we're funded by these television companies and more including comcast. >> you think this is just a community center? no. it's way more than that. >> comcast is partnering with a thousand community centers to create wi-fi lift zones to students from low income families can be ready for anything. >> comcast supports c-span to give you a front row seat to democracy. a very good wednesday morning to you. you can call in, start calling in now on this question of conducting elections in this country. that's a topic we're going to be hearing more from the president of the united states about at his press conference scheduled for 4:00 p.m. eastern today. its timing that will give the president something of a last word to senators before they head to their vote on this voting rights legislation. that's expected to take place sometime in the 6:00 p.m. hour

this evening. but it was senator chuck schumer yesterday who spoke to reporters after his meeting with fellow democrats about his strategy and message headed into today's voting rights showdown. >> if the senate cannot protect the right to vote which is the cornerstone of our democracy than the senate rules must be reformed, must be reformed. if the republicans block cloture on the question before us, i will ask the senate to change the rules to allow a talking filibuster as recommended by a number of our colleagues who have been working on this reform for a long time. historically, changes to the senate rules have been necessary to adapt to changed circumstances. even senator byrd, a traditionalist, said just that. to address voting rights in a timely fashion, there is an opportunity to do exactly that, to change the senate rules to promote a public debate that is

restoring the senate's long standing two-speech limit. we feel very simply, on something as important as voting rights, if senate republicans are going to oppose it, they should not be allowed to sit in their office, they've got to come down to the floor and defend their opposition to voting rights, the wellspring of our democracy. a broad, strong feeling in our caucus about that. once members of the minority party have exhausted all of their speaking rights and defend their position on the senate floor, the debate will have run its course and the senate will move to vote on final passage at a majority threshold which has always been the threshold for final passage. >> senate majority leader chuck schumer. that was yesterday afternoon. that vote is expected to take place today in the evening time, sometime in the 6:00 p.m. hour. for more on the action on the senate floor today, we bring in

a bloomberg news senate reporter. steven dennis, good morning to you. i've heard you say over the years that the number one rule in politics is, when you have the votes, vote. so as senate majority leader chuck schumer goes into today's showdown over voting rights and the filibuster, does he have the votes? >> he definitely does not have the votes and isn't likely to get them in the next few hours. you know, for more than a year, joe manchin and kyrsten sinema have been crystal clear that they were not going to unilaterally, as a democratic party, support changing the 60-vote threshold to end debate on most bills and allow passage of a whole host of democratic priorities, not just voting rights. and so they've reiterated, both of them have reiterated their opposition to changing that

60-vote threshold. and it looks like we're going to get a lot of political theater today culminating with maybe some kind of prime time debate and vote that looks like it's going to be 52-48, maybe one or two more democrats might join those two on whether to have this rules change that would effectively carve out a simple majority threshold for this one big voting and elections bill. >> can you explain briefly what a talking filibuster is? >> yes, so right now the filibuster looks nothing like the jimmy stewart filibuster on "mr. smith goes to washington." basically a senator just, you know, puts in a call to the cloak room and says they object to a bill, and that can force very long delays in even getting

to what's called a cloture vote to end a filibuster. and so you don't even have to come to the floor and speak. you can, but most times, if you are staring at the senate floor on c-span, you see empty floors. and the idea here is that at least on this bill, if you wanted to stop a final vote, you would have to be on the senate floor, talking. and each senator is given two opportunities to talk on a question. and so you would have potentially 100 speeches from 50 republican senators trying to hold this bill up. and then eventually, at the end of that, you could have an up or down vote at some point in the future. and the thing is, is that if that final vote, if you don't have 51 on that final vote, then it's kind of a lot of talking with no endpoint. and that's what schumer is trying to get done here is to have an endpoint.

