"washington journal," we will take your calls and comments live. then nbc news senior congressional reporter scott wong discusses the week ahead in congress. and associated press political reporter michelle price talks about the latest in the 2024 presidential campaign. also, the bipartisan policy center's chief medical advisor dr. anon paren on the role of health care issues in the campaign. ■9"washington journal" is. ♪ host: good morning. it is monday, march 18, 2024. we will talk about the looming funding deadline in congress and

hot button health issues impacting campaign 2024. we begin during this women's history month with a question on women in elected government. we ask americans of this country would be better governed if more women would be in political office. if you believe the country would be governed better with more women in office, call (202) 748-8000. if you thi it would be governed worse, (202) 748-8001. if you think it would not make a difference, (202) 748-8002. you can also text (202) 748-8003. please include your name and where you're from. otherwise catch up with us on x at @cspanwj and on facebook, om/c-span. here is where things stand what can -- when it comes to women

officeholders in the u.s., representing between a quarter and a third of elected leaders in the united states women make up 29 percent of the u.s. house of representatives, 20 5% of the u.s. senate, 24% of state governors, 33% of state legislators, 34 percent of large city mayors, and 32 percent of municipal officeholders. the question that gallup asked respondents and americans last month was that question we put to you this morning, what would be the impact if more women officeholders? would it make the country better governed or worse govern? 57% said the country would be governed better, 20 2% saying it would be worse, 21% saying it would not make a difference. if you break those responses done by gender, women generally feel like women would do a better job at running this country. 68% of women in saying the country would be better governed with more women officeholders.

46% of men saying the country would be better governed with more officeholders. cal analysis for you from the gallic -- gallup report last month, the■mrent proportion of americans say more female officeholders would benefit the country is the same as when gallup initially took this question to the public in 1999, although lower than a 63% reading from 2024. since 1999, the sheriff americans thinking more women in government would make things worse has increased by eight percentage points, from 14% to 22%. no difference has declined by the same amount. those numbers from the gallup report come out from last month. we are asking you the same question during this women's history month. what would be the impact of more women officeholders? do you think it would make the

country better, worse, or it would not make a difference? here are some responses via facebook and twitter so far this morning as we posted this question. john saying, generally speaking, women would do a better job than men, only by anecdotal measures based on managers i have had over the years. this one says intelligent women see the future and build on the present and are not as easily influenced to line their own pockets and they do not play the blame game. dave writes, it depends on the women because nancy mace and liz cheney are not the same. rob says it would make no difference, money and pride is the poison, not gender. cindy says women would have to actively try and do a worse job than a lot of men in office right now. we have elected buffoons. a few of your comments so far this morning. the phone number again, if you

think more women officeholders would be better for this country (202) 748-8000. ,if you think it would make it a worse govern country (202) , 748-8001. if you think it would not make a difference (202) 748-8002. ,having this conversation in this first hour of the "washington journal" this morning. betty is up first out of massachusetts what do you think? caller: i think it would be wonderful if we had more women. there would be less laws, less scandals. how many times have you heard of a woman having to resign over a sex scandal? i think it would be great if we had more women. and i am scared to death for the women right now in this country because it seems like republicans want to take all their rights away, the rights to health care, the rights to voting, the rights to everything. i am terrified for the women in this country. as far as i'm concerned, if you are a woman and you are a

republican, you are a fool, an absolute fool. women have always done a better job. think of how much better the country would be right now if hillary clinton had been president instead of trump. we would not have had any of these problems we're having right now. terrible, terrible problems. host: general franken was the first woman in congress over 100 years ago, 1917. what are your thoughts on women representing just 29% of the house of representatives today and 25% of the senate over one hundred years later? caller: i think it should be a lot more, i think it should be a lot more. it is terrible what they have done to a woman. a woman did not even get to vote until, what, 1920? it is an absolute disgrace. so the women in this country better smarten up because we will be in berkus before you know it -- in burkas before you

the teachers, banning books and badmouthing teachers constantly. the women of this country, wake up. a promise trump made saturday about it may be a bloodbath if he does not get in, that is absolutely horrendous. i just cannot get over it. host: this is mary in pennsylvania. good morning. caller: good morning. i am calling tll that it is jusy fault as it is anybody else's fault that ever got into problems, so i cannot blame anybody for anything. i like to take responsibility for my own inability to react positively when i was in a negative situation. host: what do■8 you think about this question i am asking?

any thoughts of women officeholders -- is (202) 748-8000 if you think more women officehdetry b. (202) 748-8001 if you think it would make this country worse. and (202) 748-8002 if you think it would not make a difference. having this conversation in this first hour of the "washington journal." coming back to the first caller's comments about donald trump's comments over the weekend, that bloodbath comment. it is the subject of an op-ed today, one of the lead editorials, i should say, in the "wall street journal." the board writing this about that comment at an ohio rally friday, mr. trump was ripping about the u.s. auto industry he said this, if i

do not get elected, it is going to be a bloodbath for the country. they write that the person democrats jumped on the remarks as if mr. trump was inciting violence if he loses. no doubt, his words are over-the-top, they write, as the after dark -- athey often are, but the bloodbath was clearly about the u.s. car industry, suggesting placed in mr. trump's hands, giving voters one more reason to not trust the media reporting about m. the editorial board taking as much notice to write one of their lead editorials about that comment today, the monday edition of the "wall street journal." back to the question about the impact of the election, more women officeholders. this is gina in birmingham, alabama. good morning. caller: good morning. there is no difference. i am not racist or sexist.

i only care about policy. host: and what policies do you care about? caller: i care about trump's policies. he is correct. if we let china and mexico take our industry south, we lose a ton of jobs. so he was correct, it will hurt the american worker. host: donald trump just coming off of a primary with the last candidate standing against him was a woman, nikki haley. what did you think about her campaign? caller: i think she is a rino. i voted for trump. host: what does it mean to be a republican today? caller: it means putting people first, americans first, not industry, not corporation, it means putting a worker first.

host: this is ross in california. caller: as far as that last caller, i think basically our own guys sold us out, talking about china stealing our jobs and our money, that is crazy. we have been going downhill for a long time. i think as far as women, i think women -- we should start kids really young with very good going, montessori at 2, 2 and a half years old, start really young and educate them really well. and by the time girls get to be teenagers, 15, 16 years old, they got a handle on what is going on. i think all politicians should only be female, and they should be very, very young. after about 30 or 32, there over the hill. thank you. host: that was ross in westport,

california. this is a column in today's "washington post" looking at women on college campuses and women -- girls constitute two thirds of the top 10% of their high school classes and apply to college at a higher rate than boys. men are more represented in congress, she writes, and judiciary, law, medicine, technology, and finance. women make about 44% of tenured faculty, professors at colleges, 33% of college presidents. at every level of academia, they are paid less than men. women graduate from college at greater rates than men, get better grades, dropout less frequently, and i'm more likely to turn a four-year degree. women in higher education have long been exceeding the criteria meant established for academic success. so, she writes, why do women still earn 82 cents to the male

's dollar? theory, girls and women excel in school, grade school, classes taken, honors received. she says, extensively, because these criteria remain deeply unfair, measurable criteria keep unconscious bias in check. in the world beyond school, however, unconscious bias is rarely restrained by the guardrails of, say, gpa. when we choose our political candidates and chief executives, we deploy non-metrics such as electability and leadership, qualities traditionally ascribed to men. you can read more from kate cohen's column in today's "washington post." we can talk more about that. this is randolph in charles city, virginia. good morning. caller: good morning, america. my experience in the public school realm has mostly been

with ladies and matt -- in management positions. regardless of how much money you can save and more work you can do, it is never really meant much to them. so i think itve a blue collar bd and you go into this more white-collar female managers, it really does not make a difference. what my experience has been is they are as indifferent as anybody appeared so i do not think it makes much difference who is in charge. it depends on the system, public schools, public health. i wish everybody could be a nurse, i would put it that way.

we are training women to be nurse-like, we would have a lot less managerial problems. host: this is andrew out of michigan. what do you think on this question of the impact of more women officeholders? caller: don't think it will make any difference here at we have few ladies in there now. we have marjorie taylor greene, mace, blackburn.

they seem to have the same problems as the guys do. so there is not much difference. it is usually where you're headed. if i can get off the subject for one quick second, we talk about inflation -- it is outrageous.

make a profit or cut heads, it is a crisis. right on the same line, china is doing what they're going to do. we depend on china. higher prices. back to the main subject, i do not think any difference if a lady from arizona trying to get in there, look at her philosophy. the philosophies do not seem to be any different than men. host: there is about as many women as men in this country. with you expect the officeholders to be about 50% women and 50% men at this point in the united states? and why is it that women tend to represent between a quarter and a third of ected leaders and not half, not 50/50? caller: sure, but i do not know if it will make a difference.

i would not mind seeing them. but i think some ladies want the spotlight. they want to be home doing what they want to do on their terms. i may want to work from home. does not mean ladies do not want to be participants. there is a different philosophy about what they want to participate in. there husband calls the shots and they go along with it. a lot of strong women ladies will not do that. the majority of them kind of stay in the background, so maybe that is why there's not so many. i have no problem with that. i have had two lady supervisors, and they treated me about them s some guys take them seriously, they have to try to be bossy. maybe you did not get that properly, because i am a lady, you think i do not know what i am doing. but they are doing just as well.

she is cool, good lady doctor, no problem with her at all. i can talk to her, she talks to satisfied with ladies, but i do not know if it will make any difference. host: that is andrew in the michigan. more of your comments via facebook and twitter. this one writes, i would be happy with mostly women. the man destroy our nation. nikki haley would have had my support. a message from san antonio, i think women would do a good or better job at handling administrative duties, and they need better pay. tom saying no difference, i think what makes a differences voting. if more women voted, yes, i think things would improve. one more twitter viewer, no impact, they serve the same corporate masters. a few of your comments, we will keep looking for those we want you to call in. if you think having more women

officeholders would make this a better-run country, (202) 748-8000. if you say it would be worse, (202) 748-8001. if you say it would not make a difference, (202) 748-8002. we have been giving you some stats on women officeholders in the united states. a few more from the center for american women in politics out of rutgers, new jersey. cawp. rutgers.edu, a lot of steps there. the vice president is female, kamala harris. 12 cabinet level positions are held by women. four u.s. supreme court justices currently serving, amy coney barrett, elana kagan, sonia, and ketanji brown jackson. two of those justices are sitting together across from each other in front page picture in today's "washington post."

