CSPAN - Washington Journal Washington Journal

All Episodes

Previous Next

July 1, 2025 10:11-11:45 - CSPAN

01:33:57

Washington Journal Washington Journal

Participants

Main

donald j trump

admin 08:47

pedro echevarria

cspan 16:34

Appearances

john kennedy

sen/r 00:58

john thune

sen/r 02:08

kristi noem

admin 01:34

ron desantis

r 04:26

Clips

brian glenn

00:12

donald j trump [ai]

admin 00:01

Callers

kevin in ohio

callers 00:20

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Show episode speakers

Speaker	Time	Text
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		Was too much ago.
		I WOULD THINK MAYBE JULY 4th, BUT SOMEWHERE AROUND THERE.
		ELON IS NOT GETTING HIS MANDATE.
		You know, he wanted an electoral mandate, and he should have known I wouldn't do that.
		I couldn't do that.
		I campaigned in this thing for two years.
		I never understand why he did what he did, but he's not going to get his mandate.
unidentified		And he better be careful, because he might not get anything else.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		That means, right?
unidentified		C-SPAN.
		Democracy unfiltered.
		We're funded by these television companies and more, including Mediacom.
		This is benching.
		That's buffering.
		This is a meetup.
		That's a freeze-up.
		Power home, power struggle, security detection.
		No protection.
		You can have this or you can have that.
		This is MediaCom, and this is where it's at.
		Mediacom supports C-SPAN as a public service, along with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy.
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 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.
		So there have been some senators who think they're getting close, but close doesn't mean you're actually there.
		If you'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 the Ron Wyden said that that was a a bandaid 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 a trillion dollars 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 Byrd 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-SPAN too.
		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 202748-8,000.
		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, sure stuff, I'd like to say it's really devastating once this will do people setting care, 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.
		Like, people, like, officers without any accountability, doing whatever.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Well, back to the topic.
unidentified		Can I also say how this is going to be abused?
unidentified		We've already had fake fake agents commit crimes with this kidnapping one woman on right now.
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, it 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 gurus do, Nadella, Pichai, Zuckerberg.
		I went to Chat TPT 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 S ⁇ P 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 Uniparty 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.
ron desantis ▲ ● ▼		Hi.
unidentified		Good morning.
unidentified		How are you?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Fine.
		Thank you.
		Go ahead.
john kennedy ▲ ● ▼		Yes.
unidentified		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 we're 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 trillion $300 billion 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 what 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 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 is they have like about a 20% approval rating for the last 50 years.
		They don't really do their job.
		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.
		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.
		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 Markowski 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?
		I just don't understand.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Clara is there in West Virginia.
		Again, one of the many calls on the work and expected past or working towards the 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, you know, a mafia boss that's in charge.
		And I don't know how other way to describe it, but we need some, we need some real, I don't know, 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, Votarama, 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.
		Hello.
unidentified		Hello.
		Concerning the Big Beautiful Bill in 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 IV and V.
kevin in ohio ▲ ● ▼		$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. deorbit vehicle to safely deorbit the SISS when we get into commercial versions of the we'll leave this recorded program here.
unidentified		You can finish watching it, though, if you go to our website, cspam.org.
unidentified		Live now to remarks from President Trump.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		Christy and all of the people at Homeland Security have got it done in how many days?
ron desantis ▲ ● ▼		Eight days, all the new facility was up and running.
unidentified		So this is the model going forward.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		It can be.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		I mean, you don't always have land so beautiful and so secure and a lot of bodyguards and a lot of cops and the form of alligators, you're not defending so much.
unidentified		But I wouldn't want to run through the Emergency for long.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		We'll keep people with us, mostly.