and the reality is, it's almost certain that he is not going to get to that endpoint. this is going to almost certainly fail today. and the question now is, what next for the democrats? their entire agenda is basically stalled at this point. their economic agenda was torpedoed by joe manchin in december. they're trying to cobble together a smaller package. and most of their social agenda is opposed by republicans, everything from a big minimum wage increase to this voting package to immigration changes. there's a lot of other things democrats want to do. and the filibuster and the opposition from joe manchin and kyrsten sinema in various cases is -- currently has them sort of chasing their own tail instead of what they want to be doing which is getting ready for the election, uniting, having things to -- accomplishments to sell to

their voters and so on. and you've got the president having a press conference this afternoon, and he's got a tough job too because he's got slumping poll ratings, people worried about inflation, and his own party trying to figure out what they're going to do next. a lot going on today. >> in our final minute here, can you just explain the calendar here and how it plays into democrats' agenda, this being an election year, how much time do democrats have to turn to something else, and what are the options for them to turn to before members start really focusing just on reelection? >> yeah, i think they do have some opportunities here. they have to pass an omnibus spending package. there's a february 18th deadline for another government shutdown

fight. there are negotiations on having a bipartisan package there. there is talk between the parties on a china competition bill with semiconductor factory subsidies. there are other things that are sort of smaller ball that could happen. but the one sort of must-do, almost a governing exercise at this point, is this build back better package. it's the president's signature agenda. the democrats have worked on it for a year. and i think they just have no choice but to keep on working on it until they get joe manchin and kyrsten sinema to yes. and whatever that is, then they have to go and sell that to the public. i think, you know, the other issues that keep bubbling up, whether it be the border situation or prescription drugs

and all these other things, there are opportunities potentially to do some of those things outside of build back better, with republicans. but, you know, republicans aren't particularly interested in cutting a bunch of bipartisan agreements before the election. they're pointing to the polls and talking enthusiastically about taking back congress next year. and usually in that situation you aren't falling all over yourselves to help the other team pass some accomplishments that they can run on. >> steven dennis, senate reporter on bloomberg news. his twitter handle, @stevendennis. steven dennis, always appreciate the time. >> thank you. >> taking your phone calling, what are you most concerned about?

is it access to polling? is it election integrity? melissa in cleveland, tennessee, good morning. you're up first. >> caller: good morning. i am more interested in access to voting, because the government is trying to deny people like me, not the government in general but a certain political party that apparently cannot win fairly, so they're going to try and restrict people like me who cannot wait in line for hours to vote. you know, they can't win fairly so they're trying to retaliate by telling people like me that if i try to vote by mail, i'm some kind of a criminal. if i try to be a human being and offer somebody who has been waiting in line longer than me a bottle of water without

indicating any kind of political affiliation, that somehow i'm a criminal, because in tennessee that's considered a misdemeanor to give someone water. in georgia, you can actually go to jail, apparently. so, you know, i can't even imagine what it would be like if my skin was not white. i mean, dropboxes not within ten miles of where you live, waiting for hours, are we going to go back to the days of poll taxes and intelligence tests? >> that's melissa in tennessee. they say doug, san jose, california. up early, doug. what's more important to you, expanding voting access or protecting election integrity? >> protecting election integrity. i disagree with the previous caller. at least in my state, which is california, our governor has decreed that ballots be mailed

out to everybody. in my case, i'm a permanent absentee voter. it's not a problem at all. but the fact of the matter is, what the democrats are trying to do is federalize elections so that it can be controlled by their party so the republicans will never, ever be able to be the majority again. that's kind of it in a nutshell. >> here in washington, dc, ben, good morning, you're next. >> i'll try and keep this short, john, good morning. this is pretty simple, this whole election integrity thing, like just -- if you look at yourselves in the mirror, the people who believe in this whole, like -- there's this real problem with our elections and people are out there casting fraudulent ballots, you know, when you're brushing your teeth this morning or when you're looking in the mirror, perhaps

when you go to the bathroom, ask yourselves, like, who are these americans that you're talking about that sit around and talk about how they're going to manipulate an election? like, where does that happen? when has that ever been a plan by any sort of group in america? we can't get enough people to vote as it is. that's the shameful part of it. we can't get people to vote. yet they want to, you know, continually cut access to the ballots, put up these allegations of voter fraud, make people believe there's things going on when there isn't, immigrants are out there voting en masse. that's got to be really the biggest one to me, like, if you think about it -- at the same time you're brushing your teeth or looking in the mirror, if a person comes here illegally and they don't want to go back to the place they came from, why would they try and cast an illegal ballot to attract attention to themselves? and if you fear they're going to