headline, justices seek to dispel the divided image of the court. there is justice sonia sotomayor and amy coney barrett at a panel discussion from last week from tuesday, talking together about the court and about law. you can read that story in today's "washington post." this is james in alabama, good morning. caller: good morning. just wanted to say real quick, i think it would be worse only if they were born after 1980. i believe that the generations after 1980 were indoctrinated, not educated. think about it -- i am surprised you are able to ask this question because you are using the word women, and now we have half of the democratic women don't know how to define what a woman is. and then the people that sit down in front of congress from that generation think that a man can get

pregnant. that is all i got to say. host: one more stat from that gallup report, this wrecks down respondents by pitical party -- this breaks down by political party. do you think the government would be better with more women in office? for those who say yes, 80 4% of democrats said yes, 54% of independents say the country would be better off, and just 32% republicans say the country would be better off. caller: i am in that 32%. host: why do you think there is difference by political party? caller: conservative republicans have more commonsense than the other half. i am not going to be like your first caller and call anybody a fool. i don't want to divide this country. i would have a discussion with a democrat friend of mine and not get all bent out of shape. but this country so divided right now, the first caller said

anybody who voted republican is a fool. you need to get away from that. y'all need to start trying to help, not divide. thank you. host: do you think this election year is going to take us across the divide even more? caller: more an likely, because can't have that stumbling, bumbling senile idiot stay in office. host: we hear a lot of name-calling about both joe biden and donald trump. is that contribute into the divide? caller: probably. i can't help that. but i'm scared about who was in office right now. it is not just the open borders. they are trying to divide us. he is trying to divide the country. that is why he screamed that everybody during his state of the union address. host: you think donald trump a

string to bring the country together divide the country as well? caller: in a small way, maybe bring us together. i us because half of the country hates him. i do not hate the other half of the country. i do not hate people who wt to vote democrat. i do not hate anybody for anything. so that's all i need to say, ok? host: talk to you down the road, james. this is mindy in clinton township, michigan. caller: hey, how are you? host: i'm doing well. caller: every time this discussion comes up, and every person deserves a chance, man or woman, to be in office. as long as they are smart and they study all the issues and everything, and we have this election coming up, they have just as much right as a man and a woman -- a man and a woman have just as much right to serve

as a senator or a representative or vice president because they are smart. they ought to know what to do they work very hard to get in office. as long as they use their minds and study all the issues and everything, they have just as much right to serve. i hate to hear this. host: i guess the question is, so it is not 50/50, closer to between a quarter and a third of women in elected office. is that different because women don't want to serve in elected office and are not running or is it because -- caller: maybe it is that they do not think they are qualified. andf women become qualified, then they can do that. they want to be able to make sure that they are going to do the right thing. do you think it stays in this,

sort of, between a quarter and a third? caller: you will hear all this stuff in the next election, of, we are not qualified to do this and women should not do that, they should stay home and everything. but if they have what they are supposed to be responsibil floor and they know the issues and everything, i think they have every right to be able to be a representative or anything like that. but they have got to be given a chance. you cannot shrug them aside and say, no, you cannot do that, you hear all these republicans that are already rich, oh, republicans will let them do anything. that is stupid. let the woman be given a chance, as long as they are qualified and do the job. how do we know if they do not get a chance? i do not think i would ever be able to do it.

host: when you say give them a chance, what is not giving them a chance? caller: giving them the opportunity to run for office, as long as they study all the issues and everything and come across as responsible and thinking and good thinking people. they have a right to serve. i would give anything to be a representative in congress. i think i could do a good job. host: what is your platform, your top issue? caller: immigration, equal pay and everything for everybody and making sure there is money for everybody just the ability to put your thoughts across and be able to present them. host: this is john in costa mesa, california.

good morning. caller: good morning. yeah, i think there wouldn't be a difference initially and until the imbalance was corrected. clearly, there is in the balance. it is majorly populated with men, talking about the house and senate, but there is also the supreme court and all that. women's issues are different from men's issues. host: u.s. senators, 25 are women, with 25% of the senate. in the house, it is 29%, of 435, 126 members are women. caller: right, and that is still not representative of 50% of women in this country. we know what it looks like when 75%, whatever that perc■tage of men is, in running the country.

and you are asking, is there a shift if women were to be -- so the glass ceiling need to be road. kamala harris is vice president of this country. are women disqualified because they represent women's issues? i mean, is that what the problem seems to be? so you have got people in texas that are for energyq and other states that are more prone to vote a certain way. and the morale of this country is going downhill. unless we get a shift in the decision-making, the legislatives, and that is all committees and hearings, you know, just look at all of the impeachment, impeachment things that are going on and where that is going. what does it look like? so we do not even know until this problem of having a

predetermined idea about what it would look like, we don't know what it looks like until, you know -- and there's examples of people that do right and do wrong, who have voted the wrong way. but we have got gridlock in government right now. how does that get moved? and how do women come to power? host: let me take it from this angle, you are asking what it would look like, we do not know what it would look like. we know that there have been more women in congress, especially in recent decades, than way back in the 19-teens when we had the first woman in congress. so there was a big jump in the owner -- early to mid-1990's, jumped up 10% in 1990, 2010, 20% and other big jump, and early 2020's, close to 30%.

so we have seen what it would be like with increasing numbers of women in congress, especially over the past 30 years or so. so i guess it goes back to the question, if that percentage increase country be better or do you believe it would be worse arnold difference? caller: it would be better. it depends on which issue you're talking about. good for the economy■%go, better everybody? the big elephant in the room is roe v. wade being abolished. it is going to put a twist, a curveball, into this whole of t, is going to be, that part of it is going to be stretched. women have the ability -- women

are from venus, men are from mars, i've heard that. is that true? or can we actually put aside and do what is right for the country, to keep us all safe, moving in th right democratic direction? i don't know that it wouldn't be better. it would be better for women to see a woman president, for more women to be. they are looking at all of this. do women feel good? women can't agree, disagree. would it bring more balance, less gridlock? i think that would be an important development if it did a road that gridlock that we are in right now. host: thanks for the call from

california. stephen on facebook saying it wouldn't make a difference, women can be corrected just as easily as men. zeke in kansas city, missouri. having this discussion, asking what you think the impact would be of more women officeholders. having this discussion this women's history month. go ahead. caller: i think it would make a difference. women would be more empathetic, especially if we were talking about women bringing their experience to the table. it would make a difference . just as you stated, we would continue to see increases of women in these positions. when i started law school in 1978, the class was one third white women, five blacks out

of a class of 150. now women make 55%, and we will continue to see those increases. there will be no going back. and they do bring a different perspective. it will make a difference and we will continue to see these increases, and there is nothing that can stop that. host: we were talking about how the house of representatives, 35%. women make up about 25%. stats, when it comes to fortune 500 board members, women make up about 30% of that. co■lllege university presidents, the graphic would agree with me here, also about 30%, according to numbers from gallup.

there numbers on data and women. one place where women have not achieved that same quarter to a third level of representation is in women ceos of fortune 500 companies. it continues to be just about 10%, much lower than the other numbers we were talking about. why do you think that is? caller: you have to first look at where you are starting from. you made the statement that you saw increases just in the recent decades. with respect to ceos, because of the position, the feeling with respect to stock, making sure the value -- it is a marketing. if we see more women in these

positions handling these positions, you see that on the board. it is a natural progression to ceos. we will see more women. ethnic women, more black and brown women, which accounts for the unequal pay. if you were to just look at white women, the gap would be narrower. then when you include ethnic, black and brown women, we will see greater increases there also. that is just my opinion on it. host: bear, delaware. this is alex. caller: how are you doing? host: what are your thoughts on this question this morning? caller: the only reason you guys are having this question on there is because of kamala harris.

they know that if biden wins, kamala harris will be president, and it would be the worst thing to ever, ever happened to this country. everybody better listen and see what is going on here. that is all i've got to say. host: the reason we are having this q one, it is women's history month, and two, the gallup organization have been pulling on this question for decades now. they put out a new version of the paul last week, so we figured we would talk about it during women's histy mentioned e campaign trail, talking about various issues. here she is on thursday visiting a minnesota planned parenthood facility that offers abortion care. abortion, a major issue driving

voter this campaign season 2024. >> in states around our country, extremists have imposed and passed laws that have women access to reproductive health care. and the stories abound. i have heard stories, met with women who had miscarriages. women who are being denied emergency care because the health care providers there at the emergency room were afraid, because of the loss in their state, that they could be criminalized, sent to prison for providing health care. so i am here at this health care clinic towork that is happening in minnesota as an example of what true leadership looks like, which is to understand. it is only right and fair that

people have access to the health care they need. and that they have access to health care in an environment where they are treated with dignity and respect. please understand that when we talk about a clinic such as this, it's absolutely about health care and reproductive health care. everybody get ready for the language. uterus. that part of the by needs a issues like fibroids. we can handle this. breast cancer screening. contraceptive care. that is the kind of work that happensó7 here. in addition, of course, to abortion care. so to have laws in states that have caused clinics like this to shut down, so that women have no

access within any reasonable distance of where they live to get this vital care that is necessary to address their health needs and concerns. host: the vice prid week. taking your fun close -- phone calls this monday morning, asking about the impre women officeholders. do you think it would make the country better, worse, or no different? mary in michigan. caller: how could it be any worse? that is what i would like to say. look at the republican response to the state of the union, having u.s. senator, 42 years old, sit in her kitchen of all things in 2024. just the optics of that. i am in michigan. i have 19 nieces and nephews. on her 18th birthday, i had a

nice call me, she was standing in line on her 18th birthday for four hours at the university of michigan to vote for our governor, because of what was going on with abortion rights in the state of michigan. because of former president trump, he turned she can purple by attacking our governor, secretary of state. the state is run by democrats now. our higher offices are now run by women because of the rhetoric from donald trump. part of it against our governor and the candidates he approved were so extreme on the republican side, it is shocking when you look at the map of michigan. counties in the upper peninsula that were read republican in this last election, they turned

purple. i would like to have a shout out to our retiring senator debbie stabenow. she has quietly been a very effective senator. she runs the farm bill and stuff like that. she is not on the news all the time, but when she is, it is something important, bringing money and jobs back to michigan . one other thing i would like to say, people talk about kamala harris. i am old enough to remember dan quayle. does anyone think that he was ready to be vice president on day one should anything have happened to president george

bush at the time? just remember dan quayle. host: you mentioned former president trump. he was back on the campaign trail this past weekend e countries four republican female governors. donald trump was with kristi noem of south dakota. they were in the state of ohio. [video clip] >> when you were in the white house and i was governor of south dakota, every day i could be in office, i could call this man, tell the man about what problems we were having with a foreign country, trade agreement, and he says we will fix it. as soon as joe biden went into the white house, i went on nsall i do know is fight to protect the freedom of my people. that is the difference that

leadership has. that is the difference that this man has. let's put him back in the office so that we can make america great again, and we can do it for senators like bernie marino. we are going to win big. host: kristi noem with donald trump over the weekend. this is joseph waiting in fayetteville, north carolina. what do you think about this question? caller: thank you. in a perfect world, i think women would make a difference. unfortunately, in the world we live in, we have nuclear bombs, drones, too big to fail, we have laws on the books that say corporations are i don't think it would make a difference if women had more offices right now. host: this is michael in bullhead city, arizona. good morning. caller: how are you doing?

good morning. host: go ahead with your comment. caller: my comment is this. i am a christian and i believe in what god says. as far as what the bible says, it is not right for a woman to hold office over a man. if a man is able to do that job, it should be given to the man and not the woman, because he did not put women in control. man is first. host: you don't think there should be any women in public office? guest: none. according to the bible. that is god's law, not man's law. host: this is sylvia in coachella valley. good morning. caller: very interesting commentary. first of all, i have to say this. why are women right now so

focused on reproductive health, when our country is at war, when we continue to get involved in conflicts throughout the planet, and when we have the largest budget to build weapons rather than putting that money into medicare, social security, medicaid, and of course, education. and yes, women are very capable. what is so unfortunate is i see the results of elections women continue to vote for men, and some have been in congress, senate, supreme court, for goodness sakes, for decades. what is that about? we need term limits. we need women in office, yes. we are very capable. we are scientists, we are

educators, we are providers of health care, we are managers of hospitals. we are in the business world, yes. we are very capable. and most of all, just a word regarding reproductive health. abortion is not the answer. contraception certainly is. there is no reason for abortion in today's world. contraceptives. and to close my statement, the best thing we can do as women is to vote for women. stop voting for the men. host: on your comment about term limits, term limits for men and women or just term limits for men? there are women that have been in congress for a long time. nancy pelosi, several united states senators. do you think there should be term limits on both or just men?