		This is a very important thing.
		We're setting records at the board.
unidentified		You know, we have no people control us.
		Zero, no vehicle.
		But we're going to keep it that way.
		So Ron, do you think?
		I want to thank you.
ron desantis ▲ ● ▼		Well, look, we thank you, Mr. President.
unidentified		Thanks for your leadership.
ron desantis ▲ ● ▼		With the border, you did that quicker than we knew you'd do it, but you did it so quick, which is great.
		But Biden let in how many millions, and you got to take care of them.
		And so this is one example of state operating this.
		The feds are approving it, supporting it.
		We're also going to have 2,000 more at Camp Landing, which is our National Guard site.
		And we're the only state in the country that mandates our state and locals law enforcement to cooperate with ICE.
		It's made a huge difference.
		On any given day, Florida constitutes about 20% of all immigration arrests nationwide.
		So what I would just say is don't let Florida be the only state.
		We've got very red states that should be doing this just as much as Florida is doing.
		That will increase their numbers.
		And then what happens is you'll have a lot of people that will deport on their own because they don't want to end up in an alligator alcatra or some of those other places.
		So I think this is a model, but we need other states to step up.
unidentified		I was going to ask you, could you enticing other states to come up with a roadmap?
unidentified		They are doing it.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		We have Louisiana doing it.
unidentified		Big Calabria is doing it.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		We have one of the states.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		They seem to be red states.
unidentified		They're not going to be the blue state for whatever reason.
unidentified		But the red states, Republican-led states, is doing it.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		The blue states don't do very well.
unidentified		They have securely police over the city.
kristi noem ▲ ● ▼		You know, I would say that exactly right.
		The governor here has been fantastic in forming this partnership with the Department of Homeland Security.
		We were looking at different contracts with different vendors and thought, why not go straight to our governors and ask them to help us solve this problem.
		Florida was unique in what they presented to us.
unidentified		And I would ask every other governor to do the exact same thing.
kristi noem ▲ ● ▼		This is unique because we can hold individuals here.
		They can have their hearings, can't do process, and then immediately they sold them pass home to their home countries.
		And their home countries are welcoming them.
		They're setting up older houses.
		They've got food assistance.
		They're helping to facilitate welcoming them home.
		I just got home from Panama, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras, and they're all excited about getting their individuals back home from the United States.
unidentified		There is.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		Is there potential for enlargement for additional facility?
ron desantis ▲ ● ▼		There may be.
		I mean, I think what we're doing is, because this is an important part of Florida, we're using the existing footprint of this airport.
		When you guys go over there, you'll see all the beds, the medical, the galley, everything is on the concrete.
		We're not using any of the other stuff.
		Now, as you'll see, there's a lot of concrete, so they're very well made be.
		I know Secretary Noam and her team have said as soon as the president departs, we'll be open to start receiving folks.
		And so we'll see what the tempo is.
		We do have the 2,000 in Northeast Florida that will open very soon.
		So it is possible to do.
		One of the things I think that is exciting about this is we're offering up our National Guard and other folks in Florida to be deputized to be immigration judges.
		We're working with the Department of Justice for the approvals I'm sure to approve.
		But then you have, I'll have a National Guard judge advocate here.
		Someone has a notice to appear.
		Biden would tell them to come back in three years and appear.
		Now you'll be able to appear in like a day or two.
		So they're not going to be detained, hopefully, for all that long.
		We'll have people here in this facility that can make, you know, it's a bureaucracy.
		The president's got to deal with the bureaucracy.
		Now, that Supreme Court ruling was good because that's going to allow him to be able to exercise Article 2 the way founders intended.
		But you still have bureaucracy.
		So we want to cut through that so that we have an efficient operation between Florida and DHS to get the removal of these illegals done.
unidentified		And are you still prioritizing going after the worst of the worst?
unidentified		Or are you now arresting anyone who is?
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		The worst of the worst always occurs.
unidentified		And I think it's the way government is always done.
unidentified		And nobody can ever forget that this group of people, Biden or whoever it was, is an overwhelming thing.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		Biden, whoever it was with this group of people, a small group that circled the resolute desk, what they did to this country.