be a democratic voter when they some day become a legal citizen, maybe if you had better policies that would attract them, you wouldn't have to worry about that. >> and in dc, this is rick. leechburg, p.a. rick? are you with us this morning? stick by your phone. this is linda in mississippi. good morning. >> good morning, good morning. i think vote expansion is the most important part. [ inaudible ] everything was fine until trump lost. he lost in a free and fair election. i live in mississippi. and having a voter i.d. is not the problem [ inaudible ]. but the problem is if they put

partisans in the place of a secretary of state where if i vote for someone and it's not a republican, republicans can have the law tell me that my vote don't count, then whoever they want to be in that seat. and that's wrong. voter suppression, if they had a better idea instead of blocking and suppressing the vote, they would get more votes. >> linda in mississippi. we showed you majority leader in the senate chuck schumer yesterday afternoon. this is the minority leader in the senate, mitch mcconnell, from yesterday, talking about democrats' moves on the senate floor this week when it comes to this voting issue. >> washington democrats want the power to rewrite the rules for political speech and election laws long, long before the events that are supposed to justify it. the democratic leader's effort to break the senate long predates the latest pretext.

we have strong disagreements about the substance of these bills. but even more broadly, we see decreasing trust in our democracy among both political sides. we have a sitting president of the united states shouting that united states senators are on the side of bull connor and jefferson davis for refusing to shatter the senate. was the senate created to make these kinds of factional fevers worse? or to help break the fevers? does the senate exist to help narrow majorities double down on divisions or to force broad coalitions to build bridges? this fake hysteria does not prove the senate is obsolete. it proves the senate is as necessary as ever. >> senate minority leader mitch mcconnell yesterday on the senate floor. we're going to be hearing more

from him, more from majority leader chuck schumer and their senate colleagues all day on this issue. watch from gavel to gavel on c-span2. the senate coming in at 10:00 a.m. eastern today. arnold in smyrna, tennessee, good morning, you're next. >> good morning. how are you? >> doing well, sir. what's more important to you in this debate? >> the election integrity. umm, have you ever heard the following quote, those who cast the votes decide nothing, those who count the votes decide everything? have you ever heard that quote? >> who said that quote, arnold? >> caller: joseph stalin, according to many sources. what would be the purpose of building a voting machine that does not count your vote?

have you ever heard of that? >> so arnold, do you trust any elections right now, federal, state, local elections? >> caller: umm, until we get ways to verify the vote count, the totals, you know, that there is a way to verify the tabulation of votes, but, uh, it's not being pursued. there's a documentary people need to watch, it's called "uncounted: the new math of american elections." i think it's from 2008. and you can watch it on youtube. it's about three men, tom feeney, who was a former republican congressman, clint curtis, a computer programmer

who tom feeney tried to hire, and there's a man from nashville named nathan gibbs who was building electronic voting machines that would print you there's a second documentary that is like a spin off from uncounted, the new math. and the other documentary is called murders, spies and voting rights. in these documentaries, you will see a congressional hearing that was held in congress where they investigated what is known as vote flipping. >> arnold, recommendations. dianne in st. paul, minnesota.

>> caller: good morning. i'm african-american and native american. that right has been denied to my people for a long time. until the 60s. and now the 2020 election, they're saying we have the most people out to vote. one of the most secured elections that were held because none of the seats bottle by the republican party went anywhere. . when we talk about the fact that there was any kind of fraud in the election, how come they're not keeping white people

from voting and state people who got elected? nobody challenged that? the only thing they challenged was the top. that the president was cheated out of the election. that's a faulty narrative only used to keep us from voting. that is the most important thing for them to have. we need to keep on fighting. so, we are going to keep on fighting. have a blessed day. host: coming up in the 9 a.m. eastern hour, we will be joined by michael waldman of the brennan center for justice. he's also the author of the 2016 book, the fight to vote, bringing up the history of voting rights in this country. so stick around for that. and then this piece by jason riley in "the wall street journal," with the headline, "the racial progress democrats

won't admit i >> the headlines, the racial progress that democrats won't admit. hawaii writes, but black voter turnout had been rising since the 1990s, as more states passed voting requirements that the president and backers insist are jim crow 2.0. it exceeded the white turnout rate for the first time since 2008, and happened again with president obama was reelected in 2012. and only to the preobama level and says it showed apathy towards hillary clinton. and two years later, all major racial and ethnic groups saw a major turnout according to the pugh analysis of the 2018