caller: let us look at the history of the united states and what has been occurring now in government. look at the situation we have now with the budget. that doesn't make any sense. who is making those decisions? people who have been in congress and the senate for decades. and they still haven't learned to work together. well, that it is time to have term limits. two terms and out the door you go. let's bring in new people of all ages especially women, yes, into the leadership of the united states. host: sylvia in coachella, california. eddie in birmingham, alabama saying the impact of more women officials would be great. women are more organized and thoughtful, more careful. go back and listen to nikki

haley's concession i mostly vote democratic but both candidates could learn from that speech. if liz cheney were running as an independent, she would get a lot of votes and definitely mine. here is a lot of bit of nikki haley from that concession speech that he was referring to. [video cli as important, while d strong for the cause of freedom, we must bind together as americans. we must turn away from the darkness of hatred and division. i will continue to promote all of those values)w and the rightf every american. i sought the honor of being your president, but in our great country, being a private citizen's privileged enough in itself, and that is a privilege i very much look forward to enjoying. in all likelihood, donald trump will be the republican nominee when our party convention meets in july.

i congratulate him and wish him well. i wish anyone well who would be america's president. our country is too precious to let our differences divide us. i have always been a conservative republican and always supported the republican nominee. but on this question, as she did on so many others, margaret thatcher provided some good advice when she said "never just follow the crowd. always make up your own mind." it is now up to donald trump to earn the votes of those in our party and beyond it did not support it, and i hope he does that. at its best, politics is about bringing people into your cost, not turning them away. and our conservative cause badly needs more people. this is now his time for choosing. i end my campaign with the same

word that i began it from the i direct them to all americans but especially to so many of the women and girls out there who put their faith in our campaign. be strong and courageous. do not be afraid. do not be discouraged, for god will be with you wherever you go. in this campaign, i have seen our country's greatness, from the bottom of my heart, thank you, america. god bless you. host: nikki haley from earlier this month. 10 minutes left in this first segment of the washington journal today, asking your thoughts on the question, what do you think would be the impact on more office women holders in the united states? would it be a better run country, worse, no difference? been having that conversation on phone lines split. also in 10 minutes, looking at

the week ahead in washington, reminder that a partial government shutdown would hit friday at midnight if congress cannot come up with a spending bill signed by the president by that time. one more note also on capitol hill, over at the supreme court. the supreme court said to hear a free-speech case today centering around issues of covid and combating misinformation and censorship. the case is murthy v. missouri, centers on a 2022 lawsuit led by republican governors of louisiana and missouri. we will be taking you there for those arguments, 10:00 eastern, if you stick around here on c-span. back to your phone calls. joe in washington, you are next.

caller: i am talking about the no difference response. what i would see that would improve the general quality of our civilian leadership at a national, state, and local levels, is the establishment of a civilian leadership academy similar to our military academies. i would have the requirement that it is a four-your institution or a person can get a college education and it would be required to be attended by 50% men, 50% women and they could go on to serve their country at any level of government they choose whether a national level, state-level or local level. they could learn leadership abilities, problem-solving abilities, engineering, accounting. they can learn what it takes to run an efficient civilian government.

also we could use a civilian leadership code of conduct similar to what we have for military officers. a national standard for a civil later code of conduct, whether at the local level, state-level, or national level. let's get smart. let's groom our leadership, met -- whether men or women, give them an opportunity to get a college education, learn skills that you need to be a good leader. host: do you think people that did not attend that academy you are talking about, could those people serve in public office? with this just be an extra thing that people could do to say i have gone to ts academy, therefore another reason to vote for me? caller: w recognize people who have learned and demonstrated leadership skills. leadership can be taught. people can display it. whether the guy is a businessman

or professor, let them run if they want, but my point is, we have to build a set of standard for civilian leadership in this country. host: my other question about what you bring up, colleges and universities have government and politics degrees now. why aren't they cutting it for you? caller: i worked in nuclear power, had a lot of training. skills i took on as a toastmaster, accident investigation. just like you have the reserve officer training corps at our other universities, you could have a civilian officer training corps at any university, like my alma mater. it was an engineering school but they had rotc. have cotc at these universities.

it's a way to get people educated, the government pays for their education, and they decide to go into government service a few years to pay it back. host: thanks for the call from washington. mary in virginia. back on the east coast. caller: good morning. i think women could do a better job if we had more of them in the government. most women know how to balance a budget at home. money gets tight. they could do a lot along that line. plus, more women in office could also influence the women that maybe have a pregnancy that they don't want. abortion is not an option. there are a lot of women that cannot have children that would love to adopt one child and take care of it. i hope that more will listen and do that.

thank you. host: this is kristin in portland, maine saying via text message service saying, i believe more men than women makes might.for right the need for power would eventually be slowed. christian adds that we also need more male teachers in elementary schools. this is a rush in the keystone state. good morning. caller: good morning. i have not called since b lamb was host on your show. clinton was president. the only reason i would think -- i am 72 years old. because of the situation of the world, the other world leaders. xi in china, putin, all of the arab leaders.

you would have to be a pretty strong woman to stand up to those guys come in all respect. the call you had previously to the lady. he had a good take on it but that is just my two cents. i have a daughter visiting with me now, 43 years all, teaches in new york, spent seven years in china. she and i would disagree on the subject. host:■÷ you were around for margaret thatcher. talking about world leaders @ looking at female leaders of countries. did world leaders respect margaret thatcher? caller: she was an exception to the rule i would say. margaret thatcher, she was in when reagan was there. i am sure there are other ones, even in our country.

but margaret thatcher was definitely -- she was on the world stage. maybe our country could be better run. when i was in school, the girls were usually smarter in spelling and stuff. at any rate, i don't know. ny margaret thatchers nowadays i don't think. host: who is the closest in america right now to a margaret thatcher in your mind? caller: that is a toughie. hillary clinton would be my guess because she has been around politics. she is pretty bright. she is getting up there in age, i guess. there are other ones but that would come to the top of my head. i guess kamala harris be president.

she knows what is going on and stuff like that. i agree with the caller before. the best, the smartest, the most qualified for the job, to try to get the country to do the best it can do, whether it be a man or woman. thanks for taking my call. appreciate it. ■s host: we will stay in pennsylvania. one more call. gary, good morning. caller: good morning. i do support women for stronger leadership positions. i think in the united states, we have not really given them the opportunity. i don't agree with the previous caller that there is no margaret thatchers around. there are margaret thatchers around but we have to give them the opportunity. i'm a big supporter of hillary clinton.

she ran during circumstances that were not favorable to her. she would have been an excellent, exceptional president. and she would have stood up to putin, xi. as far as nikki haley is concerned, i feel like she should have really backed down and worked with trump and maybe could have been the next vp or secretary of state. but she was too adamant in her approach. she could have stumbled herself and still have been a force to reckon within the republican party. another leader that we have put on the back burner is tulsi gabbard of hawaii. she is a veteran, strong leader. in the united states, we have not given the women leaders and opportunity to lead. that is my take on that. host: last caller in this first

segment of the washington journal. more to talk about after the break. are joined by nbc news senior congressional reporter scott wong to preview the week ahead in congress. later,fg from reproductive righs to the affordable care act, health care is set to be a major topic this campaign season. we will look at those issues parekh, chief medical advisor at the bipartisan policy center. we will be right back. ♪ >> this week on the c-span networks, the house and senate are in session on tuesday. both chambers will focus on passing the remaining 2024 spending bills before midnight friday to avoid a partial government shutdown. tuesday, former commander of u.s. central command, retired general kennedy junior, and

retired staff mark milley testifying on the biden administration's withdrawal of forces from afghanistan in 2021. on wednesday, the house oversight committee continues to investigate abuses of office by president biden. hunter biden was invited to the hearing but declined. also, jerome powell holds his quarterly press conference following the federal open market committee meeting. thursday, treasury secretary janet yellen and the dtofice ofd budget testify before the house appropriations subcommittee on financial services and general government president biden's proposed 2025 budget. watch live this week on the c-span networks or on c-span now, our mobile video app, or go to c-span.org for scheduling information or watch on-demand anytime. c-span, your unfiltered view of government.

>> for c-span's voices 2024, we are asking voters across the country what issues most important to you this election and why? >> the most important issue this political season is immigration. >> economics and the deficit. >> i think homelessness is an issue that needs to be addressed. >> we invite you to share your voice by going to our website, c-span.org/campaign2024. c-span's voices 2024. be a part of the conversation. >> washington journal continues. host: we takengton. always glad to have scott wong with us, senior congressional reporter with nbc news. congress has until midnight friday to avoid another partial

government shutdown. remind viewers what would actu b down if they don't reach a deal and how close are they to reaching a deal? guest: exactly right, john. thanks for having me. this is the second tranche of funding. they passed an earlier tranche that funded, that past six bills in that package, funding various agencies. this is a more critical package because it deals with the pentagon. it deals with the home and security department, deals with the state department, really critical agencies that are necessary for the federal government. over the weekend, there was some developments. we had gone into the weekend thinking they were very close on about five of those critical

bills, but still running into front, which has vexed this congress for a year and a half now because of issues with border security, the migrant crisis and so on. real distance between the two sides when it comes to homeland security. t what we have learned from some reporting in politico and others, over the weekend, they had decided we are not going to do a cr, short-term funding bill for the homeland security agency. we are going to try to include homeland as part of this larger six appropriation bill package. as we stand now, it looks like it is moving forward, but we have yet to see legislative

text, something critical to see in order to avert that shutdown on the friday night deadline. host: for the visual learners, here are the agencies we are talking about. defense department, department of homeland security, state and foreign obligations, health and human services, legislative branch, as well as other agencies. you talk about when we will see legislative text. when is the timeline for that to happen? are there certain amounts of time that the text have to be out there for senators and the general public to read before they vote on these things? are there rules on that? guest: we were hoping to see legislative text by sunday night that didn't happen. here we are monday morning. n%because speaker johnson said they would abide by the 72-hour rule which essentially means they introduce the legislation, three legislative days passed before they will hold a vote on

it. that puts s at about wednesday. this seems to be getting delayed further as we headed to this week. because it takes the senate at least a couple of days to process a house vote, that will put us very close to that friday night deadline. what it means is it is possible just putting it out there -- that we will have to have another short-term stopgap measure, which we call in this town in order to bridge that time. we could have a short term cr needed unless all 100 senators agreed to have a very rapid vote. host: one of the headlines from last week with nbc news.com, speaker mike johnson is still dealing with kevin mccarthy's if there is another cr, if this

deal comes together, what does that baggage mean for whether he remains speaker mike johnson, criticism he has received within his own republican conference? guest: speaker johnson taking a lot of arrows from his own membership, especially those on the right flank, just as his predecessor kevin mccarthy did. but a lot of those arrows are aimed at things that mccarthy had negotiated, put in place. for example, the biggest example of that is the debt and spending deal. we called that the fiscal responsibility act that mccarthy negotiated with president biden. it not only lifted the debt ceiling but also put spending caps in place that speaker johnson has to abide by as he is negotiating these various spending bills. that is one example. another example is impeachment.