unidentified		Think of it, what you're trying.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		Gloria Cotton got the way school is.
		It's an unshort starter.
		We have no problem with this.
unidentified		It was never an extra 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're doing.
		We don't have to be able to hear like when you have one vote and you have 100 people to close that.
		I think so.
		I think it's going to be the greatest bill ever passed.
		Even for you, which has a tremendous amount of public security.
		It's going to keep the voter secure.
		Because, you know, we have to secure now.
		We need to build more wall.
		I think almost 600 miles of wall.
		We need more walls.
		And all of that's covered in this bill.
		This bill is amazing.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		It's an amazing bill for Florida.
unidentified		Really great.
		You heard the concerns about the Medicaid.
		No, no, no, we're not going to be playing with that.
		That's going to have 1.8 million Americans.
		The Democrats have as well.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		Waste fraud is the exclusive.
unidentified		And in fact, if you look at what's going on, we've been way back who take care of Medicaid, who take care of Medicare.
unidentified		They will blow Medicare and Medicaid because they have no idea what this means.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		Just like they don't have any idea what they did on the quarter, they have no idea.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		Medicaid is in big trouble with the Democrats.
unidentified		You can promise anyone who will do their health care coverage.
unidentified		That is because of waste law.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		Waste one, only waste fund, which is whatever.
unidentified		Prime Minister Netanyahu's visit next week.
unidentified		What are you hoping to get out of that?
ron desantis ▲ ● ▼		And do you think there'll be any progress on this?
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		It's going to be a very quick celebration.
		We had a great hit.
		It was an obliteration.
		Okay, now it turns out it was an obliteration.
		You know, they demean CNN mostly in the New York Times, fake New York Times.
		They demeaned these great soldiers.
		They went over there 17 hours flying, and they hit bullseye after bullseye after bullseye.
		It all blew up.
		Everybody saw it.
		Then they get back and CNN said, well, they did okay, but maybe it wasn't.
		Let me tell you, it was beyond obliteration.
		Nobody can even get down there.
		The tunnels have busted.
		Everything fell into the well.
		It was a total and complete obliteration.
		And we should celebrate these heroes.
		And what I'm doing is I'm bringing them, Ron.
		We're bringing them to Florida or to the White House.
		I gave them their choice.
		I think they're going to take the White House.
ron desantis ▲ ● ▼		Probably.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		I shouldn't tell you this.
unidentified		Mr. President, there's going to be a new bill called Make American Elections Great Again.
unidentified		I love it.
brian glenn ▲ ● ▼		Forcing the U.S. Census Bureau to redo the census to actually get an account of how many Americans, proof of citizenship, are in our area, in our country, redistricting some of the House districts.
unidentified		Your thoughts on that?
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		Well, I'll speak for both of us.
unidentified		We love it.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		You're going to like this one.
		I know all about it.
		We want to bring our elections back.
		The election in 2020 was rigged.
		Millions and millions of votes.
		It had to do with COVID and a lot of things, but it really had to do with the crooked people.
		The Democrats are very good at cheating in elections.
		And that's why I said too big to rig.
		They tried this one too, but after about 902, they gave up too many votes.
		You know, too big to rig.
		Ron would love it.
		I would love it.
		Christy would love it.
		That's what they have to do.
		They have to bring it back.
		And we have to look.
		You know, Ron, they include anybody that happens to be in your state.
ron desantis ▲ ● ▼		California, California would lose like five seats if they get a fair census.
		And even beyond that, the Biden census jipped Florida of at least one seat.
		We only got one seat in the last census.
		Are you trying to tell me that Florida only had one seat in that?
		We should have had at least two.
		Texas should have had another one.
		That could be the difference in the House of Representatives in the majority.
		So I would love for them to redo the census for 26.
		My legislature will redistrict those lines.
		We'll get it to where it's fair.
		But as it's right now, this country is not fairly apportioned.
		I've got so many more millions of people in Florida that have representation because of that flawed census.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		Mr. President, I think it's going to do very well.
unidentified		A lot of people, I don't know if you've heard about it.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		It's captivated the country.
		Everybody wants it.
		It's going to get in.
		It's going to pass.
		And we're going to be very happy.
unidentified		Elon Musk is ripping into this bill again.
unidentified		Are you concerned that Republicans are going to be swayed by Musk and his money?
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		No, I don't think so.