midterms election. this is dianne -- i'm sorry. thats was dianne. this is paul in kentucky. good morning. you're next. >> it's definitely voter integrity. the democrats are one of the most corrupt organizations on the plan. remember in new york city, they have 800,000 illegal aliens the right to vote. california's done the same thing. why would you not want voter i.d.? they want to wipe out all voter i.d. they want drop boxes with no cameras and everybody can put as much -- as many ballots in there as possible. they want everyone to get mail-in ballots and this is ridiculous. they want the cheapest country -- another thing. they do away with the filibuster, the republicans to tell them when they take over, they will have 100 car votes for

the filibuster rule. what goes around, comes around. >> what's your concern with mail-in balloting? they do all mail-in ballot in some states? >> they don't want them to have no more id. texas has a law, make sure you live in texas. well, they don't want that. they want to make that illegal. why would you not want no voter id on any ballot. that's one thing the democrats want to do away with? why would they want to do that for? in certain states, they make it illegal for illegal aliens to vote. one plus one equals two. >> kentucky back the keystone state. good morning. >> caller: good morning, c-span. i'm 11 years air force vet and a poll worker. so, i'd like to dispel some of

the madness going on. you should ask about voter suppression, as opposed to voter integrity. the integrity is only being questioned by those who lost the trump thing. the one who said all the down ballot guys on the republican side won their elections. and as far as the pugh research is concerned, i would say black folks voted in spite of voter suppression laws. all that says is a lot of the laws didn't succeed. not that they didn't try but they didn't succeed. and when it comes to voting, your registration looks at all the polling places. the ballot comes in by mail or in person. it checks against the voter registration booklet. one vote per name. period. that's how it's done.

i don't care if you stuff the drop box with 60,000 votes for one person. by the time that ballot gets opened and it's checked against the books, that name gets one vote. and if that name has an anitation beside it, saying they already voted via the mail, then they can't come in and vote again. that's how the system works. this whole thing of voter integrity is a farce. you know, it's made up. by people who, like the woman also said, you can't -- you cannot realize how important the black vote is. and it seems every time this stuff comes up, it's around race. you know. the numbers you don't put out is how many polling places are

closed in black communities. opposed to white communities. what you don't talk about is how many drop boxes are taken away in black communities, as opposed to white communities. you know. this thing is age old. it's dirty old tricks from before. and i mean, we got cell phones that record movies, you know? yet we're trying to make like the other woman from tennessee. she has issues. she can't walk to a polling place. why shouldn't she be able to send her vote in by mail? >> in pennsylvania, just a couple of minutes left for this conversation. we're going to be joined in our next half hour by congressman jody arrington of texas to chat with him until about 8:00 a.m. eastern. then we're going to pick the question back up at 8:00 a.m. eastern. if you didn't get in for this segment, go ahead and continue to call in throughout the

program since it's a topic we'll be addressing throughout the show today. couple tweets and text messages from our viewers as we've been having the conversation this morning. this for mark in maryland. and on anything and a right many choose not to exercise. however, i do not believe there's nation wide voter suppression or fraud. sign a light on it, fix it but don't turn over more control to the federal government. and a couple other tweets and text as well that you've been sending throughout this program this morning. the op-ed pages of the "washington post" with this issue on einlection integrity

and voter suppression. and keep backing up out the exits of the bus. that from u.s.a. today. this from for and outlining a special police force to over see state elections. the governor proposing that the department state in florida. we'll talk more about that later this morning. that will do it for the first segment. jody arrington up next, the congressman from texas and a little bit later this morning we'll talk with patricia cellmar of the u.s. perg group about the new federal bans on surprise medical bills. stick around. we'll be right back. more.

including sparklight. >> the greatest town on earth is a place that you call home and at sparklight, we call it home, to. we are all facing our greatest challenge and are working around the clock to keep you connected. we are doing our part so that it is easier to do yours. >> sparklight supports c-span as a television service along with these other television providers giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> american history tv saturdays on c-span two. at 10 a.m. eastern watch an event marking the 30th anniversary of the confirmation of justice thomas to the supreme court and he is joined by mitch mcconnell to reflect on his time

on the court. and a look at the herbert hoover presidential library and museum with alan hoover, who talks about how the presidential library will evolve in the coming years. watch american history tv saturday on c-span two and find a full schedule in your program guide or watch any at c-span.org/history. >> the c-span shop.org is the c-span online store and browse our latest collections of books, home to core and accessories. there is something for every c-span fan and every purchase helps to support our nonprofit operation. shop now or anytime at c-span shop.org.

