third party countries that these particular folks have no connection with, like South Sudan.
		In that respect, for that particular example, the court said the Trump administration could continue to do that for now.
		In other cases, the court has ruled that with respect to the Alien Enemies Act or the due process that is required in order to remove someone from this country, that there must be some availability of due process.
		So the Trump administration has had some wins and some losses on that shadow docket that we've seen so far.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Mr. Malcolm.
unidentified		Yeah, I agree with a lot of what Elizabeth just said.
		I would say that he's had a lot of wins and a few losses.
		She's correct that actually one of the more interesting things about this term was what was happening on the emergency docket.
		As judges were entering all of these nationwide injunctions, these things worked their way up to the Supreme Court very, very quickly.
		The president lost some, so people who are contesting their deportation are going to be given some due process rights.
		But on a whole host of other issues, terminating executive branch officials from key policy positions, giving access to data to the Department of Government efficiency, whether or not illegal immigrants can be deported to countries other than the country from whence they came.
		A whole slew of issues across the board, cutting DEI programs.
		The lower courts entered orders against the administration.
		They worked their way up to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court has said not so fast and has stayed those injunctions.
		And those issues will now work their way up to the Supreme Court in the next term or two.
		But he's had quite a bit of success, at least for now, on that emergency docket.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		I want to ask you about a couple other things besides birthright citizenship for both of you.
		One of the rulings that took place at the Supreme Court dealt with Planned Parenthood, Medicaid funding.
		That was on a state level.
		It also held a state ban on transgender minors using puberty blockers.
		These are just state issues, but can extend out further from that and how other states have to treat these issues.
		Can the court's ruling on these serve as precedent for other related cases?
unidentified		Yes, it can.
		It doesn't have to.
		So in the Planned Parenthood case, one of the conditions of the Medicaid Act is that people who, the states that accept Medicaid funds, have to make services available to people who are qualified providers.
		Government McMaster, Henry McMaster in South Carolina, said that Planned Parenthood is not going to be deemed a qualified provider because they provide abortion services and the non-abortion services that they provide are readily available by other service providers in the state.
		And what the Supreme Court said in a 6-3 decision is that the Medicaid Act allows Congress to take action if those conditions are not met.
		Congress could decide if it wants to cut off the funding to South Carolina, but the Medicaid Act does not provide a private right of action for individuals or for an organization like Planned Parenthood to go into court and to say, you know, I want the right to do this.
		Other states can certainly mimic what South Carolina has done, and I expect some pro-life states will.
		The same thing with the Tennessee ban.
		There are some roughly two dozen states that have similar age restrictions and medical restrictions on providing transgender treatments to minors, and those will now go into effect.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Ms. Wydra, same question.
unidentified		Yeah, I think particularly with respect to the rights of transgender individuals and kids and students, you know, this issue is only going to become more pressing at the Supreme Court's door.
		They have other appeals related to sports, for example.
		And, you know, it's something that we at the Constitutional Accountability Center urged the court to resolve on issues of equality under the Equal Protection Clause, as well as the 19th Amendment's guarantee of equal citizenship regardless of gender.
		And it was very disappointing that the ruling in the Skirmetti case that's related to gender-affirming care for transgender individuals out of Tennessee went the way it did because I do think it will cause some copycat laws in other states where children and their families and their doctors are not going to be the ones who make these particular decisions.
		And instead, the availability of certain medications are going to be available based on whether you're what your gender is and not based on whether or not it's the right care for you.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Both of our guests are joining us this discussion on the Supreme Court's term Lee in Illinois.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Independent line, hi there.
unidentified		Hi.
		My question is: we have a governor here in Illinois, Governor Pritzer, that refuses to obey the Bruin decision of the Supreme Court.
		What happens when a state or a governor refuses to obey the order of the court?
		That's my question for your guest.
		Well, I don't know whether I don't know the particulars.
		I'm assuming what has happened.
		I mean, Bruin just said that when you evaluate a law that constrains Second Amendment rights, you have to see whether or not there's a history and a tradition behind that law.
		I don't know the precise law that Governor Pritzker and the Illinois legislature has to put into place.
		I'm assuming there will be a challenge by gun rights groups asserting a violation of the Second Amendment and it will work its way up the courts the way most cases do.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Ms. Wydra.
unidentified		Yes, I'm not familiar with the particulars there, but certainly there are gun regulations that are permissible under the Constitution.
		The court has also struck down others.
		So that is the analysis that the court will undertake.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Let's go to Andrew.
		Andrew's in Florida, Republican line.
		Hi, Andrew.
		Go ahead.
unidentified		Yes.
		Hello.
		Thanks for C-SPAN.
		Real quick on birthright citizenship.
		I imagine during the legal process to become a citizen, at some point you have to voluntarily subject yourself to the jurisdiction of the United States.
		Obviously, a newborn baby doesn't have that option.
		So the United States government is making that decision for the child.
		There must be some way if the parents don't want that.
		I mean, the United States is assuming that the child wants to be a U.S. citizen.
		That may not be the case.
		It most likely is.
		But what if there must be a way out of that?
		A hypothetical would be if perhaps during the COVID shutdowns of international travel, if I was trapped in China with my wife and she had a child there and the Chinese government automatically made the child a citizen of China.
		I wouldn't want them making that decision for me.
		Just a hypothetical.
		Okay.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Andrew, Ms. White, do you want to take anything from that?
unidentified		You know, certainly when someone is on U.S. soil, they are subject to the jurisdiction unless, you know, as we talked about, they have diplomatic immunity.
		You know, and so when you are on U.S. soil and subject to our jurisdiction, and, you know, again, like if you, you know, get in a fight on a sidewalk, even if you're a tourist or, you know, you've lived here your whole life, you're subject to the jurisdiction.
		You could get arrested.
		Subject to the jurisdiction and being born on U.S. soil is enough to confer citizenship.
		If the child grows up and decides that they do not want to be a U.S. citizen, they certainly can change their citizenship.
		You know, there are ways of doing that.
		But as a general international law matter, we try to avoid situations of statelessness.
		And that's why there are often rules that apply at birth.
		And we don't just sort of like let kids be citizenless and decide for themselves when they're 18 or something.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Mr. Malcolm.
unidentified		Yeah.
		So if you are on our soil, unless you have diplomatic immunity, you are certainly subject to our laws.
		Whether you are subject to our jurisdiction within the meaning of the 14th Amendment's birthright citizenship clause, that is the issue that will be litigated.
		There are other countries that have what Elizabeth referred to as use solely, meaning if you are born on our soil, you are automatically a citizen.
		The vast majority of countries do not have use solely.
		And she is correct that one can always renounce one's citizenship, but what the procedure is to do that, I don't know.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		I want to ask you both one more question about birthright decision.
		But the legal going-ons between two justices, it was Justice Amy Coney Barrett and Justice Jackson.
		Justice Jackson writing a dissent, Amy Coney Barrett writing as part of her opinion of the majority, she just wrote, amongst other things, we will not dwell on Justice Jackson's argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries' worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself.
		We observe only this.
		Justice Jackson decries an imperial executive while embracing an imperial judiciary.
		A lot of story about the back and forth between the two.
		What was the takeaway for you, Mr. Malcolm?
		And I'll ask you to say, Ms. Wydraw.
unidentified		Sure.