speaker mccarthy at that time had moved forward with impeachment and had essentially unilaterally set those wheels in motion. speaker johnson is having to co issue about whether to press forward with impeachment or pull back the reins. host: never a dull moment on capitol hill, a lot of talk about this week. scott wong is joining us for this conversation. phone lines are split as usual. democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. scott wong is with us until 8:30 eastern. turning away from budget and funding to foreign relations. last week, chuck schumer, the

highest-ranking jewish official in u.s. history making those comments about prime minister benjamin netanyahu, calls for a new election. what does that mean at this point for u.s.-israel relations, what response are you seeing from members of congress since those comments? guest: i was actually at the house republican retreat in white silver springs, west virginia at the time. we were told there would be an emergency press conference scheduled by the speaker of the house and his leadership team immediately after schumer made those remarks. those remarks were condemned by republicans. they said there is no way a u.s. leader as high as chuck schumer should be trying to interfere in another country's elections. however, i will say, these are sentiments that had been expressed within the democratic party certainly among very

pro-israel allies, especially those who are israel hawks over the last several months. there had been a real feeling of disgruntlement about netanyahu and his handling of the war against hamas. because of the number of casualties, in essence, the number of civilians killed in that war effort. i think schumer is someone who is really calculated. it was a deliberate speech he gave. he gave us advanced warning, said you need to tune in, this is a major address on israel. schumer understands we are in election-year politics. election -- american public feels about netanyahu and the war effort. i think this was a deliberate action on his part. host: going on to u.s. media respond to chuck schumer, saying

it is inappropriate to go to a sister democracy and try to replace and elected leadership. we are not a banana republic. taking to u.s. sunday shows. how much more do we expect this to play out on capitol hill? i think it will continue to be a major debate because, as you mentioned, schumer is the highest ranking jewish official. because republicans believe he is wrong on this issue, they will keep pounding the drum.the. speaker johnson out at the west virginia retreat holding that emergency press conference. i think this will be a message that the republicans will keep pounding but i think chuck schumer is not backing down. in fact, he was backed by

president biden himself who has had his own qualities and issues ■éwith netanyahu and the way hes carrying out that war effort. host: a lot to cover, we are talking about it on the washington journal, taking your calls and questions. if you want to know what is happening on capitol hill, scott wong is a good person to ask, has been around for a while. what else are you covering? if that is not enough on your plate this week. guest: last week was the tiktok quote, passed overwhelmingly in the house. the numbers they put up gave a lot of momentum to that bill in the senate, put a lot of pressure on senators. however, chuck schumer, the leader o consulting with his committee heads. that includes maria cantwell who runs the commerce committ, would have jurisdiction over tech issues.

so far, there is not the same urgency in the usenate as theree house. the house bill was introduced and then the very next day passed out of committee and then was immediately brought to the floor. that is a very rapid timeline for something as controversial and complex as potential tiktok band. remember, this is a bill that would not outright ban tiktok, but it would force the parent company in china, bytedance, to divest tiktok to another interest, if tiktok is deemed a national security threat. already the fbi director and others in national security circles in washington who have said in fact that tiktok is a national security threat. host: (202) 748-8000 four

democrats to call in. independents, (202) 748-8002. on the republican line, jess in nebraska. caller: scott, quick question. are they going to have anybody in congress, nancy pelosi, any of these players that were there on january 6, do a all of the misinformation they are now coming out with? the president jumping toward the d all of that. what other items? mean, are there going to be any corrections on these items they are just now coming out with? host: scott wong, january 6. guest: the caller is referring to a gop report authored by a

subcommittee chairman on the house administration committee named very loudermilk of georgia. he put out a report, the initial report looking at how the january 6 bipartisan committee created by nancy pelosi investie results they came up with. loudermilk, his argument is that committee cherry picked certain information, that there were witnesses who did not corroborate cassidy hutchinson's account of some of those critical moments that the january 6 committee looked at including the scene hutchinson talked about in the presidential suv, where it was alleged the president tried to grab the steering wheel of the suv and

launched -- lunged at one of the secret service agents in a bid to drive to the capitol to be with some of his supporters that were attacking the capitol just up the street from where we are. this is an issue, even though many have put january 6 to rest, believe that the events that the january 6 committee said happened, happened. republicans are trying to reopen, relitigate january 6. we are in a critical election-year. january 6, as it was in 2022, will continue to be an issue in 2024. you mention cassidy hutchinson. another cassidy making news, senator bill cassidy, louisiana republican, said he would not support, president donald trump's effort to pardon those charged with crimes related to

storming the capitol on january 6. mr. cassidy was among the gop senators who voted to convict mr. trump for incitement of insurrection. appropriate.ink it's those folks were convicted." statement by the senator? tt guest: cassidy is sort of a rare republican senator who has spoken out against president trumpmost of the republicans ine house and senate have aligned themselves with president trump, who have endorsed the former president in his quest to return to the white house. we succeed senate minority leader mitch mcconnell of kentucky. we have john cornyn, senator john thune of south dakota, as

well as senator barrasso of wyoming aiming for the number two spot, all endorsing president trump. it seems if you want to remain a player in the party, if you want to hold a leadership position, aspe house, you have to rally behind the current nominee, the former president donald trump. host: a twitter user who watches the program, pretty good with coming up with questions. what is the one thing you are watching for that is not on the nations radar this week? guest: that is a good question. there is a hearing that house republicans are holding. they have invited hunter biden to come back to capitol hill. remember, hunter biden testified in the bite impeachment inquiry

behind closed doors. now, james comer wants to bring hunter biden in a public testimony. however, hunter biden and his attorneys have declined that request. they have said, if you want me to show up on capitol hill before the tv cameras, let's invite some of the trump family members that the bidens allege have done much of the same things in terms of mixing politics and business. we do not expect to see hunter biden here. i think the white house, certainly the biden family, have made a calculation tt this impeachment inquiry is not going anywhere. the white house last week declared it did, said it is over. there does not seem to be the appetite within the republican conference to move forward with

a vote. there are a number of republicans who have said they are highly skeptical of the evidence they have seen so far presented to don't think these are impeachable offenses. because of mike johnson's very narrow two-seat majority, three defections or more could mean a field impeachment vote. there is a real conce republicans that if you bring impeachment to the floor and it fails, does that exonerate president biden from any of these allegations of wrongdoing? host: this plays into your story of last week, republican ken buck exiting congress early, further eroding the republican majority. what you people know about ken buck? guest: interesting lawmaker, highly quotable on capitol hill. much, sad to see him go. he has spoken out against his own party on a number of

occasions. he was opposed to challenging the results of the 2020 election. he does not believe there are impeachable offenses that president biden has committed. he says that is a large part of the reason why he is resigning from congress on friday, early. he already told us he was not going to run for reelection in 2024 but now he is resigning early, leaving the house majority in an even more dire situation with this two-seat majority. ken rare person who speaks out against his party, in a party that largely walks in lockstep with former president trump. we are not sure where he will end up in congress -- after congress but it could be as a pungent. probably not in any elected office position. he says he will not run as a

third-party candidate for president. we can check that off the list. we will be watching ken buck closely. host: once ran for the u.s. senate before running for the house and winning. guest: one other thing about ken buck, he has said -- i'm sorry, let's move on. host: woodbridge, virginia. we can get back to ken buck after a few more questions. tom. caller: good morning. this is tom. thank you for taking my call. c-span, you are a national treasure. i am the guy that wrote the white paper on inside the fbi terrorism strategy, spoke a couple of months ago. i was the senior collection strategist for domestic extremism at t■8■0irector of national intelligence. publish that report. recently published a 90-page timeline going back to 2009

about evidence of corruption, illegal activities, election interference. you can find that on my website. i say all of this because i will talk about the loudermilk thing in a second. you can find that on my website. the reason i'm calling today, we were talking about whether anyone will be held accountable or answer for all of the misinformation put out by the january 6 committee. ■i am doing what i call the january 6 investigation investigation. recent testimony that was revealed from the deputy chief of staff who was a senior secret service agent who was on a duty assignment to the white house, his testimony was buried on purpose. his testimony not only debunked president trump lunging for the steering wheel in the suv, it also debunked the fact that the president had authorized 10,000

national guardsmen to to be deployed to the capitol if the capitol police requested them. nancy pelosi come the two sergeant at arms, the architecture capital, those people had to request the national guard, had to ultimately be approved by them before the national guard can be deployed. that would have not just for the national guard from d.c. that would have been potentially from the entire country that could have been deployed. çythat is also revealed -- host: bring me to the question, tom. caller: the question i would have is, do you think, for your guest, do you think they should have to answer for this deliberate misinformation that was shown regarding the january 6 committee against the america?

my contention is they lied to you. they live to everyone. they lied about the dossier, russian collusion, the hunter biden laptop, everything that happened on january 6, undercover agents being at t capitol -- host: we got your point. back to the january 6 investigation investigation. guest: somebody joked to me when i was at the gop retreat, that might be an investigation if democrats take control of the house in november, an investigation into the investigation of the investigation. how far do you go down? the january 6 committee was a bipartisan committee in the sense that two respected members of the public and party -- republican party at that time, liz cheney, adam kinzinger, or participants.

yes, they were selected by nancy pelosi after the republican party decided to withdraw their members from a highly politicized committee, but i think these things can be debated and re-litigated into infinity. that is not my job. the report is what it is, it is an official select committee report. i encourage people to read that. there were democrats and republicans, democrat and republican investigators on that committee, who came up with the product. i think we are seeing this debate happening again, two, three years after the events of january 6, because we are in an election cycle that involves the former president of the united states, dold trump. host: via mike in

illinois, what is the story with menendez? assume he is talking about bob menendez. guest: under federal indictment, facing a number of charges related to bribery, a number of other federal offenses, as well. i don't think bob menendez will be a united states senator come january 2025. one of my colleagues posed a question to him, if he had planned to run as an independent, which is apparently a possibility. this will be an issue left for the voters to decide who they want representing them. i just don't think bob menendez, with his myriad legal problems and criminal problems, will be returning to the united states senate after all is said and done. host: bob menendez onap years.

assumed office in 2006 as the united states senator. donald in omaha, nebraska. good morning. caller: i would like to ask who pays for these retreats, how many rube, did it cost any taxps money? guest: i don't know all of the ins and outs of these retreats. i have been to a number of them both on the democratic and republican side. they call them annual policy retreats where they supposedly discuss policy issues. they hear from experts. i ran into a couple of familiar faces. greg walden, the energy and commerce chairman from oregon. kevin brady, the former ways and means committee chairman. i ran into those guys in white sulfur springs last week. they hear from a number of

experts on a various issues. it can range. but they can also talk about politics, about the upcoming campaign. the focus of this retreat was growing the majority. the ironic thing, of course, was that only about 100 lawmakers out of the 219 showed up, so that is less than half. that speaks to some of the issues the house has been having in terms of removing kevin mccarthy as speaker, fighting over who should replace him. all the fighting that we have seen. it has been the congressional institute which hosts these various retreats, both parties. host: both parties retreats are well attended by the political media. what is your role when you go

down there? is it just the press conferences where you get to ask questionisd mingling and also record situations? how much access do you have when you go to these? guest: it is a place where people are a little bit more relaxed. this one was at the greenbrier resort, a famed historic property, they give towards to reporters of how -- tours to reporters about how this used to be a fallout if there was some kind of catastrophe in the clinton war era. they showed us these highly secured facilities where the congress had to go to the moit is a much more relaxed,

people are casual. there are press conferences we attend from the leadership. there is opportunities for off the record conversations with various lawmakers. just to of what they are thinking, how they feeling a number of months out from the election. host: as usual we have gone or . caller: i'm surprised this person, all generalizations. the main thing he is concerned about is israel's politics. what about the 400 organizations and the pledge all congressman have to sign to support brazil?