		I think what's going to happen is Doge is going to look at Musk.
		And if Doge looks at Musk, we're going to save a fortune.
		Thank you very much, everybody.
		I don't think you should be playing that game with me.
unidentified		Mr. President, why do you have to tie Bunny?
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		Thank you very much, everybody.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		Thank you, Mr. President.
unidentified		You've been watching live coverage.
		We return now to our scheduled program.
		We joined it in progress.
		It's a double-edged sword.
		I think that's a great idea, but taking government funds and investing it into 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, and 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 is on 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 is going to cause is 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, you're on.
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.
		Everyone, 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		I was curious on why if 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 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.
		The 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 that 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.
unidentified		Hello.
		Yes.
		Hi.
		I'm a Democrat from Cleveland, where Republicans just passed a $600 million be given to billionaire Brown's owner Haslums 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'd like to 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 deficit 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, right, 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.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		We're supposed to look at how we can help our poor, help our needy.
unidentified		And that's not what this bill does.
unidentified		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.
		No tax in overtime expires in 2028.
		Acrease in state and local tax 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 the state and gift tax exemption threshold.
		And what is that a benefit?
		That just benefits the wealthy.
		And so this is a very disingenous 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.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Stella, go ahead.
unidentified		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		Hi.
		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 a 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.
		C-SPANshop.org is C-SPAN's 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.
		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 Wydra 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 of 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 Wydra, 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.
		We'll leave this program here and take you live now to South Florida, where President Trump is taking a walking tour of a new migrant detention center.
		It's located in the Florida Everglades.
		It's been dubbed Alligator Alcatraz.
		This is live coverage on C-SPAN.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		I would normally be home waiting for the vote.
unidentified		Yes, we will.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		But I wanted to come down.
		I hear the vote's going to be given.
		I will let them take those votes.
unidentified		I don't think they're big people just.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		Boy, wouldn't that be an upset?
kristi noem ▲ ● ▼		Are you confident this can get to the House?
unidentified		And he's going to be the only one who's liable for it.
unidentified		It's the greatest tax cut in the history of our country.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		And if it doesn't pass, this is the biggest tax increase in the history of records.
		That alone, 68% increase, as opposed to a massive question.
		It's the biggest tax cut in the history of our country.
		And everybody gets it.
unidentified		Mr. President and the damn secretary, CNN yesterday pushed an app that lets you track where ICE agents are.
unidentified		Tom Holman was saying that perhaps he eventually prosecuted for that, but the structure of law forcing your sponsor.
kristi noem ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, we're working with the Department of Justice to see if we can prosecute them for that because what they're doing is actively encouraging people to avoid law enforcement, activities, operations, and we're going to actually go after them and prosecute them for the hardenship of families we can because what they're doing we can make is illegal.
unidentified		And they may be prosecuting them also for having given false reports on the exact year end.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		Two of you would tell me false reports.
unidentified		It's totally obliterated and our people have to be celebrated and come home and say, what do you mean we didn't hit the target?
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		We hit the target prison.
unidentified		The other pilots came home and they said we hit the target.
unidentified		So they may be very well prosecuted for that.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		But they did there, they think it's totally illegal.
unidentified		Okay, let's go.
		All right.
		Doing all right?
		You're following that one.
		You're following that one.
		Works for who?
		He works for real American voice.