		Well, it wasn't about, she wasn't commenting on Justice Jackson's position on birthright citizenship.
		She was commenting on Justice Jackson's position that district court judges should be empowered to enter nationwide injunctions and sitting there and saying, you know, you, Justice Jackson, are saying that this president is potentially lawless or you believe that he is lawless.
		Judges can't be lawless too.
		If you are going to exercise some kind of equitable authority, you either have to point to where this was, you know, part of our common law tradition or where Congress has given courts that power.
		Justice Sotomayor, in an opinion joined by Justice Jackson dissent, says, well, this birthright citizenship issue is just crystal clear and that equity is incredibly flexible.
		The very arguments that Elizabeth was making, the majority didn't see it that way.
		The majority may end up deciding that Elizabeth's view on birthright citizenship is correct, but that issue was not before the court today.
		And they clearly thought that that argument was wrong and said equity can be flexible, but not that flexible.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Ms. Weifer, your thought on the back and forth between the two justices.
unidentified		Yes, you know, heated words from the justices and their opinions is nothing new, particularly, you know, in this Justice Scalia years, we often saw very pointed back and forth between the justices.
		So I don't think that that's anything new.
		But I would point to the, to use their own words, the disillusionment that the justices might feel with respect to their colleagues' commitment to ensuring the rule of law is respected.
		Justice Katanji Brown Jackson said with deep disillusionment, I dissent.
		And the kind of tone of alarm that we're seeing in some of these dissents about the existential threats to our constitutional democracy and the need for the court to play its role that is set forth in the Constitution to be the bulwark of liberty, to apply the rule of law no matter who is before it, and to ensure that the guardrails of democracy hold firm.
		So that I do think is something that I haven't noticed to the same degree before.
		And I think it's a feeling that many across the United States share.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		I've seen some stories relate this back and forth as personal.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Do you think it's that or is it more intellectual combat, Ms. Wydra?
unidentified		I think it's intellectual.
		You know, certainly the justices are, you know, I think Justice Barrett and Justice Brown Jackson have very strongly held views about the law.
		I don't think it's personal.
		I think it's intellectual and, you know, ideological to a certain extent.
		But, you know, this happens on the court.
		And in oral argument, they certainly do seem to respect each other.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Mr. Malcolm.
unidentified		Yeah, very briefly, you know, I thought that Justice Jackson's dissent was somewhat hyperbolic.
		I don't think there's an existential threat to the rule of law.
		I would note that neither Justices Sotomayor nor Kagan joined that opinion.
		Harsh rhetoric, particularly at the end of term when the court tends to release its more quote-unquote hot button issues, is a reality.
		Justice Scalia certainly did it at one time or another.
		Various justices have done that.
		But let's be clear, these are nine people.
		They're life tenured.
		They got to spend a lot of time with each other, term in and term out.
		And the very person you're attacking in an opinion today may be the person you need for a fifth vote tomorrow.
		So they will find a way to get over this rhetoric, certainly by the first Monday in October when the next term starts.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Anthony and Maryland Democrats line.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Good morning.
unidentified		Good morning to you, Pedro, and thank you very much for having this conversation on C-SPAN.
		In the opinion, down here on the streets where we are not lawyers, we look at the court now as not supreme, but conservative sympathizers.
		It is completely polarized.
		You only have three justices in dissent continuously and a complete majority.
		It's just okay, Mr. President, do as you please.
		And that's how we really view it down there.
		We don't have any great intellectual conversation.
		My question, if I understand correctly what occurred, is that the Supreme Court, as we knew it, has decided procedurally that the district courts cannot act unilaterally to block any of the administration's actions that come before it.
		What I had learned in the past as just a high school student is that you can't even have a public decision unless you have a district court decision.
		I'm suspecting, and this is my question: will the administration start shopping for more synthesized district courts, or would the district courts completely shut themselves down?
		Mr. Malcolm.
		Yeah, first of all, I realize that that's the perception on the street because the media tends to hype the six to three decisions because they are the ones that are quote-unquote more hot button issues.
		But I would continue to point out that, again, 40% of the Supreme Court's decisions this term were unanimous, including in some very sensitive cases involving gun rights, involving TikTok, involving religious liberty.
		So the perception on the street is not entirely accurate.
		What happens now is that district court judges can block the administration, but they can only block them as to the parties who are before them, unless they first certify a nationwide class action.
		And then those issues will percolate among the district courts and they will work their way up to the various courts of appeals where they will percolate some more and ultimately they will make their way to the Supreme Court in an orderly fashion, sometimes in an expedited fashion, but in an orderly fashion.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Scotus Blogg tells us there's a 42% unanimity rate, a 9% split ideologically when it comes to this term, 95% with John Roberts in the majority of the Chief Justice, and Justice Jackson was in the majority of 72% of opinions.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Ms. Wyder, go ahead.
unidentified		Yeah, so as we've discussed, you know, this is generally the case every year where there are a lot of cases that are unanimous or are not across ideological lines.
		But nonetheless, I think we have to give the caller credit because the cases that most Americans are paying attention to that deeply affect our lives, whether it's cases involving marriage equality, abortion rights, the ability to be considered an equal citizen, these are the cases that we pay attention to,
		even with all the crush of responsibilities through the rest of our lives.
		And those are often the cases that do break down along ideological lines, and they really matter to us.
		So I think it is not an misperception that people view the court to be ideologically divided because those are the cases that really touch the core of our lives in many cases.
		And so when you have cases, I think of the Trump immunity decision from last term, which gave presidential immunity from criminal prosecution this broad swath of insulation from accountability.
		And in one of the Trump cases that came up to the court, people view that as the court kind of letting what they perceive to be an ideological ally, these conservative justices, a Republican president, being able to get away with lawlessness.
		And I think that perception is very troubling to a lot of people.
		And that's why you've seen, you know, the court historically has pulled really well in terms of its legitimacy, especially with respect to the other branches of government.
		But that has just plummeted in recent years.
		And I think this is partly why.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Elizabeth Wydra, the president of the Constitutional Accountability Center.
		You can find their work at theusconstitution.org.
		John Malcolm with the Heritage Foundation.
		He's the vice president of the Institute for Constitutional Government, Heritage.org, the website if you want to check their work out on this issue, on these issues.
		And to both of you, thanks for giving us your time.
unidentified		Thanks for having us.
unidentified		Thank you so much.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Coming up, we will talk about the future of federal funding for arts programs across the United States in light of the Trump administration.
		conversation with Aaron Harkey, the CEO of the advocacy group Americans for the Arts.
		That's coming up in Washington Journal Continues.
unidentified		As Mike said before, I happened to listen to him.
		He was on C-SPAN 1.
		That's a big upgrade, right?
		But I've read about it in the history books.
		I've seen the C-SPAN footage.
		If it's a really good idea, present it in public view on C-SPAN.
rachel maddow ▲ ● ▼		Every single time I tuned in on TikTok or C-SPAN or YouTube or anything, there were tens, if not hundreds of thousands of people watching.
unidentified		I went home after the speech and I turned on C-SPAN.
unidentified		I was on C-SPAN just this week.
patty murray ▲ ● ▼		To the American people, now is the time to tune in to C-SPAN.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		They had something $2.50 a gallon.
unidentified		I saw television a little while ago in between my watching my great friends on C-SPAN.
unidentified		C-SPAN is televising this right now live.
patty murray ▲ ● ▼		So we are not just speaking to Los Angeles.
unidentified		We are speaking to the country.