is that our politics and he is not concerned about this? host: what pledge is he talking about? guest: i'm not sure of any pledge lawmakers have to sign in support of any country in general. traditionally, the united states, members of congress have been overwhelmingly supportive of israel for decades. this is a realni point of u.s.-israel relations. the criticism from it schumer, president biden, other democrats is not aimed at the israeli citizens. there are even serious disagreements happening within the benjamin netanyahu

administration. it was interesting to see that as schumer was making those remarks on the senate floor and criticizing new elections in israel, house representatives were looking forward to hearing from the israeli ambassador himself. moments before mike johnson stepped out in that press conference, they were all huddling with the ambassador. obviously very interesting times , serious times for the people of israel and the palestinians who have been displaced and killed in this horrific war. it is going to be an important

part of the conversation as we head into the election. host: a smart follow if you want to know what is happening on and around capitol hill. senior congressional reporter with nbc news. we always appreciate your time. host:up in about 40 minutes, the role health care is playing in campaign 2024. that discussion with the chief medical advisor at the bipartisan policy center. it is your phone calls. any public policy issue, political issue you want to talk about. the numbers are on your screen. we will get to your calls right after the break. ♪

>> celebrating the 20th anniversary of our annual student documentary competition. c-span asks middle and high school students across the country to look forward while considering the past. each participant was given the option to look 20 years into the future or 20 years into the past. in response we received a thought promoting documentary from 3200 students across 42 state conducting in-depth research, students tackled critical topics such as technology and social media. >> eliminating entire fields of work. >> challenges in climate. >> our tapestry could no longer handle this. >> discussion about criminal justice, race, we are excited to

share the top winners of studentcam 2024. the first place winner is from isaac graham middle school in mountain california. ai reshaping america tomorrow delves into the evolving world of artificial intelligence. the high school eastern division is awarded to montgomery blair high school in maryland for his film the promise of langley park. climate change and reimagining the future of america's suburbs. rihanna johnson from troy athens gh michigan claims the high school central division with unseen heroes. the caregivers of america. western division, palo alto senior high school in california earned first prize for threads of change which takes a critical

look at the fashion industry. our top award of $5,000 for the grand prize goes to nate coleman , 10th graders at weston high school in connecticut for their documentary, innocence held hostage. it deals with sensitive subjects and has interviews with a former iranian hostage. >> instead of saying you are free to leave, i was blindfolded, handcuffed, and taken to prison. >> it brings me great joy out of 3200 students who participated, you guys are the grand prize winners of studentcam 2024. >> thank you so much. >> this is a huge honor. thank you a lot. >> we extend our gratitude to the educators, parents, participants who helped each of

these young filmmakers. congratulations to all of our winners. the top winning documentaries will be broadcast on c-span starting april 1. you could catch each of the films online, any at studentcam's.org. join us in these inspiring young minds as they share their opinions on issues important to them. >> "washington journal" continues. ho■0st: time for our open forum. any issue you want to talk about. now is the time we let you lead the discussion. here is the phone lines for you. democrats, (202) 748-8000 republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. when this program ends, we will

be taking c-span viewers to the supreme court to hear a free speech case, the supreme court hearing or arguments -- oral arguments on murphy versus missouri with social media companies about content moderation during covid and whether that amounts to suppression of speech or even censorship. arguments now your phone calls. the line for democrats, you are a first. caller: i'm scared of trump. talks about blood baths and all of that kind of stuff. we have a full year to go. he said he might take another one.

we doesn't -- we do not need a dictatorship in washington. that thing in north korea. why is he shaking up with those people? these people better wake up. ■,he's a good american. that's all i have to say. i thank you. appreciate it. host: that is thomas in texas, he mentioned putin. that story you might've heard over the weekend. after a three day election, vladimir putin wins reelection. another six-year term in russia. the carefully managed result gives the russian chief carte blanche to pursue his war against ukraine. republican in falls church, good

morning. caller: thanks for taking my call. big fan of c-span. i wanted to call and not talk about any specific issue, i know this past week biden and trump really clinched effectively both of their nominations. that is something the vast majority of the country is not happy with. the way to solve this is two main things. the center of the country, the average person needs to get really involved in the party system to help with these nominations. 'm a republican, i don't care what lane you choose but choose one and get involved. at the same time, you need to make your voice heard. one thing we really need to do is engage in open dialogue with eachfy other.

something my wife is always saying is be excellent to each other. that is something we all need to do. something that could move us all down the middle and make be in. she loves the movie. host: this is nikki in rockaway park, new york. good morning. hícaller: i think c-span because you are the best entertainment. best three hours of entertainment i enjoy every morning. the conspiracy theories, the good stuff. are you there? host: i'm listening. caller: i like the way you interview people, the way you

make observations. you are neutral and i like that. ■pit is hard to find that. i'm not very political anymore. politics got political. i am a happy guy. i know what is going to happen is going to happen. one thing people should consider that happens to everyone. one of the candidates dies, that's a real possibility with elderly people. they die every day. young people die every day. i just want to put a little stuff in the game and have people consider the chaos that would be involved. thank you. you are the best entertainment, the conspiracy theories. host: got your point. this is mike in illinois, good

morning. caller: good morning, c-span. want to say it is so surprising, i wonder how they feel about the speech trump made about it being a bloodbath. that's terrible for someone to say something like that. host: i want to read this to you because the editorial board of the wall street journal picked up that quotehis is what they had to say. i want to get your reaction. at an ohio rally on friday mr. trump was weeping about the peril facing the automobile industry from imports. he said this, if i don't get elected, it is going to be a bloodbath for the country.

the press, and democrats jumped on those remarks saying he would incite violence if he loses. his words were over-the-top as they often are but his bloodbath context was clearly to the u.s. car industry indicated voters one more reason not to trust media reports about donald trump. what do you make out of that from the wall street journal today? caller: everyone has their opinions. when you are in a position of authority and you could motivate people, that is not the right comment to make. all of this stuff, ukraine, russia, a lot of it is going on. i don't think a statement should be made like that. no matter what the situation is.

host: the page facing that story has this above the fold on the opinion page. john lehman served as secretary from 1981 through 1987 and it said ronald reagan would never vote for donald trump. saying he doesn't think ronald reagan would be a trump supporter. he is an elector and delegate for the group no labels been considering a third-party candidate for president. kind of what the wall street journal editorial page looks like today. this is larry in springfield, ohio, republican. good morning. caller: thanks for taking my call. i have a couple of comments to make.

one ising do we have where schur could say we have to have some other countries have an election , what would the comment be if somebody came in our country that way and started making those comments? it would be way overboard, wouldn't it? host: benjamin netanyahu blasting back as the headline says in his appearance with cnn over the weekend. it is not appropriate to go to a mocracy and replace the elected leadership. caller: in that respect he is probably right. a couple of other, one is the price of fuel, food, things like that, the pyramid has

dominoes. a war against fossil fuel from countries that want to destroy , it drives the price of everything up while fuel is something that our farmers use to make our crops. the aircraft's, trains, they all run on fossil fuel. it has sure run the price of fuel up. is there any comments about that? host: those your your comments. this is tony in north carolina. good morning. caller: thank you for listening to me this morning. network security engineer. the one thing i would like people to start listening to is the fact that we have a lot of

third-party outsourcing across the country. i find that whether it is a state epa or anywhere where there is american interest, we have a lot of foreign people on the network and we won't be able to track this down. a lot of them come from countries that are adversaries. i would like congress to start considering the fact that we need to have people going out there and look at what is ten in these places. it is networks in general. making decisions for our nation about it happens in places like wall street as well where we have people from other countries that are very good at what they do. they are brought in and they

have a lot of control. i don't know if we have enough people that will be able to find any backdoors that they would create in an emergency. host: do you use much social media? caller: i don't. it is the reason everybody is talking about now. many people in my field are very concerned. we have been talking about this for many years. i started talking about this in 2000 and i had a lot of people say i was paranoid about it. there's not very much we could do. the american people have to start paying attention and making it a priority. no matter how much you complain about either party.

you have to start paying attention to the news. again, all of us, we could just speak to everyone, gore to -- go to corporations, go to government. we need to make it a priority. host: about 33% of americans use tiktok. more american women than men use tiktok. about 52% use tiktok. americans ages, 24% use tiktok ages 50-64. the chart from the "wall street journal," showing the average time spent per user per day is 97 minutes.

a chart they of various social media platforms and the percentages of americans that use these platforms. this is linda in oklahoma city. caller: good morning. this is my first time calling. i don't know how to start with this conversation. i got a letter from the social security office sadly saying they want me to pay back this money from this covid check that i got for $1500, has any other person got a letter from the social security office saying they want you to pay this money back? they want it by the end of this month. host: this is from the social

security administration not the irs? caller:the social security offi. i opened it up and it said due -- they were saying they were overcharging the people on social security and they are just now getting back to me saying that i was overpaid and i need to pay them back over $1500 by the end of the month. i only get 900 some dollars per month tsurvive onis from. i wonder if anybody else got this letter. host: did you contact someone? caller: i'm set to do this today. they don't do that until 9:00. what is the deal? they want me to pay this. they gave no explanation why

they want mhost: i don't know yr situation. i do know there is a taxpayer advocate service, it often comes on this program to deal wybe not the kinds of issues and they have a taxpayer advocate service where they set you up with somebody associated by the irs . that might be a place as well. caller: i was just curious if anybody else received a letter that they want this money back that was put in your account. host: thas call back down the road and let us know what happened.

caller: how are you doing i would like a quick statement to the lady who just called, it is a scam. don't call the number on the notice. you have to call the social security direct. it is a scam to get you to payie bloodbath statement. the bloodbath statement is based on the story from big three automakers. these companies moved to mexico and it would be a bloodbath. to take that out of context, i'm surprised with these democrats.

just for political purposes they are throwing this out. come on, john. people need to study the history, go back to the big three in the 1900s and you will find out exactly what i'm talking about. anything else? host: thanks for the point on the social security scam. they have various types of social security related scams and they updatth with information about letters that sound like they are from the social security or phone calls to help people identify them. to see if this is something that has been reported to that. thank you for that call. lee is next in rhode island, independent, good morning. caller: a couple of things.