>> "washington journal" continues. host: jodey arrington joins us now, representing the west texas district of the lone star state. on the issue of ways and means and money in this country, one of the chief concerns of republicans right now is the near 40 year high when it comes to inflation rates in this country. so one of the chief concerns right now is the near 40-year high when it comes to inflation rate in this country. so, what could the biden administration be doing right now to lower inflation for the average american? >> well, john, it's good to be with you this morning. inflation, you just touched on a topic that touches every american. it's the tax on every man and woman in this country. people making less, they're paying more for gas and clothes and food and just about every good and service. that they need to support their

families and have the quality of life that we've enjoyed as americans. i think the drivers here are the massive amounts of spending and government money that's flooding the system, which is spreading that supply and demand gap even further. i think you've got policies that have encouraged people to stay home. so, there's a major labor shortage. i think the best example of that is when the democrat policies were paying people more to stay at home with a plussed up unemployment benefit than the salary they were making at the job that they left. so, the expansion of social services without work requirements. giving stimulus checks to people who were not impacted financially by covid. all of these things, taken together, have created a 40-year high in inflation.

and people are living paycheck to paycheck about seven out of ten americans. you have a $300 shortage every month in cash that peopleeral -- people are used to having to take care of their families. two paychecks taken together, about $3500. these are the issues the american people want this president to focus on. and unfortunately, he hasn't. and there's real despair out there. i would add that the price of gas and the price to heat your home this winter is exponentially higher, not only because of the massive spending and the policies that i mentioned but because of the antifossil fuel agenda. and i think everybody wants to transition and appreciates the stewardship of our environment. but having an affordable and

abundant supply and safe supply of natural gas has been a blessing to this country. and i think we're starting to wake up to the notion after the policies of this administration. that have translated to higher costs at the pump and higher electricity bills in their homes. >> the inflation rate is clearly a number that republicans are focusing on as we hit the one-year mark of the biden administration. a number that democrats will point to a low 3.9% unemployment rate. is that a number the republicans are willing to give the president credded on 12 months in? >> you had over 20 million people unemployed because of the pandemic. i would say that he's way below expectations. i'd like to give the president credit. i'd like for our country to be in a spot where we're getting traction on something, whether it's crime or the border or inflation, economic recovery,

national security. but with respect to unemployment, if you look at the last month's job report, december. there were 199,000 jobs. that was less than half of what economists predicted. so, we've seen a decline in labor participation among african-americans and hispanics. when we had the lowest unemployment in african-american and hispanics on the heels of the tax cuts and regulatory reforms and the economic policies of republicans. so, i think this approach of massive spending on top of the sputerring economy and people feeling the pressure and the squeeze because of inflation is the wrong approach altogether. and i think we can be doing much better than we are at this moment. i think most economists would say that and certainly, i think

the real test is asking the american people, whose real wages have decrease 8 of the 12 months in 2021. the president has to radically depart from his mo in 2021. it failed and there's still opportunity for a course correction. >> let me get the phone numbers for the viewers to join this conversation. jody arrington, republican congressman from texas. 202748000 for democrats, 202748002 for republicans. and up early in l.a. this morning, an independent. go ahead. >> caller: i had a question for the congressman. he's trying to blame joe biden for inflation. inflation is effecting the entire world. some other countries around the world, the cost of goods is

actually tripled. so, i was wondering exactly which policy of joe biden's has effected other countries, like let's say bolivia or south america? how is joe biden's policies effected other countries? thank you. >> congressman. >> david, thanks for the comment and the question. i'd like for our country to have higher aspirations than the resilience and the economy of bolivia. i have the most robust economy. there's no excuse. you could say that the supply chains have impacted the supply/demand gap, which is exacerbated inflation. i will grant that. but i will tell you most economists would say that the labor shortage that was due to

policies that trap people on the sidelines because they were incentivized to stay there, making more money than they did in their job was a complete disaster. and republicans offer for those policies in the lasts so-called covid relief bill and all we said was we want to help people too. in this unprecedented time. let's target the people that need the most and put controls in place so we don't pay them more than they were making in their previous jobs. you had small businesses shutter because they couldn't hire enough people to service their employees. that's one example. i'd tell you whether it's quantitative easing, printing money at the federal reserve or massive spending and the 2 trillion covid bill that was straight partisan, we had a trillion still unspent from the previous covid bill.