		There are many ways to listen to C-SPAN radio anytime, anywhere.
		In the Washington, D.C. area, listen on 90.1 FM.
		Use our free C-SPAN Now app or go online to c-SPAN.org slash radio on SiriusXM radio on channel 455, the TuneIn app, and on your smart speaker by simply saying play C-SPAN radio.
		Hear our live call-in program, Washington Journal, daily at 7 a.m. Eastern.
		Listen to House and Senate proceedings, committee hearings, news conferences, and other public affairs events live throughout the day.
		And for the best way to hear what's happening in Washington with fast-paced reports, live interviews, and analysis of the day, catch Washington today, weekdays at 5 p.m. and 9 p.m. Eastern.
		Listen to C-SPAN programs on C-SPAN radio anytime, anywhere.
		C-SPAN, Democracy Unfiltered.
		Washington Journal continues.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		The future of federal funding for arts programs by the United States and that conversation with Erin Harkey of Americans for the Arts.
		She serves as their CEO.
		Thanks for giving us your time.
unidentified		Thanks for having me.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		A little bit about the organization.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		What's it all about?
unidentified		Well, Americans for the Arts is the nation's leading arts advocacy organization.
		We're the only advocacy organization that is non-discipline specific and throughout the entire country.
		And we do that in a couple of different ways in terms of research, providing research to the field.
		We also do programs helping to build the sort of nation's capacity to support the arts.
		And we also liaise with the sort of federal government to make sure that there's support for the arts there, working with state and sort of local partners to just really expand access for every American.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		I suppose a question that gets asked to you a lot is why should the federal government be involved in arts programs funding to begin with?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		How would you answer that?
unidentified		Well, public funding isn't particularly important to the arts ecosystem.
		It has a sort of unique ability to get into places of the country that other funding cannot.
		For example, the National Endowment for the Arts, which funds the Arts in America, did a really interesting study in which they surveyed the top 1,000 arts foundations in the country and found out that they were in like over 700 more counties than those private foundations.
		So again, sort of public funding is sort of designed in this unique and special way to kind of get to those areas of the country that are hard to reach.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		A little more about the National Endowment of the Arts.
		Exactly.
		What is it and what's its role?
		How does it work?
unidentified		Well, the National Endowment for the Arts provides a lot of support to the arts, basically, sort of through direct grants to arts organizations.
		They also provide funding to regional arts organizations and also state-level arts organizations that sort of then gets multiplied, right, as you sort of go down the chain to the local level.
		They also provide like invaluable sort of infrastructure support, so research and data about arts impact.
		They also support military programs, programs for our veterans and their families, lots of other sort of infrastructure and research and development programs that help to support the nation's ecosystem as a whole.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Founded by Congress in 1965, awarding a total of about $5.5 billion in grants.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		It's the largest arts funder in the United States in their 2025 budget, $207 million.
unidentified		That's correct, and the largest funder of the arts in rural America as well.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		What's the perspective of the Trump administration as you see it about the NEA, specifically arts funding overall?
unidentified		Well, you know, since the beginning of this administration, the arts have not been immune, I think, to sort of the blunt changes in the federal sort of government infrastructure.
		So, you know, we're seeing both through the National Endowment for the Arts, but also the National Endowment for the Humanities and the Institute of Museum and Library Services, which is IMLS, significant cuts to their funding, significant staff layoffs, and communities around the country that were counting on grants have now had those grants canceled, which is having obviously a really sort of devastating effect on the cultural ecosystem.
		To go further, the president's proposed budget for 2026 zeroes those agencies out altogether.
		So we have our work cut out for us to sort of restore funding to those agencies and ultimately to restore funding to our local communities.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		If you want to ask questions about arts funding by the United States, the federal government, and the future there: 202748-8000 for Democrats, 202748-8001 for Republicans, and 202748-8002 for independents.
		If you want to text us your thoughts or questions, 202748-8003 is how you can do it.
		I'll follow up.
		What do you think is the justification by the Trump administration to make those cuts, not only to NEA, but to pull back on those grants as well?
unidentified		Well, I think it goes just sort of in line with their sort of idea that, you know, reducing unnecessary spending, right?
		But I think that we have all of the data that supports why these kinds of investments are important.
		We know that investments in arts education improve student outcomes.
		We know that investments in arts in our communities improve sort of economic vitality.
		The arts in this country are a $1.2 trillion industry.
		That's 5.6 million jobs.
		It contributes over 4% to the nation's GDP.
		That's more than agriculture.
		That's more than transportation, right?
		So when you think about the scale of this system, it definitely needs sort of federal support and sustained public investment to make sure that it's strong.
		And when it's not strong, right, we need to recognize that there are sort of human, economic, and sort of social consequences to that.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		So if grants are pulled, typically, how does a state or locality, where does the makeup come from as far as that money is concerned?
unidentified		Well, interestingly enough, both the NEA and the NEH, both in their charter, immediately give 40% of what's given to them from the federal government to the states.
		And they are required through what we call a one-on-one match, right?
		So that funding, as I said, gets multiplied as we sort of go down.
		A lot of the grants that are also given to arts organizations also require a one-on-one match, which also sort of incentivizes giving from other areas, private philanthropy, matching support from areas outside of public government.
		So as you can see, the sort of federal support really underpins the entire funding infrastructure for the arts in this country.
		And when you remove that element, then you start to see some real sort of instability.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Your background in arts education and arts issues goes back to the city of Chicago, it goes back to Los Angeles.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		What did you learn from your time there, and particularly what faces the future now for those who are going to see money dry up or at least not be put into arts programs on the state and local level?
unidentified		Well, yeah, I'm a native Angelino.
		So I started my career working for arts nonprofits and then transitioned into the government sector.
		I've been working at local arts agencies for the majority of my career.
		I worked in Long Beach.
		I worked for LA County and I transitioned over to the city of Chicago about nine years ago and then became commissioner.
		So I ran culture at Chicago, the third largest city in the country.
		So I have a lot of background in terms of seeing on the ground how the arts support communities.
		And at times like this, when the federal government support is unstable, right, at best, it becomes even more important to pull those other public funding levers, whether they be at the states or the local government.
		Local government is probably the most efficient way that we can get resources in the hands of artists and communities to do this kind of work.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		And how willing are those localities and states to step up to make up the difference?
unidentified		Well, we're not giving up, right?
		I think we're mounting an active campaign to see that Congress sort of restores funding for these agencies.
		But we're also working really closely with local arts agencies to just think about how to stabilize and grow that infrastructure.
		Local arts agency support is a big part of the work that AFTA does.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		This is Chris.
		Chris is in New Mexico.
		Democrats line for our guest, Erin Harkey, of Americans for the Arts.
		You're on with our guests.
unidentified		Go ahead.
		Good morning.
		I happen to be the founder of an arts organization in rural New Mexico.
		And the town that we operate in was largely devoid of fine arts display and education.
		And the federal money that we have received amounts to only maybe about $5,000 a year.
		But that generates about $65,000 in volunteer labor.