		Okay, I can take them together.
		I just need to wham on my head.
		Alright.
		We're just going to hold right here.
		We're just going to hold right here.
		We'll use the one that said, let's go.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		So we just want to think of it.
unidentified		One in 20,000 in one in 16 in California.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		I think Bobby's going to figure it out.
unidentified		So Mr. Speaker, thank you for visiting.
unidentified		Isn't our team, our pharmacist, and our nurse practitioner are collaborating?
kristi noem ▲ ● ▼		They actually did all the work.
unidentified		Thanks to me.
kristi noem ▲ ● ▼		Nice to meet you, too.
kristi noem ▲ ● ▼		Thank you guys for joining us.
ron desantis ▲ ● ▼		Thank you for your partnership.
		You had how many days to do it?
		We actually did have 24 hours.
unidentified		Yeah, thank you.
unidentified		I was remotely.
ron desantis ▲ ● ▼		This is like a monoclonal antibody clinic.
kristi noem ▲ ● ▼		I stay right.
unidentified		We did the monoclonal.
kristi noem ▲ ● ▼		I did work in the house.
unidentified		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 precedence.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Mr. Malcolm, You could answer what she said, but as part of her dissent, it was Justice Sotomoyer who 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 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.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		What do you think is going to happen?
unidentified		What do you think the president on a bill is used to know warning 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?
		Yeah, I think it is.
unidentified		What are you talking about Soran Mapp having such a hard time condemning the phrase globalizing in Qasada?
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 help 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.
		What happened to Elon Musk?
unidentified		Who?
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		What happened to Elon Musk?
		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.
		Elon can lose a lot more than that.
		We want to get our hostages back.
		We want to get the hostages back.
unidentified		Does it pass?
unidentified		Do 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 alpha says, the idea that a dog should be eliminated.
unidentified		They don't 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 fast, but alligators are, 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%.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		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 on 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 ▲ ● ▼		This is why draw.
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 relates 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.
		We'll leave this program here and take you live now to South Florida, where President Trump is taking a walking tour of a new migrant detention center.
		It's located in the Florida Everglades.
		It's been dubbed Alligator Alcatraz.
		This is live coverage on C-SPAN.
kristi noem ▲ ● ▼		But listen, people don't have to, they don't have to come here.
		If they self-deport and go home, they can come back legally.
		We will let them come back.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		And there is a lot of self-deportation.
kristi noem ▲ ● ▼		But if you wait and we bring you to this facility, you don't ever get to come back to America.
kristi noem ▲ ● ▼		You don't get the chance to come back and be an American again and work here.
ron desantis ▲ ● ▼		They weren't with us when the president and Secretary Kevin and I, we went through the intake.
		So right when you do the intake, they have the information about voluntary departure.
		They have the ability.
		Obviously, you guys are funding that because it's a lot cheaper to do it that way.
		So even if they get brought to the front doorstep here, they still have an opportunity to just go back voluntarily.
unidentified		And then this way they're not like, hey, I want to stay here.
unidentified		I want to go back.
kristi noem ▲ ● ▼		We can put them on a plane that day and take them home.
		We'll buy their plane ticket, go home, and then they get the chance to come back legally.
		If they wait and say we're not going to do that.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		If they do that, they can come back legally after a period of distress.
unidentified		We talked recently about the idea of finding some way to get a farm workforce and service sector workforce.
		And I think you've discussed somehow a program of people leaving on a sponsorship and coming right back.
		Can you give us a little more detail about that and why, in the view of some hardliners, it's not answered?
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		We're taking care of our farmers and hotel workers and various other people.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		And we're working on it right now.
unidentified		And Ron's going to be involved and you're involved already.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		So we have a case, a lot of cases, where ICE will go into a farm.
		And these are guys working there for 10, 15 years.
		No problem.
		The farmers know him.
		We're going to put, it's called farmer responsibility or owner responsibility, where they're going to be largely responsible for these people.
		And they know these people.
		They've worked on the farms for 15 years and all of a sudden they've...