it is really funny to me, every time donald trump comes sideways out of his mouth like the con man that he is, it is an effort not only by so-cled everyday americans to clean up what he is saying. there are so many comments that if he's not elected, there won't be another election. he's making references basically that there will be civil war in this country if he's not elected. it will be magnified times 10 if he's not elected. this is a man getting ready to go on trial, serious, top-secret documents that have serious

national security implications. what is he actually saying? host: you think he's getting a pass from the media? caller: what i think is he is good for ratings. they want him. they talk about him being dangerous for democracy but then they talk about him like easily jimmy candidate for president of the united states -- a legitimate candidate for president of the united states. it is a rematch, same thing in 2020. i was doing the math when it was first announced he was running for president. if every person who voted in 2020 came out and voted again, he would need every person that voted for him to vote again. he would need the people who voted against him to change their mind.

he would need the people who voted for joe biden to say i don't like joe biden, i will go with donald trump. it does not make any sense to me. if you have the same exact amount of people who came out, a record amount of people that voted. you would need millions of people who did not want to vote for him to change their mind. he's a threat to national security. they got $2 billion from saudi arabia. why do you think they gave him this money? i'm hoping fbi counterintelligence is really paying attention to the things coming out of his mouth americae the american people aware of what this con man trader, -- tr

basically the tool in how the russia and fsb infiltrated not only the executive branch when he was president but also infiltrated the branches of government and the federal government. host: we have your point. 15 more minutes of open forums, taking your phone calls on public policy, political issues. let's stay on political issues a little bit now and update the week ahead. we are joined by michelle price, national reporter for politico. good morning. last week, joe biden and donald trump essentially clenched their respective nominations, earning enough delegates to get the

nomination at their national convention. what is there to watch for still in primaries? two dozen states still yet to hold their president to primaries. guest: there is not a ton of mysteries going forward, both the presumptive nominees, will continue to scoop up delegates in these states as they continue to have contests. there are no strong challenges for either man. they continued his campaign. there are couple of states where th effort from folks who are upset about the biden administration's■ handling of the war in gaza, urging some protest votes. we are keeping an eye on these contests. in arizona, they urging for people to vote for williamson as a way to object. in kansas, and option allowing

candidate. in illinois, where chicago has one of the highest, largest populationf americans, they urgo write in gaza on the ballot. the secretary of state says those will not be counted. we are keeping an eye on how that will play out but it is not clear that it will be a big enough noticeable trend at the contests this week. host: arizona, illinois, ohio, kansasies this week. in florida, just the republican side or both sides? guest: just the republicans. democrats in florida decided to cancel their primary and decided to give their delegates to joe biden, c0+ommon when their candidate is in the white house. host: where when the candidates be this week, where are they focusing their efforts? guest: we don't know where donald trump will be this week.

he doesn't always broadcast his campaign schedule until a couple of days out. biden has travel plans this weekend nevada, arizona. nevada doesn't have a primary there. it is an important state in november, if anyone can remember, one of those states that took a long time to count in 2020. arizona has their primary tomorrow. joe biden is not considered in danger of losing the primary but a state that he narrowly won, will be competitivthear. host: reporting from over the weekend from the biden campaign on fundraising, the all-important money race heading into the slog of campaign ads, campaign spending. joe biden raising it to $3 million in february. how does that compare to donald trump, what does that mean for cash on hand moving forward? guest: since the state of the

union, they've been doing well with their fundraising. one of their best periods ever. donald trump has been struggling to fund raise. he had a boost from small dollar donations, folks who were galvanized, upset about the criminal charges. but he has been spending very heavily on his legal fees. that is different from the legal judgments in these cases which is about half $1 billion. fees to his lawyers were about $14 million last year. his campaign is still working to court the big republican donors who are staying on the sidelines. some of those folks were looking at nikki haley, but they are looking to juice those numbers for donald trump going forward. host: at what point does this become a big concern? just the cached disadvantage -- cash disadvantage?

guest: if it gets to a point where it impacts his ability to gñcampaign, those valleys cost several million dollars, making sure that people turn out in those states. if it affects the campaign schedule, that would be a sign. there are some very big republican donors who are expected to come back into the fold. we have even seen some republicans who are hesitant so far, have seen the party galvanized behind donald trump, seem to be returning home so to speak. it sounds like they are confident they will get some of those folks to pay out a little bit. host: a little while ago, we read and up in the wall street journal, one of the delegates for the no labels effort. what do we know about no labels trying to steal any candidates in 2024, are there any closer?

guest: we have looked at this group, founded as a bipartisan effort for folks that are dissatisfied with the state of the republican and democratic parties, kind of a centrist group. they are looking to run a presidential ticket. they have not committed for sure that they will they are moving forward with it. last week they announced their process for selecting a ticket. about a dozen board members who will be looking at different candidates. they will forward that nomination to 800 no labels delegates. they say a majority of those folks are supportive of the ticket, then they will put them on the ballot. they are on the ballot in a little over a dozen states. they have some time to work on that. it would be an effort that might pull away from people voting for either candidate but especially joe biden. one that democrats have been taking seriously. we don't know exactly who they

might be looking at. one of the names that has come out as a potential presidential nominee for no labels is jeff duncan, former lieutenant governor of georgia. host: michelle covers it all in campaign 2024 for the associated press. you can find her work at apnews.com. appreciate the update. 231 days before the election. we will talk to you down the road. less than 10 minutes before the end of our open forums segment, taking your calls come issues on your mind. thanks for staying on the line. luis in texas. mcgrath. good morning. caller: good morning. i just want to remind everyone in the united states that donald trump was accused -- host: i am listening. caller: donald trump is accused

of raping a woman in new york. we are taking our children to his rallies, to praise a man that raped a woman? i don't understand where we are going in america. he is just no good for us. he raped a woman. host: this is allen in arkansas, independent. good morning. caller: good morning. i am so appreciative that i get to talk to you again. e months. you were considerate and thoughtful, professional, to add a website while this call was in progress and i sure wish he would do it one more time for an

a from ukraine.that is her webs. i called to mention her name, to really appeal to republicans. i am a many decades long conservative. i like to think i am more conservative than republicans when i call on the republican line. i just consider conservative to be honest, actually. would you show her website again? host: this is the youtube program that you follow on the woman that reports from ukraine, correct? caller: yes, ana from ukraine. host: why would you encourage people to listen to her, what do you find truworthy? ca again.

i would like to say, i had a 10, 12-year broadcast career about 50 years ago, loved the radio, debate all of that through high school, three years of high school debate, college debate, champion for three years. i say that to tell you i have never won an argument in my life, including those debates. all of our opponents would be happy to tell you that we didn't win. i just have never been more impressed with a journalist, individual, from years ago, pleading for the world to hear ukraine. as a retired history teacher, i just never heard republican democracy more articulately

called for and appealed for by this moment. i always had jeanne kirkpatrick, i mentioned as my lifelong hero. never heard anyone more articulate than jeanne kirkpatrick, until i heard anna from ukraine. last time i called, i called for congressional reporters, conservative reporters, for the love of god, listen to this woman. she will tell you. for president trump, now, sir, i have supported president trump more than anyone online during his four years of his presidency. i only went online to defend people who were falsely accusing him.

president trump, please listen to anna from ukraine. host: we will take the appeal. we are running short on time. alice, good morning. caller: good morning. what i want is an interview with the head of and some of the rk who had to clean up all the mess and destruction of our capitol janua 6. i think people deserve so much credit, and they are never mentioned. o■ythe cleanup people, they aret the highest paid people in our country, but they do lots and lots of work every day. n]host: these are the pplcapit'l

work. it is a whole agency within theñ capitol. plenty of employees. the architect of the cap+)ol has an officright there in the capitol. plenty of work about what they did. this is one insider story. go ahead with your comment, we are running short on time. caller: they deserve credit, they deserve an award for the mess, the terrible things they had to clean up in the capitol. and for people who don't believe it, maybe they should do some cleanup work in bathrooms, hallways. i just think so many times they are kind of forgotten.

thank you so much. host: north carolina, republican. good morning. caller: two subjects. i notice you are always looking at your papers, new york times, washington post. why not read the real news? describe. what is going on ndc this weekend, seven people shot, two killed. they need to lower the age of the minors because these people are getting younger and younger. carjackings and murderers and everything. host: you made to charge them as adults? caller: yes. if you do an adult crime and you say they are just minors, these days with the internet and all of these things, livestreaming. remember when those two young thugs ran over that ex-cop

riding his bicycle in arizona or nevada? these people need to be charged. if they have the sense to do the crime, these people need to do not put them in little juvenile detention. that is like a summer party for them. another thing, the trump comments about the blood bath, all of the left-lni portrayed it as january 6 on steroids. what it is, these unions voting for biden, his administration, doing that green new scam thing, where do you think all of these people will go to? mexico. i have a company called piedmont lithium in north carolina. they are buying up all the land

behind us because of a lithium deposit but they are not coming full-scale on the damage that will be done. i live 12 miles from where they want to pump water in in case they hit the aquifers. they are lowballing these people. this is a couple billion dollar business. all of the stripmining over the land. and i live in the rural areas. wooded. they are lowballing this. these companies are selling everything to china. host: that is going to do it for open forum. stick around. plenty more to talk about this morning. next, we will focus on health care and how to care is shipping up to be a major topic this campaign 2024 season. we will take a closer look at some of those issues with dr.

anandei parekh, chief medical advisor of the bipartisan policy center. we will be right back. ♪ >> james traub's latest book is entitled "true believer: hubert humphrey's request for a more just america." he writes, i returned to humphrey in order to explain what liberalism was at its ascendant moment, why it matters to so many people, and why it abruptly lost its appeal to the majority of americans, and perhs how it might rejuvenate itself. hubert humphrey served as mayor of many ballasts -- minneapolis,

vice president of the united states under lyndon johnson, and candidate for president for several years including 1968. >> there james traub on this episode of book notes plus. book notes plus is available on the free c-span mobile app or wherever you get your podcasts. >> this week on the c-span networks, the house and senate are in session on tuesday. both chambers will focus on passing the six remaining 2024 spending bills for midnight friday to avoid a partial government shutdown. tuesday, former commander of u.s. central command retired general, and the former chiefs of staff mark milley testify before the house foreign affairs committee on the biden administration's withdrawal of u.s. forces from afghanistan in 2021. wednesday, the house oversight committee continues to

investigate public abuses of office by president biden, hunter biden was invited to attend the hearing but declined. also on wednesday, federal reserve chairman jerome powell alters quarterly press conference following the federal open market committee meeting. thursday, treasury secretary janet yellen and the director of office and management and budget shalonda young testify before the house appropriations committee on general government on president biden's proposed 2024 budget. watch this week live on the c-span networks or on c-span now, our freezers been mobile video app. more to watch live or on-demand any time, c-span.org. your unfiltered view of government. friday night, watch c-span's 2024 campaign trail, a weekly roundup of c-span's campaign covered from abroad in a one-stop shop to see with the candidates across the country

are saying to voters along with for attend accounts from political reporters, fundraising data, and campaign ads. watch c-span's 2024 campaign trail friday night at 7:30 eastern, on c-span, c-span.org, or download the podcast on our mobile app. c-span, your unfiltered view of politics. >> washington journal continues. host: conversation on health issues liquid to be the focus for democrats and republicans this year. we are glad to welcome dr. anand parekh. an article for the journal of american medical association, you laid out four health care issues that you said are set to defy the 2024 elections. two the democrats are focusing on.