		So that's one of the wisest ways to spend money is through organizations which use volunteer labor like arts organizations.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Chris in New Mexico, thanks.
unidentified		Well, I think that's a really great on-the-ground example of what we're talking about and about how the arts public investment gets leveraged in local communities.
		The arts punch well above their weight.
		So for every dollar of public investment, we know that there's about a $9 return on that investment.
		So as I said, public investment gets leveraged and really is worth a lot more than the initial investment when we think about return in local communities.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		There is the Cato Institute this year took a look at arts funding and libertarian organization.
		But this is what they have to say about this, saying art can survive and thrive without public funding.
		He starts by saying the U.S. Arts and Cultural Center has contributed $1.1 trillion to the economy in real value added in 2022, accounting for 4.3% of GDP.
		Private philanthropy alone injected over $23.5 billion into the sector in 2023, with individuals, corporations, and foundations funding everything from local theater productions to world-class museums.
		This shows strong demand for the arts and that great art flourishes without being dependent on federal financing.
		What do you think of that assessment?
unidentified		Well, private foundation funding is absolutely essential, but it is just one piece.
		And I'm going to go back to this statistic that I gave you before.
		It is not designed to get into really hard areas of the ecosystem.
		And so if we look at sort of geographic distribution and private funding for the arts, we start to see some real gaps.
		And that's where public funding comes in, right?
		So we need the entire sort of mix of funding to really make sure that what we're all trying to do is just achieve that every American has access.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		And so when a situation happens, when a grant is pulled, how much ability does a state or locality have to reach out directly to a private foundation in order to maybe ask for funds to make up the difference?
unidentified		Not, I mean, in some, you know, in some parts of the country, the funding for private foundations is readily available.
		In some parts of the country, that kind of support is not there.
		Foundations have all kinds of different sort of geographic or discipline-specific mandates, but the sort of public funding is the most flexible because it doesn't have those sorts of sort of attachments.
		So in some cases, yes, right?
		You know, public state or local governments or private foundations might be able to fill some gaps temporarily, but it does not sort of provide a long-term solution to a loss of public funds.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		As an advocacy group, then what has been your mission?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		What have you been asking Congress or maybe the White House itself about the pullback of these funds and what's been the response so far?
unidentified		Well, you know, I'm optimistic.
		So the last sort of Trump administration also attempted to zero out the NEH and the NEA.
		And it was a bipartisan coalition of folks that actually restored the funding and actually increased the funding at that point in time.
		This is something that we all deeply, deeply care about.
		So we're working really diligently with other advocacy partners, communicating directly to our elected officials about the importance of the arts and speaking to them about how these cuts impact their constituents.
		And I think we're seeing some really positive momentum and I think we're hopeful that the funding will be restored in this sort of appropriations process.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		The president has called in his broad look in the arts, particularly when it comes to the Kennedy Center, he says he wants to usher in something he calls a golden age of the arts.
		What do you think of that idea coming from this administration?
		We'll talk about the Kennedy Center in a second, but what do you think about that idea?
unidentified		Well, I'm not sure what that means.
unidentified		I mean, in the details, I look forward to seeing what he means by that statement.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		And what do you think about the interest in the Kennedy Center overall, the changing of the board, him being the chair of it?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		What do you think about his entrance there?
unidentified		Well, I think the president's interest in the arts is ultimately a good thing.
		I think the Kennedy Center, you know, interestingly enough, I think they're seeing some challenges, I think, with the loss of subscribership, just because if people do not feel welcome at an institution, they will not come.
		And I think that the programming is one of the ways that you signal to audiences that they're welcome and those audiences get translated into your ticket buyers, into your donors for an institution, right?
		And without that sort of programming that communicates to a broad audience, especially in an institution like the Kennedy Center, which is very large and needs a large base of support, without that programming, you lose that base of support, which will have impact to the bottom line.
		So I'm interested in seeing how this evolves.
		It's sort of still early days, but I'm hoping that this will continue to be a place that all Americans feel welcome.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		And just to clarify, the NEA still exists, and is it just grants being pulled back by their effort alone, or is this an administration directive to pull back grants?
unidentified		I believe that it's an administrative directive.
		The NEA still exists.
		They still are giving out grants at this moment.
		They have rescinded some of the grants that they initially sort of promised to communities, but they are still in the process of giving out funding.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		This is Aaron Harkey joining us for this conversation, Americans for the Arts.
		We'll hear from Janice in Virginia, Democrats line.
		You're on with our guest.
		Hello.
unidentified		Hi, and good morning.
		First of all, thank you, Ms. Hawkey, for what you're doing.
		I truly appreciate it.
		My comment is: I think when they underfund or defund these arts programs, it's not keeping these kids from off the streets.
		It seems like they want to complain when the kids are out on the streets, have nothing to do, crime's going up.
		But when you have these arts programs, it gives them something to do.
		It has a place where they can be, where they are safe.
		And I would hate to think that they are purposely underfunding and defunding these programs to kind of cause chaos in communities.
		But hopefully we can think of other ways, crowdsource funding, other funding, to try and keep these programs together because I think our communities really, really need them.
		And once again, thank you for all your work.
		And I'm in your corner.
		We'll support you any way I can.
		Thank you.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Janice in Virginia, thank you.
unidentified		Well, you know, I have a, you know, I started my career working in local communities doing public art.
		That's how I sort of cut my teeth in government.
		And I will tell you the question that I got from community more often than not, you know, was what, how do my kids get involved, right?
		I think the arts have a very, very important and powerful role to play, not only in school, but out of school, you know, giving kids and young folks sort of resources to continue to develop in the right direction.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Willard is in Richmond, Virginia.
		Independent line for our guests.
		Go ahead.
unidentified		Yes.
		Very simply, I've always felt that art is very much like a television.
		You have black and white, a black and white television.
		You see what's going on in life and this, that, and the other, and you see certain fundamentals, but put color to it, and that gives it real life.
		That gives people happiness.
		And I think that we, unfortunately, we have people in politics today.
		Well, for one thing, I mean, we've got a president who has a condo that looks like a bordello.
		But anyway, they don't have an appreciation because they're looking for the fundamentals of life, which is like a black and white television, but real life has color in it.
		And I think they're missing the point when they don't emphasize art.
		I think in many cases they use art as a prop, but they don't realize the value of art.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		That's Willard there in Virginia.
unidentified		Yeah.
		Well, it's always a real sort of advocacy challenge for us that are in the advocacy space to figure out the argument that's going to resonate with folks.
		I think people tend to think a lot about this sort of transactional relationship with art, right?
		So I went to a concert, I went to a theater, I saw a play, I went to a museum, I saw an exhibit, right?
		But it's also more sort of intrinsic than that.
		Like it happens in the interstitial spaces.
		For example, I woke up this morning, I opened up a workout app, I scrolled through genres of music, you know, trying to pick, you know, something that was going to be resonating and get my day started right.
		So that is also an interaction with art.
		We have thought a lot about sort of advocacy campaigns that might illustrate for Americans what a day without art would look like.
		But it always becomes really hard because like where would you start and where would it end?
		It really is everywhere and everything.
		It's so incredibly important just to how we interact, communicate, and exist as human beings.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		I think it was back in the 80s that there was a big contention over federal arts funding because of the Mapple photos and things like that, content that people deemed offensive.
		How would you justify that?