		So I have a great...
		Ron does, Christy does.
		We have a great feeling for the farmer and for others in the same position.
		And we're going to give them responsibility for people.
		And we're going to have a system of signing them up so they don't have to go.
		They can be here legally.
		They can pay taxes and everything.
		They're not getting citizenship, but they get other things.
donald j trump [ai] ▲ ● ▼		And the farmers need them to do the work.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		Without those people, you're not going to be able to run your farm.
unidentified		Mr. President, you and the governor tangled pretty hard in the 2024 election.
		You stand here now.
		Yeah, you stand here now as partners on this effort.
		How would you describe the relationship and what future does Governor DeSantis have?
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		I think it's a 10.
		Maybe 9-9.
		It might be a couple of little wounds.
unidentified		So maybe it's not 9.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		I think we have a 10.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		We get along great.
ron desantis ▲ ● ▼		Well, the thing about it is, I endorsed him immediately in January 2024.
		I raised one of his PACs, millions and millions of dollars.
		And obviously, we saved him a lot of money in Florida because Florida was a deep red state.
		He didn't even have to do a rally in Florida, whereas 2016 and 20, this is like ground zero.
		And so we've been really happy to do that.
		And then we've worked very well on this and other issues with Florida.
		And you can call him at any time.
		And he wants to be helpful for governors.
		I mean, I can tell you that.
		We did Hurricane Aline last year.
		You didn't hear from the president at the time then.
		But, you know, with President Trump, you know, we know immediately he just may make the phone call.
unidentified		Yeah, a follow-up question.
		I'm sorry.
		Like another thing you inherited.
		How firm are you going to be with Netanyahu about ending the war in Gaza?
		Very firm.
		I'm very firm.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		But he wants it too.
		I will tell you.
		He's coming here next week.
		He wants to end it too.
		We had a tremendous success with Iran.
		They weren't happy.
		Somebody said, when are you going to sign?
		Said, sign?
		They are so bummed out.
		Did you see the report issued this morning?
		The place was decimated.
		It'll be years before anybody even gets down there.
		So that's not a priority.
		But we'll have a report and we'll have whatever we want.
		We'll get whatever we want from Iran.
		And I think, and I hope they want to have a good country.
		You know, they have massive sanctions right now, biting sanctions.
		It's going to be very hard for them to do anything with those sanctions.
		And I look forward to maybe there'll be a time when we get along with them and they can rebuild their country.
unidentified		Is there a point where you tell Netanyahu like, you got to end this now, you've got to strike a deal.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		Well, he wants to, I can tell you he wants to, and I think we'll have it.
		I think we'll have a deal next week.
		That's what I think.
unidentified		President, did you intend to announce your pick for successor to Jay Powell earlier than, say, or as early as, say, this summer or this fall?
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		Will I do something about who it's going to be?
unidentified		Yes.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		I don't know.
		Hey, he'd be a good candidate.
		She'd be a good candidate, too.
		Anybody would be better than Jay Powell.
		No, he's causing us a fortune because he keeps the rate way up.
		I think it's Trump derangement syndrome personally.
		But, you know, we have a very strong country.
		We're the strongest country.
		Look, our country right now is at a level that we haven't seen for 40, 50 years.
		What we're doing now is nobody's seen anything like it.
		I told you, I was with in the Middle East.
		The king of Saudi Arabia said to me very strongly, he said, you know what?
		A year ago, you had a dead country.
		Now you have the hottest country in the world.
		We do.
		We have the hottest country in the world.
		Thank you very much.
		We'll be seeing it over the next year.
unidentified		What about construction and other issues?
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		Those types of individuals.
unidentified		Will Gilmore Abreu Garcia be the first inmate here?
		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.
		Understand it, 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, well, in that, and since he addressed Ms. Wyder, Ms. Wider, 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 sanguinus, 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 ▲ ● ▼		Well, let her finish.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, go ahead.
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 at 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.
unidentified		Yeah.
		So, first of all, as I said, there are about 700 district court judges.
		So, here in Washington, D.C., I don't know, 15 or 12.
		We will leave this here and take you live to South Florida, where President Trump is on a roundtable discussion at Alligator Alcatraz.
		It's a new migrant detention center in the Florida Everglades.
		Live coverage here on C-SPAN.
		Wow.

▲