start on the republican side of the aisle. guest:ot of issues this year for the election. you are hearing about the economy, inflation, the border, foreign policy. health care is so personal and can be easily politicized. i think this a top-tier issue. republicans, we are now out of the pandemic, but i can see them going back to covid policies, what they see as covid overreach during the pandemic. i could also see them tallying border politics with the illicit flow of fentanyl. we still have an overdose epidemic in this country. democrats, i think, will focus on prescription drug costs, what they are doing to reduce cost. i also think they will focus on reproductive health choices including ab access. finally, there is the affordable care act. you hear president biden talk about it, former president trump also at times it evokes the affordable care act.

it is really now entrenched our health care system. pretty popular. 20 million americans getting their health care from the obamacare exchange. host: the repeal and replace line that you heard. guest: there is not really that replacement. trump talks about the aca at times but there hasn't been a replacement. that is probably here to stay. democrats more thanublicans will be talking about the affordable care act. host: drug price negotiations, what drugs are we talking about, when is that set to happen this year? guest: 2026. 10 drugs have been selected, diabetes drugs, heart disease, cancer drugs. it is more than that that the inflation reduction act did. caps now on co-pays, out of pocket costs for medicare beneficiaries. extend this to the commercial sector. republicans will counter and say

this well negatively impact resech and development, future medications, future cures. you will see a back-and-forth on that. host: the fentanyl issue, as much homeland security issue, as much as it is a health care issue. a lot of focus on the border bill, funding the department of homeland security. do you think it will be more focused on the health care side insecure beside? guest: i do and i think you'll be hearing about how we stop these precursor chemicals coming in from china, stopping transnational organizations in their drug trafficking and money laundering schemes. i hope the conversation is also about prevention and treatment. that is how we will ultimately reduce the amount of americans losing their life every year from overdose. host: when was the last time that you recall from an election in which health care issues

featured this prominently? guest: the last few cycles, we were in the dst of the pandemic, and previously, the affordable care act was still percolating. 2016, the opioid overdose epidemic was finally getting attention. host: maybe the question is when was the last time it wasn't? guest: probably go back to 2004. 2008, president obama was talking about health care, aca was passed in 2010. 2012, it was up for debate. supreme court had to get involved multiple times. health care is very personal. as much as we say there are these other issues, and there are, it doesn't mean that health care will be the top issue. you'll see both sides talking about it. host: who do you see as the main voices for each of the

candidates, surrogates on health care that americans will trust from either side? guest: good question, question. certainly people will ask questions about that. it is a little bit less clear who former president trump will defer to on this issue, how much people want to get into some of these issues. i think we will have to wait and see on that one. host: talking about health care issues. several of them in campaign 2024. we are talking with dr. anand parekh from the bipartisan policy institute. (202) 748-8000 for democrats to call in. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. independents, (202) 748-8002. having this discussion until the end of the program. at the end of the program, we will be taking you up to the

supreme court, conversation -- argument today at the supreme court being heard on what the government can and cannotwhen ia companies. in this case, relating back to the white house trying to take down covid disinformation that they saw on social media platforms. a tricky topic right now, certainly more than one case at the supreme court about. where do you stand on what the white house did at the time to take down covid misinformation? guest: i think it's really important to separate fact from fiction. any kind of public health spots requires building trust. trust first starts with those individuals closest to people where they live, who they associate with, then you need reputable sources of information.

i think that misinformation really plagued us during the pandemic, likely cost us a lot of lives. making sure that doesn't happen again, how we ensure that science and evidence leads our policymaking i think is really important. unfortunately, we are seeing some spillover effects with covid. look at childhood vaccination requirements. more cases of measles in the past two months in the past years -- than in the past years. we need to be careful, separating fact from fiction, evidence-based information, trying to deter misinformation. host: back to this discussion, what do you see it the bipartisan policy center's role during covid, combating misinformation out there, and in an election year where things get political, what is the role

of a group like the bipartisan policy center and the work that you do? guest: really to point the public to reputable sources of information. this can be government agencies, also community-based, faith-based organizations, entities that the public trust. public health is about trust. bpc is trying to get partisans on both sides together, ensure that they understand what are those evidence-based policies, how can we best communicate them to the public so they can partner with us? host: carl is first calling in from new york city. line for democrats. caller: thank you for taking my call. i'm a registered nurse who worked during covid. my question is how better prepared are we now at this time if we were faced with another pandemic? i am here to tell you■z that things were totally disastrous. i am still involved in covid reporting today.

not a day goes by where i think, if something like this happens again, what would we do to ensure the health of our health care workers? thank you for taking my call. guest: first of all, thank you for your service during covid pandemic. there were a lot of lessons during the pandemic we will need index go around. it is not a question of if but when. we will need better leadership, more precise data, better coordination, better communication. i think that preparedness is a process. it takes every sector of society. it's a public-private partnership but congress has an important role as well. ■?we are seeing some signs of increased preparedness, more research into better vaccines, better surveillance system. we need to build the public health infrastructure which is critical as well. some funding going there. what we really need to do is

have sustained, long-ter focus. it cannot be in starts and stops. i think that is what has 3zplagd us. we have to keep our eyes on the ball regardless of which administration is there. i think congress has a lot of us possibility here. i will give you one example. there is a bipartisan bill, the pandemic hazard pandemic act. it is up for reauthorization, has been for the last year. this is a critical bill reauthorizing a lot of our key programs, ensuring coordination. it has passed a couple of times in the last two years on a bipartisan basis. has not crossed the finish line. congress has an important response ability from a bipartisan perspective. host: talking about trust and that there are trustworthy individuals out there. what are two or three that come to mind? guest: centers for disease and

prevention, national institutes of health, scientist providing evidence-based information every day. host: a survey from last fall, formally from kaiser family foundation, a survey found that just 67% of americans said they had at least a fair amount of trust in the center for disease control, 65% for the u.s. food and drug ministry should. democrats are more likely than republicans or independents to trust federal health agencies. half of republicans that they trust the cdc, 49%. 54% saying they trust the food and drug ministry should. guest: it's one of the efforts we are involved in at the bipartisan policy center, talking to republicans and democrats on the hill, how they would like to improve the effectiveness of these organizations. but it will take both sides.

one of the things we need to do is hear solution from both sides. then at the end of the day, the communication to the public has to be really clear as well. these are agencies with thousands of extremely talented scientists working for the public every single day to put on evidence-based information, scientific, credible information. that has to be communicated loud and clear. host: this is karen out of houston. republican. good morning. caller: i was calling about the affordable care act. if anyone has had to suffer it, as i have, you will find out it is not at all affordable and probably not as popular as you think it is. 20 million people may be on it but there is no other choice. i will give you a very good example. here in houston, one of the

major metropolitan areas well known for its health care options, only one hospital system except in the affordable care act. i had the best policy it had to offer. the problem with that was, even if you go to that hospital, your doctor is not associated with the hospital. it is not affordable, it is not good coverage. there is just no other option. guest: thank you for that perspective. i think you are teasing out some of the critical debates out there on the affordable care act. because of the inflation rejection act -- reduction act, subsidies increase the file to the point where, for millions of they had not had to pay for their health insurance premiums to the affordable care act. the numbers are over 20 million. states like texas, red states,

have seen the highest bumps. some of the criticisms that you point out, some of these have narrow networks, meaning you may not be able to see your provider of choice, some have higher deductibles. absolutely there are positives and negatives. think you'll see this debate played out,ium tax credit, thosx credits that mak do these advanced premium tax credits advanchost: often does e get a say on whether they continue with the subsidies? some of these the level of pumped up subsidies that we have seen the last two years. guest: it depends on how long they want to extend it for.

the congressional budget have to scores. at any point of thelong can the? as long as possible, republicans want to modify or not continue them. we will have that debate next year. you are right, it is not only

the size of the subsidy, but it has increased to 400% of the federal poverty line. host:ou in indiana. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call.

things. two very respected editors, about 20 years ago, were saying the same thing,trust anythingoms their desk that was being submitted for publication. one of them was the editor for lancet, the other was the editor for jama. they were both leaving their jobs after 20 years. the second thing is literacy rates have been dropping steadily. the more i hear, the more i see, a percentage of people cannot understand what is being said about all things that relate to science or politics. those are my two things. i hope you can spare a few minutes on that. guest: really good points. on the first, and that is why

the peer-reviewed process is so important, so what we are reading in journals is evidence-based, science-based, reviewed by others. we saw from time to time during the pandemic, they would be a press release of a new and exciting finding, yet the finding was never peer-reviewed. i think that is an important point. your point about health literacy is so important. so many of the decisions that we make related to our help, of course, are our own. the more we understand about health, how to improve our health, and that is where health literacy is so important. all the better for improving population health. when i was at health and human services over a decade ago, health literacy was one of the focuses of our office. i think you're absolutely correct. we need to improve health

education as well as health literacy. host: this on twitter, x, saying after we did so poorly as a nation during covid, push for medicare for all should be from the rooftops but not so much. i'm hearing about insulin, but that is about it. guest: medicare has taken a bit of a backseat. the affordable care act is here. you would see some on the progressive left calling for medicare for all. in terms of the lessons from covid, he is really how do we become more prepared and resilient as a country, how do we become more healthy? the healthier we are, the more likely we can withstand pandemics like this. if you really want to improve the health of the nation, you have to improve -- focus on primary care, prevention. population health.

that is really what we need to do, not only to improve health in this country, but to make sure we are more resilient for the next crisis we face. host: mike is in reston, virginia. log for democrats. caller: good morning. i have a special case. i am paying $530 for medicare, health supplements, 100 $13, prescriptions, $17. now there is something going on, my primary care doctor want me to pay $1900 annually to stay with him. otherwise i cannot stay with him. i think the insurance companies need to be out of the health care business. we need a single-payer. we need a preventive clinic run by the government that is not

for profit. my wife is now on cobra. when we were at the company, we were paying $200. it is getting out of hand. i don't know how people can afford it. my wife has a pretty good retirement income but i don't know how people can afford it. it should be single-payer, just like japan. the health care is much better than western civilized countries, democratic countries. guest: thank you for your important points. again, i think there are, particularly some on the progressive left, that push for a single-payer system currently.