		Or at least what do you think has to be considered if we're going to federally fund art as far as the content that's being produced and if it people support it or it offends people's sensibilities, where do you fall on that?
unidentified		Well, I think anybody can look at a list of grants and sort of cherry pick certain ones to fit the sort of particular narrative that they're trying to articulate about sort of arts funding and where it's going.
		But if you're talking about that, you're also not talking about the lots of funding that goes to, again, support veterans programs, healing programs, programs for young people, after school programs for young people.
		There's a whole sort of diverse range of programs that are funded by the National Endowment for the Arts and other sort of federal agencies.
		This is a big, diverse country, right?
		And the grants that the federal government supports should reflect that diversity as well.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		How well do you think legislators understand that or aware specifically about what the government does when it comes to the arts funding space?
unidentified		I think they are really aware.
		I think legislators are really deeply connected to, I think, what's happening in their districts.
		And I think that's part of our strategy right now is just sort of to make sure that we're connecting legislators to the folks that are involved and care about culture in their communities.
		I think everybody is touched by this.
		We had a really great public opinion statistic that articulated that nearly 80% of Americans believe that the arts are personally important to them.
		That's in a country of this size.
		That might as well be everybody.
		If you had asked the question slightly different, you probably would have gotten an even higher response.
		So I think that people know.
		I mean, I think that people know that the arts are important.
		I think that people know that the arts or legislators know that the arts are important to their constituents, and I think they'll show up for it.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		You hinted at this, but elaborate, if you would, about the he, this is a viewer who characterizes billions of dollars does federal, state, and local governments spend on arts each year.
unidentified		That's a really good statistic.
		I don't know that I have the actual sort of figure, but it is definitely in the billions.
		And I think, again, as you sort of look at probably close to nearly billion dollars of federal spending, if you combine all the federal agencies plus all of the sort of ancillary programs that happen in other parts of the ecosystem, we're definitely looking at billions and billions of dollars in support.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay, Erin Herke, this is more philosophical than any else, but this is a viewer who says, can you give your definition of art?
unidentified		Art is a lot of things.
		I don't think I have an all comprehensive definition.
		Art is everything.
		Art is everywhere.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		But he goes on to say, or this viewer goes on to say, Art can and is office contentious causing the problems that art is supposed to reduce and wanted your comments to that end as well.
unidentified		Can you repeat that?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		That art can and is often contentious, causing the problems that art is supposed to reduce.
unidentified		I don't know that that is true.
		I believe that art is a powerful motivator to spark conversation and to bring people together.
		And I think that it can be utilized in really, really effective ways.
		Again, to just sort of start that conversation and to help people see solutions to sort of old problems, to new problems, and productive and interesting ways.
		Like I said, I've worked primarily in my career in local government.
		And whenever we had a hard challenge, we always invited artists to the conversation to see if they could help us interrogate, help us look at things differently, and come up with new solutions.
		So I believe that creativity is important, important to sparking innovation and conversation.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		What's the game plan of your organization going forward to preserve what arts funding is available?
unidentified		Well, right now we're working really diligently, as I said, with other local advocates.
		We're mobilizing local arts agencies and communities to connect with their elected officials to communicate the power and the importance of the arts.
		And, you know, once we get through this sort of tricky budget cycle, we'll be looking forward to working with these federal agencies to talk about what the future of federal arts funding is.
		I mean, I think we can't underestimate, even with restored funding, I think the work that's going to be needed ahead.
		You know, there's been significant loss in staff, significant loss in institutional memory.
		So we do have an opportunity, even in this moment, which feels like a little bit of a crisis moment.
		But we can't let this sort of good crisis go to waste.
		And we need to be sort of working diligently about how we build a system that works for everybody.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Erin Harkey is the CEO of Americans for the Arts.
		You can find their work at the website AmericansForthearts.org.
		Erin Harkey, thanks for coming.
unidentified		Thank you for having me.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		We're going to go into open forum.
		And if you want to comment on things, politics, 202-748-8000 for Democrats, 202-748-8001 for Republicans, and 202-748-8002 for Independents.
		As you're calling in, I want to show you a little bit from earlier this morning, the president heading to Florida, but talking with reporters on the South Lawn over a wide variety of issues.
		This took place earlier.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		Good morning.
		We're going out to Alligator Alcatraz.
		It's the East Coast version.
		And it should be very exciting, very good.
		Worked very hard on it with Ron and everybody.
		And I think it's going to be great.
		And then I'll be back here fighting for the bill.
		And I hear it's going okay.
		We'll move it along.
		But we'll be back here pretty early.
unidentified		Who thinks the president of the bill used to know warning some Republicans not to go too crazy with the cut?
unidentified		Are there parts of the bill or amendments that you think cut too much?
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		We're going to have to see the final version.
		I don't want to go too crazy with cuts.
		I don't like cuts.
		There are certain things that have been cut, which is good.
		I think we're doing well.
		We're going to have to see some very complicated stuff.
		Great enthusiasm, as you know.
		And I think in the end, we're going to have it.
		What do you think, Caroline?
unidentified		Yeah, I think it's a good question.
unidentified		He's having such a hard time condemning the phrase worldwide.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		I think he's terrible.
		He's a communist.
		The last thing we need is a communist.
		I said there will never be socialism in the United States.
		Now we have a communist.
		I think it's bad news, and I think I'm going to have a lot of fun with him watching him because he has to come right to this building to get his money.
		And don't worry, he's not going to run away with anything.
		I think he's, frankly, I've heard he's a total nutjob.
		I think the people of New York are crazy.
		If they go this route, I think they're crazy.
		We will have a communist in the, for the first time, really, a pure, true communist.
		He wants to operate the grocery stores, the department stores.
		What about the people that are there?
		I think it's crazy.
unidentified		What happened to Elon Musk?
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		Nothing.
		You know, he's upset that he's losing his EV mandate.
		Yeah, he's very upset about things, but he could lose a lot more than that.
		I can tell you right now.
		Elon can lose a lot more than that.
unidentified		Mr. President, Mr. President, do you expect that he's firing Gaza to be at least in the fourth or five minutes so that he already has been sent to you?
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		The President, we hope it's going to happen, and we're looking for it to happen sometime next week.
unidentified		The Press.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		We want to get our hostages back.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		We want to get the hostages back.
unidentified		What if the big beautiful bill doesn't pass?
unidentified		You have to go through item by item by item and pass this stuff one at a time, or are you just going to try again?
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		I think we're going to get there.
		It's tough.
		We're trying to bring it down, break it down so it's really good for the country.
		Trying to get a lot for everybody, and it's a big bill.
		And smaller bills would have been easy, but they wouldn't have been as good.
		I think it's going to do okay.
unidentified		And what the alligator out of that is the idea that if somebody's in the phrase, they just get eaten by an alligator or a snake or something.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		I guess that's the concept.
		This is not a nice business.
		I guess that's the concept.
		If you, you know, snakes are fast, but alligators are going to teach them how to run away from an alligator, okay?
		If they escape prison, how to run away.
		Don't run in a straight line.
		Run like this.
		And you know what?
		Your chances go up about 1% at that.
		Not a good thing.
unidentified		What are you going to talk to Menahu about next month?
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		Oh, he's coming here.
		We're going to talk about a lot of things.
		We're going to talk about the great success we had.