what i think is more feasible, where there is bipartisan support, where they need to be attention, is you talked about the importance of primary care. primary care is the only health care service where if you do more you get improved health care outcomes and lower preventable cost. on the reimbursement side, we only pay a nickel out of the health care dollar on primary care, which is less than half of oecd countries. strengthening primary care to your point, focusing on prevention, that is really important, so we can reduce exacerbation of chronic disease. your point is well taken. affordability is absolutely an issue. i think you are seeing the administration trying to tackle prescription drugs there. other issues like hospital consolidation and others where prices are high. all of these issues,

affordability, hopefully we hear about them about in campaign 2024. host: preventative care, which people expect when it comes to being fruited from their insurance company? guest: it is part of the affordable care act, a specific section saying that all evidence-based preventive services, immunization, cancer screenings, substance abuse counseling, has to be provided by your insurance company without any cost-sharing. that is actually a pretty popular part of the affordable care act. both sides agree with it. years ago, unfortunately, there was a lawsuit, playing out in the courts now, where several businesses looking at a particular service related to feed exposure prophylaxis for hiv, said we don't feel compelled to offer this. then they said all of these preventative services, we don't think we need to offer them

because it goes against what is called the employment because of the constitution, which essentially says the body that selects these services, they were confirmed by the senate. there is litigation now all the way up to the appeals court. right now if you have commercial insurance, you can receive all of those services without cost-sharing, but that may not be forever. that gets to the point, this whole issue of people understanding what are those evidence-based preventive services i need based on my age, gender. we really need a national preventative services campaign in this country where we have all sectors coming together. the pandemic put us further behind. people are not up-to-date with her cancer screenings, immunizations. we need to focus their. host: when is the job of the surgeon general? guest: really to communicate those pressing health care and public policy issues to the american public, so they

understand what the american public believes is critical to ensuring their help, understanding what is happening in the policy sphere. and then identifying ways to improve policy as well as to communicate health education to the public. host: do you think dr. murthy is a good surgeon general? guest: i think he is good, focusing on areas that we know about, but areas that we don't know about as well, isolation, loneliness. he's are not just feel-good issues. taking your medication for chronic disease. the impact health care cost. mental health in this country, youth mental health coming out of the pandemic. these are important issues that we cannot just push to the side. we need to elevate them. i think he is trying to elevate these issues. host: vivek murthy is the murthy and the supreme court case set

to happen at 10:00 eastern today, when this program ends, we will take you to the supreme court. murthy v. missouri. back to your phone calls. mike is an independent. caller: talking about the candidates for the president, we have a third party candidate, rfk junior, who is anti-vaccines. he talked about nano trackers in the vaccines during the pandemic. the surgeon general of florida has been talking about vaccine choice, leading to a measles outbreak in florida. so much disinformation going on. what is your role on all of these things? guest: very important points. everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but when that opinion impacts others and the help of others in a negative way

that goes against science and the evidence base as we know it, that is problematic. rfk junior, the surgeon general in florida, i don't think they are taking into account the full body of science and evidence when it comes to vaccinations. vaccinations in general are the most important public health tool that we have had in history. it has saved more lives than any other medical intervention. it is really important that the public look to multiple sources for the information that they have, look at credible sources, and find individuals who they trust, who really care about their health, so they can make the best decisions for themselves. host: what should americans know about the obesity epidemic in this country? guest: it is one where people know about it but i don't think

the average american realizes that poor diet is the leading factor for mortality in the united states. over 40% of adults have obesity. it is a medical condition. also, there are no treatments, whether it is counseling, pharmacologic treatments, glp-1 agonist have been a big issue that people are talking about. but there are things that we can do to partner with people to treat obesity. certainly prevention of obesity, treatment of obesity, as well. but that is another issue that you would hope residential candidates really address and tackle. i just wrote a piece, i called it our most important public health challenge of this century. if you look at from a health perspective, cost perspective, it's really important that we focus there. host: you are seeing the piece

on the screen. karen is in beachwood, ohio. democrat. morning. -- good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. my question is how do any of the politicians think that they will get a handle on health care costs without taking on the insurance industry? one of the things i know from my own personal situation, family members have been healthy, no medical issues, have had exorbitant out-of-pocket costs. a number of them were not able to pay that cost, so the hospital just waives them, which passes on the cost to the rest of us. how does anyone think that they will get a handle on insurance costs, when the insurance companies in 2023 had profits that went up -- went up 14% on

average? host: thanks for the call. guest: thanks for the question, i'm sure one that millions of americans are asking, and that is why you are seeing a bipartisan movement in congress to increase transparency in the insurance sector. you are seeing focus on a lot of the prior authorizations that insurance companies are requiring of individuals. you are seeing a push on mental health parity, and this is the law, to provide as much coverage for mental health care as they do for physical health conditions. i think you are seeing interest, movement on both sides. absolutely, this is an issue that we will have to continue to focus on. host: dennis in texas. independent, good morning. caller: good morning. my question is when donald trump

ran for office in 2016, he promised the best, cheapest health care in the world, in the world. he had both sides of congress, the white house, nothing was passed. my insurance rates are going up and up. now i'm being forced to get on medicare part b. i had great insurance. medicare part a when i turned 65, my wife also. now we are being forced to get this medicare part b, which i don't know. i am against. donald trump said we would have the best, the greatest. we have nothing, it has gotten worse. thank you. guest: former president trump, still to this day, has not articulated what his appointment would be for the affordable care act. you are right, prices and cost

have gone up in america. in terms of medicare and part b, part d, that is why you are seeing an effort right now to help americans with their out-of-pocket costs. there are currently limited this year for the highest cost medicare beneficiaries. next year, all beneficiaries have a $2000 out-of-pocket limit on costs. negotiation start for 2026. there are penalties now for manufacturers if they increase the price of drugs faster than inflation. the administration wants to move that to the commercial sector. republicans will have their ideas as well. i don't think they will let democrats just focus on this issue. we will have to see what their focus will be on reducing prescription drug costs. host: less than 10 minutes in our program if you want to talk about some of the major health care issues likely to be coming

up this campaign 2024 season. phone lines for democrats, republicans, independents. coming back to obesity for a second. weight loss drugs like those in pick -- ozempic we have heard about, who should be prescribing those pills, taking those pills? guest: these are new types of medications called glp-1 agonists. you have a feeling that you are full. in clinical trials, they have shown people taking these drugs can lose 15 to 20 percent of their body weight. previously it was only about 5%, and those drugs were not always safe in the past. these are saving pretty effective. we don't have any long-term studies there. however, in terms of coverage of these drugs, for 20 years, there has been a statutory provision for medicare to cover any weight loss drugs. 20 years ago, we did know as

much about obesity and weight loss, and now we know obesity is a medical condition. congress has to remove that statutory ban before medicare can even cover those drugs. commercial sector usually follows medicare. medicare has not enacted. it is all different across the board in terms of how insurers are reacting to this. host: is it a bipartisan issue? guest: it is. there is actually legislation signed by our sister organization, bpc action, where 250 members, democrats and republicans, signed a treat and reduce obesity act, which would do two things. allow medicare to consider coverage of these drugs. number two is it would expand another type of intervention, intensive behavioral counseling. counseling individuals on physical activity and nutrition.

right now, only certain providers can provide that. this would expand that. this would come with a price tag. there is a focus right now with the congressional budget office on what the score would become, how to offset that. we have to see where the science takes us. but recently the signs have been pretty impressive. these are drugs not only use for individuals with obesity and diabetes come but also obesity and heart disease to reduce cardiovascular complications as well. we will have to watch the science and evidence but there is a policy issue that needs to be addressed. host: to the badger state, mary in wisconsin. independent. caller: good morning. i am concerned about the children and why the cdc should talk about you should not be having intercourse. rates of gonorrhea are on a huge rise. if you get something like that,

you may not be able to have a baby someday. so we encourage kids to have an abortion pill. we should be promoting kids to have -- we don't know why people cannot have endometriosis, develop cancers. and the kids nowadays, they don't understand that oral sex can cause head and neck cancers. if these kids were told that, they would think twice about doing those activities. for girls to have free birth control at a pharmacy is not a good thing because they don't know the consequences of those drugs on their body. host: to that point, one of the headlines from abc news, the first over the counter birth control pill is set to go on sale this month. guest: a lot of issues here.

certainly, we have seen in some cases, increases in sexually-transmitted diseases. cdc has a focus there, federal governments are focused there. lots of private-public partnerships. hpv is one where we need to increase uptake to reduce cancer as well. again, these are important issues where health behavior, health education is critical, getting trusted information out there, evidence-based treatment are really important. host: dave in south carolina. independent. you are on with dr. parekh. caller: good morning. a couple of statements. first off, health care is a human right. eventually it will be recognized as such, ok? secondly, people who are

primarily concerned about profit are the last people you want anywhere near the sick and injured. it is just common sense. good day. guest: a lot of people agree with you, that health care is a right. as a health care professional, i think that is one of the fundamental things we need to ensure as a great country, to ensure that people have the opportunity to be as healthy as possible. host: when people say health care is a human right, does that mean universal health care? guest: that is the policy issue, what does it exactly mean? we also have to recognize where we are in this country. we have a $4.3 trillion health care sector. as much as we say we want to get the profit out of health care, this is close to 18% of our gdp, but it is a really important point. studies have shown up to 20%, maybe a quarter of what we spend an health care doesn't really go

to improving health outcomes. some call that waste. so the question is how do you reduce that? host: how do you not call it waste? guest: the question is how you reduce that because it is complicated. one person's waste is another person's profit. where are those areas of waste, where can we reduce it to make health care more affordable? host: new jersey. barbara, independent. good morning. what is on your mind? caller: what i want to know is who pays for health care for the billions of illegals in this country? i am sure they are taken care of. guest: we don't have billions of illegals, but we do have migrants and illegal immigrants coming to this country.

they are not allowed to have any government provided health care insurance, medicare or medicaid. certainly while they are here being processed in our system, there are different government agencies that provide screenings, basic health care services. at the end of the day, whichever side of the immigration debate you are on, once these individuals are in the united states -- infectious diseases know no borders. also important from a humanistic perspective that these individuals are cared for. there are separate agencies, private sector initiatives that provide care for these individuals, but they are not eligible for government health insurance programs. host: a couple minute before the supreme court begins their arguments in murthy v. missouri,

a case about government officials communicating with social media companies on content moderation. what have we not gotten into in health care and campaign 20 for that you want to talk about? guest: one more supreme court case next tuesday talking about reproductive rights. we will start hearingthe issue e authority but when a woman during her pregnancy would be allowed to take this medication for which she would need to see her health care professional in person. another reproductive health and abortion related issues. >> coming back to the bipartisan policy center and the hotbed issue with that -- >> that is a tough one.

there are a couple of issues -- our role is to get partisan democrats and republicans together and take the best ideas. we don't get involved in cases up to the supreme court. but those types of issues are difficult. not to say there should be any issue in helping the disabled. but we look for opportunities [indiscernible] certain issues -- >> what is the health care issue you have had more -- the most success doing that? >> i would say health care affordability when it comes to social needs and medicare, medical research when it comes to biomedical research, the orb boyd epidemic -- the opioid app

adamic trying to -- just last week [indiscernible] it is issues related to affordability, research, public health primary care where we try to take the best ideas from both sides. and unfortunately, bipartisanship is still alive. it may not be front page of the newspaper every day but president biden said something interesting at the state of the union. he said i signed 450 bipartisan bills and in each case you see republicans and democrats coming together. >> i have about a minute and a half. >> i am a retired firefighter and paramedic. years ago there used to be small clinics that were available for

families. people pay premiums directly to these clinics and could take their entire families. and be pretty well taken care of. most of those clinics have disappeared or, if they haven't disappeared, and they now only take care of people with medicare advantage plans. in other words, there are no more clinics or county and state clinics available for the public. and i think a lot of that has to do with the federal government getting into the act to the point where those particular clinics have been eliminated. >> i am short on time. >> the other issue there is there has been a lot of consolidation so those independent practices where you and your family have built trust with our no longer there. there are still shining examples

of networks out there in communities that -- there is a network for 30 million americans regardless of their ability to pay. but we do need to preserve those independent clinics because that is what people are looking for -- a trusted relationship with their clinical provider. >> the chief medical officer at the bipartisan policy center has joined us. thank you. that will do it for us this morning on "washington journal." we will now take you up to the supreme court. arguments are set to begin momentarily in the case of murthy versus missouri, a case on federal government officials communicating with social media companies about content. you can watch that coverage on c-span.

>>