		I mean, we had an incredible in Iran.
		We had an incredible success.
		Like really nobody's had in many, many years.
		That was a precision war strike.
		And the word obliteration can now be used because the Atomic Energy Commission said you can't even get into the place.
		It was demolished.
		It was really demolished.
		It was a great, brilliant strike.
		And how to go forward?
		We're also going to talk about Gaza.
		We want to get the rest.
		We've got a lot of hostages back, but we're going to talk about the hostages.
unidentified		I can't afford to run hostages.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		I don't know.
		I think we'll have to take a look.
		We might have to put Doge on Elon.
unidentified		You know?
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		You know what Doge is?
		Doge is the monster that might have to go back and eat Elon.
		Wouldn't that be terrible?
		He gets a lot of subsidies, Peter.
		But Elon's very upset that the EV mandate is going to be terminated.
		And you know what?
		When you look at it, who wants, not everybody wants an electric car.
		I don't want an electric car.
		I want to have maybe gasoline, maybe electric, maybe a hybrid, maybe someday a hydrogen.
		If you have a hydrogen car, it has one problem.
		It blows up, you know?
		So I'm going to give that one to Peter.
		I'm going to let Peter touch it up.
		The hydrogen cars.
		And when they blow up, it's serious.
		They find you five blocks away, it's okay.
unidentified		How are the incomes going?
unidentified		Are there any countries you can expect to see before the July 9th deadline?
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		Everything's going well, huh?
		Honestly, everything is.
		This is very complicated because it's very big, a lot of different areas.
		Look, the Republicans have their heart in it.
		The Democrats want to just want to destroy our country.
		A Democrat wants to destroy the country.
		They won't vote on it.
		They don't vote on anything.
		This is the biggest tax cut in history.
		Everything, everything is the biggest in history.
		It's the best bill we've ever had.
		We can't get one Democrat vote.
		When do you think you'll get final?
unidentified		When do you think you'll get final passengers?
unidentified		When do you think we'll get final passage of the bill?
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		Hopefully, soon.
		Hopefully, today.
		If we can, final passage.
		I say final.
		Final is let's take Senate at a time, okay?
		But I think Senate should be today and we go over to the House.
unidentified		And what about Senator Murkowski?
unidentified		Is there any way to play safe earth?
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		Who knows?
		You tell me.
		You tell me.
		Is there?
		Alaska's done so well with me.
		There's never been a president better to Alaska than me.
		But it doesn't mean people appreciate it.
unidentified		Have a good day.
unidentified		Washington Journal continues.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Again, this is open forum, and you can participate by calling us on the lines.
		It's 2027 for eight-8000 for Democrats, 202-748-8000, one for Republicans, and Independents, 2027-8002.
		When we started this program today at 7 o'clock, it was the Senate voting on amendments to the One Big Beautiful Bill Act with the expectation that at some point we would come to a final vote.
		As we go to it right now, amendments still being considered.
		As far as a final vote, no definitive word yet, but the Hill reporting that Senate Majority Leader Thune is ready to proceed with a make-or-break vote on that 940-page Republican mega bill to find out for sure where Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski stands on the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.
		According to a person familiar with internal Republican deliberations, the source said that the vote could happen pretty soon today, this morning.
		And the Republicans are confident that the Senate parliamentarian Elizabeth McDonough will accept the changes that ease the impact of the Medicaid and supplemental nutrition assistance program cuts on Alaskans and make Senator Murkowski more likely to support the package.
		Jake Sherman from Punch Bowl putting in a couple of posts on X to give a state of play.
		The House Ways and Means Budget Committee Chair Jason Smith on the floor of the Senate leaving there with the Vice President's Chief of Staff, Jacob Reeses.
		The Vice President reported earlier on standby just in case a tie vote is needed on that.
		Jake Sherman also saying that after this was about after eight o'clock this morning, saying after a bunch of shuttling between the cloakroom and the floor, Senators Crapo, Graham, and Murkowski are huddling in the back of the chamber.
		Murkowski has a pad of paper and the senators are all looking on it.
		This is just to give you a state of play to what might happen later on today concerning the bill.
		Stay close to the bill.
		Stay close to C-SPAN 2 as you follow along to what happens.
		Let's start with Chuck.
		Chuck in West Virginia, Democrats line on this open forum.
unidentified		Hello.
		Hi, Pedro.
		It's been 33 days since my last call.
		Before I get to the budget bill, can I say something about the C-SPAN Now app?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Sure.
unidentified		Okay.
		I like it.
		I like having it on my phone.
		I like being able to walk with my Bluetooth headphones on and listen to interview segments from Washington Journal.
		The one thing I don't like is the fact that I can't listen to open phones.
		You don't carry the open phone segments.
		And that's probably the most important thing I tune into Washington Journal for because I love being able to listen to the voices of the American people from all points in the political spectrum.
		And unfortunately, on the C-SPAN Now app, that open phone segment is not available.
		So that's my comment about that.
		I hope they can correct that.
		As far as the budget bill is concerned, look, the United States is rolling in wealth.
		I mean, consider the vast amounts of money that are thrown around in the entertainment and the sporting industries.
		You had the LA Lakers basketball team that was just sold for $10 billion.
		I looked it up online.
		I found out that there are 650,000 American households have yearly incomes over $1 million.
		You have these super tall skyscrapers going up right and left, and all they are is just multi-million dollar condominiums for the very rich.
		People are buying giga yachts, which apparently are the length of a football field, and that's becoming the ultimate status symbol.
		And yet, the GOP says there's just no money to pay for SNAP benefits and Medicaid benefits or to shore up Social Security.
		This country is rolling in wealth.
		What's wrong with this picture?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		That's Chuck Bear in West Virginia.
		Thank you for the tip on the app.
		A lot of voices listening or a lot of people listening on this network as you make your suggestion.
		And thanks for that input.
		Vana from Massachusetts, Independent Line.
		Hi.
		Vana from Massachusetts.
		Hello.
unidentified		Oh, hi.
		Good morning.
		Thank you for taking my call.
		Since this is an open forum, I would like to suggest C-SPAN to interview someone from the agriculture department and ask them why some animals are treated so badly before and during the slaughter.
		Nobody talks about that.
		And a lot of terrible things happen in water houses all over the U.S.
		So if you guys can sometimes interview someone from the agriculture department, that would be great.
		And that's all I have to say.
		Thank you so much.
		Have a good day.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Vana from Massachusetts, DeAndre from Baltimore, Republican Line.
unidentified		Thank you so much for taking my call.
		Good to hear from you guys.
		Good morning, America.
		So I wanted to take a moment to talk about Syria.
		Yesterday on the show, yesterday morning, you guys had a little Martin Smith, and I didn't get a chance to call in, but there was a lot of stuff that I said about Syria, and I just want to just kind of push it home again.
		The new president of Syria, Mohammed Al-Sharra, or Julani, he was a deputy of al-Qaeda.
		He was the leader of ISIS.
		He founded Jabbat al-Nasir in Syria in Iraq.
		There's pictures of this man with beheaded with the heads of American soldiers that he would parade around.
		And it's just, it makes my blood boil when people say this man was a freedom fighter.
		And that, you know, like, I understand people said Assad was bad.
		But Syria, right now, Syria under the control of Julani and ACS, they're literally killing religious minorities.
		They're persecuting people.
		The other day, there was a terrorist attack at a Christian church.
		There was a suicide bombing.
		The guest yesterday didn't talk about that.
		So I think people should not allow the narrative that this new regime in Syria is somehow good or somehow is going to provide a better future for Syria.
		It's essentially ISIS that's in charge of Syria right now.
		And we helped that our government and military and Israel and Turkey helped take our Assad.
		I mean, there was the Ostana agreement between Iran, Russia, and Turkey, and then they got rid of that.
		So, I just want people to remember that this Ulani guy, he's not a freedom fighter.
		He's literally a terrorist.
		Okay, you can't just change clothes and that now all of a sudden you're a president.
		We remember who you are.
		We know what he did.
		And I think that we just can't allow this narrative to be spewed that he's somehow a good guy, and Syria is good now.
		Syria is not good now.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
unidentified		All right.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Thank you.
unidentified		Yep.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Dan in Tennessee, Democrats line.
unidentified		Hello.
		Hello, sir.
		My name is Dan.
		I'll just start by saying I'm a Christian white liberal.
		And I must be truthful here.
		I am not a fan of the president of the United States.
		I'm not a fan of what's happening to people.
		That this country is not what it used to be.
		And a big part of that is because of the president and the current administration.
		I would like to let everybody know that my representatives here in the state of Tennessee, I am in contact with them often.
		And most of them will tell you that they are not in favor of expanding the debt.
		But yet we see, for example, this bill that's taking place right now that has already been signed off by my representatives within the House and within the Senate.
		They support this legislation.
		And I believe the CBO said that, if I'm not mistaken, anywhere between $3 to $5 trillion could be added to the national debt from this.
		So I don't really understand people's dialogue, but yet when that dialogue comes forth, they don't follow it up with action.
		And I'm disgusted by what's happening to the immigrants in this nation.
		I mean, I'm Irish.
		So if these type of actions were present back when my ancestors came to this nation, it's doubtful that I would even have an opportunity to be here.
		Like I said, the part where I started, a Christian Democrat, I try to look out, as the Bible says, for others first ahead of myself.
		And the abuses that are taking place, families being separated, you've got children who have medical problems that are being deported.
		Also, I just, I don't even recognize in the country that I live in.
		And to tell you the truth, it's a shame and a stain on the nation.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		That's Dan.
		That's Dan in Tennessee.
		Let's hear from Carl in Arkansas, Independent Line.
unidentified		Oh, yes, sir.
		Thank you for taking my call.
		I'm going to change.
		If I want to talk about Social Security, the laws on that.
		I'll tell you the deal.
		Okay.
		I was kind of convinced to file early for my Social Security.
		And when you file early, they deduct.
		But in my case, they took $800 out of my Social Security check.
		I worked 30 years at one company.
		And so I put it in.
		But anyway, I had to, I was just about disabled anyway, and I had to, I couldn't work anymore.
		But anyway, the thing is, they took, they penalized you for filing early, which I filed, I was, because I think 63.
donna in west virginia ▲ ● ▼		And now I'm like 70 now, and they still deducting the fee for that.
unidentified		And I wanted to know, couldn't that be changed?
		How would I let somebody know who would you talk to to get that change?
		Is that some rule?
		I mean, I don't understand.
		Understand.
		I don't understand why they.
		deduct from your check because you filed early anyway.
		I don't understand that.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Have you tried talking to your legislator about that?
unidentified		No, I haven't.
		But I mean, I guess I'm kind of asking, is that some regulation?
		I mean, I didn't realize when I filed it.
		I thought once I reached 65 that, you know, my full Social Security check, I would be getting it.
		Sure.
		I don't understand.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Carl, I just want to say there's experts better than I am situated in the topic.
		And if you wanted to search our database of segments that we've had here over the years, particularly when it comes to Social Security, one of those topics about when you file and what happens if you file early as it compared to filing later in life, you can go to our website at c-span.org for more information there, particularly when it comes to questions of social security and taxation.
		When it comes to economics overall, a couple of things to watch out for our networks today.
		The former governor of New Hampshire, John Sununu, Governor Sununo, and then former Senator Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota will be talking about rural prosperity as a topic.
		That's at 1.30 this afternoon on our main channel, C-SPAN, to talk about how rural localities are impacted by decisions made in Washington, D.C.
		This is hosted by the Brookings Institution.
		Again, 1.30, C-SPAN, C-SPANNOW, and C-SPAN.org, if you want to take a look at that.
		And also currently going on on our C-SPAN 2 networks, a discussion on Jerome Powell when it comes to economic policy.
		If you're interested, particularly when it comes to the future of the Federal Reserve, you can take a look at there as well.
		As always, you can check out our website for more information on things that we're taking in during the day.
		202-748-8000-142-748-8000 for Democrats.
		202-748-8000-1 for Republicans and Independents.
		202-748-80002.
		Philip in Minnesota, Republican line on this open forum.
		Go ahead.
		Phillip in Minnesota.
		Hello.
unidentified		Yes, my name is Philip.
		Peter, thanks for taking the call.
		And thanks to C-SPAN for providing the forum.
		I'll be brief.
		I just, I'm flabbergasted, frankly, as I listen to the news with the Republican Party lining up to voice upon the American public another $3.4 trillion in debt.
		This is pounding up against what Joe Biden did to us.
		And I just can't believe the party of fiscal austerity is going to do this to us without any serious resistance to Donald Trump, a guy who said he was going to get our fiscal house in order and is now doing the exact opposite.
		And in the meantime, this blustering, blothering, bombastic narcissist is actually threatening to weaponize the federal government against a person who is speaking out against some of the specific programs,
		namely Elon Musk, by unleashing Doge on him or perhaps ICE and vaguely threatening deportation or lifting of his status as a citizen.
		I'm utterly astounded that the Republicans are not violently protesting in the Senate and the House and voting their conscience instead of just stepping in line and allowing this loudmouthed tyrant to use the federal government to pursue his own bent objectives.
		Okay.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Philip in Minnesota, Max Cohen of Punchbowl reporting when it comes to the Senate amendment processes we've been telling you about, saying it's Senator Mark Wayne Mullen, I believe of Wisconsin, says the Senate is close to ending the Votarama process, that process of amendments, just waiting on Democrats to approve the amendments.
		After that, saying a wraparound amendment will there be voted on and then final passage is approaching.
		Again, C-SPAN 2 is where you watch that play out when it comes to the Senate's work to give you a sense of what happens should it pass the Senate and start its work in the House later this week.
		It was the Republican Chip Roy of Texas on the Dana Lash show yesterday on why he doesn't necessarily at this point support the Senate version of the One Big Beautiful Bill.
chip roy ▲ ● ▼		I mean, I've been having some intense fellowship, as Speaker Johnson likes to call it, with the White House.
		And I get it.
		They want this done.
		The president wants it done.
		He wants the tax bill.
		He wants the debt ceiling so he can get busy doing his thing.
		And he wants to be able to get border money.
		Tom Homan does.
		You know what?
		I do too.
		So do you.
		But what I didn't do is come to Washington to continue to rack up the credit card that is driving up interest rates, driving up the cost of housing, driving up inflation, and making it to where the American economy is not something the rest of the world looks at as something that is strong and healthy.
		I know the president has a great agenda that will get things moving again.
		I want to accelerate that.
		I want the border money.
		I want to vote yes.
		But I can't vote yes just because they say I have to.
		I can't vote yes just because everybody says we got to get it done by July 4th.
		I have a responsibility to look at this objectively and say, guys, are you doing the right math?
		And I'll just tell you right now, I don't think the math is correct yet.
		So rather than forcing it through this week, we should have the conversations we need to with the Senate, see what they do, review the bill, find where we can find savings, find where we can adjust what we're doing on tax policy, and make the math actually add up.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Again, that was Texas Republican Chip Roy talking about what the One Big Beautiful Bill Act faces in the House with the Senate changes.
		Let's hear from Jenny.
		Jenny in Ohio, Democrats line.
unidentified		Hi.
		Hi.
		Good morning, C-SPAN.
		The reason for my call is the guy, the senator that just called, he is correct, okay?
		The amount of the deficit, I believe it is going to be a lot more than what they're saying it is, okay?
		And the ones that are going to be voting yes for this, I believe they will lose their seat.
		Another thing, if anybody that has private insurance, your insurance is going to go up.
		I have talked and I had to put a bill on a payment plan because they raised my insurance because I have private insurance.
		They raised it $150 on the month, and now my co-pays are $50 on the month.
		I mean, if I see a doctor.
		So I'm just letting people know that's what's going to happen, and our deficit will go up more than what they're saying.
		Everyone have a blessed day, and just check your insurance out, okay?
		Thank you.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		That's Jenny in Ohio.
		This is Laura Weiss from Punch Bowl reporting about Mark Wayne Mullen.
		You heard from the Oklahoma Center saying that the Republicans are in good shape now on reconciliation bill, waiting on Democrats to agree on final amendments.
		Laura Weiss adding Senator Mullen saying that the Republicans have the vote as of right now.
		And then adding on top of all that on Senator Thune's leadership saying Thune has lived up to his bulldog personality, right?
		We're going to stay here till we get it done.
		So that's the latest on what to expect when it comes to the Senate.
		We told you and showed you what Chip Roy had to say, the House Freedom Caucus.
		It was yesterday they posted this on it saying that the House budget framework was clear, no new deficit spending in the One Big Beautiful bill.
		The Senate's version adds $651 billion to the deficit.
		And that's for interest costs, which nearly doubled the total.
		That's not fiscal responsibility.
		It's not what we agreed to.
		If the Senate does pass its bill, the House expected by midweek to take up the changes and push towards that July 4th deadline.
		Let's hear from Cheryl in California, Independent Line.
unidentified		Oh, thank you for taking my call.
		You know, one of the things I've been listening, and a lot of the callers are getting it right in terms of the big beautiful bill.
		And, you know, what I feel is that why are we rewarding corporations for bad behavior?
		I saw a, on the History's channel, I saw a program which outlined these AI sweatshops that are over in Kenya, okay?
		And what our American corporations are doing is they're going over there and, you know, setting up shell companies like these, what we would call an agency to a personnel agency to motivate these people to come and work,
		you know, for their companies in these AI sweatshops, paying these people $2 an hour and working them like dogs.
		And this is our American corporations that are doing this under the auspice of shell companies so it can't track back to them.
		And for our government to want to give them a tax break so they can exploit other countries, it is just utterly disgusting.
		And then on top of that, the American people are being exploited with the lies that they're telling us.
		And now I think it's coming to fruition that we're beginning to understand the amount of lies that have been coming out of Washington.
		And I think that it's time for us to stand up as Americans and say enough is enough.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
		Cheryl there in California.
		Thank you.
		Let's hear from Carol in Michigan, Republican line.
		Go ahead.
unidentified		Hi.
		Thank you so much for taking my call.
		My call, I'm referring to immigration, and I do agree that Congress does need to do something about it.
		I'm going back to when my great-grandfather came to this country.
		I'm part German and part Norwegian.
		And both of those countries, the railroad, put up billboards in all those countries, in a lot of the countries, I should say, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, all over in Europe, and they were recruiting people to work on the railroad, able-bodied people.
		And so my great-grandfather answered that call, but he had to make passage to come over.
		And in that day, everyone had to come over by way of ships, by boats.
		That was the way that you had to immigrate, had to go through Ellis Island, correct.
		But here's the kicker.
		My grandfather was sponsored by his uncle, who lived in Cleveland at that time.
		And he had a lumberyard.
		So my grandfather was not only asked to come by way of the railroad, which he didn't end up doing, but he ended up going to the lumber yard.
		The lumber yard got flooded, so then he ended up having to go farther west.
		He ended up in North Dakota, and he went into the bonanza farming.
		He did what he had to do as a young man to make money and ended up back in Minnesota.
		And at that time, there had been a Homestead Act of 1862 that said if you were 21 years old and you had a parcel of land, 160 acres, you could farm that land.
		You had five years to put a homestead up, farm the land, and make improvements.
		And my grandfather did that.
		He came in 1882 and he became a citizen in 1885.
		Here's my other point.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Hello, Carol.
		Sorry, I've got to move on to the next call.
		Thank you, though, for the call.
		Let's hear from Linda.
		Linda in Arizona Democrats line.
		Hi.
unidentified		Hi, my name is Melinda.
		I'm calling about the big, beautiful bill.
		I see, I'm going to use common sense here.
		If you go down, the military is getting a big, big, substantial sum of money.
		They already received quite a bit.
		Cannot they cut it back, dwindle it down, divide it up, and keep the health care bill intact for these people who need the help.
		Another thing I would like to address is why the Republican Party has no backbone.
		They are bullied by President Trump.
		They are this poor little senator that just resigned, he stood up to him, and he got nothing but very unflattering backlash from this president.
		Of course, this is what the president does.
		A long time ago, John McCain stood up to President Trump, and he never heard the end of it.
		The other thing I would like to talk about is this airplane.
		He should pay for it.
		We, the public, are paying to refit that airport airplane, excuse me, to make it for his use.
		Then he's taking it with it.
		He has billions of dollars letting pay for his own freaking airplane.
		Thank you.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		That's Linda there in Arizona, Politico reporting that the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Yetanahu will travel to the United States next week to meet with the president and key members of the cabinet.
		The office announced today, quote, these meetings come in the wake of the great victory that we achieved in Operation Rising Lion.
		He said at a start of the government meeting.
		He also said that the Vice President JD Vance, the Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, the Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth will also be included in those talks.
		Again, those are slated for next week.
		Lavinia in Maryland, Independent Line.
		Hi, your last call.
		Go ahead.
unidentified		Yes, this is my first time calling.
		And my concern is by me being a retired nurse and being in public health, I agree with Trump 100%.
		There are many of your men and women, men and women, that's able to work.
		And they're sitting home and they're getting a check every month, food stamps.
		You go to the market, they buy the most expensive foods.
		Those that are not able, and those veterans and all, yes, they should receive benefits.
		But there are too many people in the United States that they will tell you, as long as you're working, I will get my Medicaid.
		That's their attitude.
		And as far as Iran, I love everybody, but what's going on, people understand all of that Middle East, most of it is religious ideology.
		And if they got nuclear weapons, they hate the country, they hate the United States, they hate Israel.
		They will bum you in a minute because this is their custom from the beginning of times and it has not changed.

▲