only -- rather one out of every $10 went to covid-related issues. that was a big mistake. so, we have an over heated economy. supply is short of demand and that is a direct result of the democrat policies. you talk to anybody on main street, they can't afford the inputs. my farmers in west texas, the fertilizer costs have gone up over 300%. and that's one example of the inputs prices are good. but if you net out all the inflated input costs, they're struggling like every other business. >> you touch oun concerns about the build back better act. there's talk among democrats of splitting up this bill and possibly passing pieces of it that they can get support from republicans on. i wonder is there any part of build back better that you would

support if it was broken into a smaller chunk? >> you know, i was for temporary targeted relief and a snap back or a phase back to where we were precovid, which, you know, after the tax cuts we had 6 million people lifted out of poverty. in addition the lowest poverty rates, we had the highest wage increase in decades. i mean, we were hitting on all cylinders. and the reason economic growth lifts the boat of all peoples in this country. and attack taken if i had the pen on writing the econic recovery plan. this president has doubled down on policies i think only exacerbate and prolong the recession. and add cost to working families. we just talked about inflation. but if you raise taxes, the lion

share of that will be passed through in lower wages and higher costs of goods. so, you're going to make matters worse. i don't think we should expand entitlement programs when we can't pay for the entitlement promises we've made to our seniors and medicare and social security and other entitlement programs. i think it's arbig mistake to rescind the balance of compassion and responsibility with respect to work requirements in social service programs. and that is written throughout their reconciliation bill. so, i don't see anything. the giveaways to the millionaires and high tax states like new york, because of the repeal of the salt tap. i can't find anything i think is responsible, stewardship of taxpayer money or effective to getting our economy back and

americans and small businesses back on their feet and getting the american families and working people in a position where they're not worried about whether they're going to pay bills. by the way, the stuff the turkey, so to speak, with, i think, more extreme, out-of-touch policy like unionization of every state and every job creator in the country. amnesty and promises of citizenship, which will only incentivize and encourage more of the illegal immigration we're seeing at record rates. i don't see anything i'd like the work with my colleagues. i think there's a fair conversation about what should tax rates be. i can tell you that a bad place to start, which is the democrat's proposal, is to raise taxes, higher than communist china and make our economy our competitors and adversaries. >> i've got about 15 minutes

left and a lot of callers waiting to chat with you. good morning. >> caller: good morning, sir. i've been a democrat since i was 18 years old. i'm 76. and i have never seen the republican party try to help the working people in america. every program to help the poor, you put your foot on it. now you're blaming the president for inflation. the president has no control on inflation. it's done by the corporations. i don't know whults going to happen to this country but we are headed, with the republicans, to a wrong ending, young man. >> thank you for your tone. i wish, when we disagreed, as i disagree with that statement, that our tone would be the tone that you set in your questions.

i think we all have the objective we want people to do better, we want them to have a more hopeful future, greater opportunities to better provide for their families, etc. we saw that with progrowth, free market policies of republicans under trump and republican congress. that's just -- the numbers support that when you talk about 6 million people lifted out of poverty. you talk about the employment rates and job participation rates and the number of jobs that came back from overseas when we were more competitive. and i believe we have bought into a lie. and that's where they're struggling with an economic disadvantage.

i think those policies have trapped people. i think it's caused people to have generations of family members dependent on the government instead of being pulled up and out of poverty. and incentiveizing the very best of their god-given talents. that's just a philosophical difference. i think the best antipoverty program is still a job. and this president has not done anything to encourage job creation or incentivize people to stay at home, stay on the sidelines and stay on the dole. nobody begrudges helping our fellow americans who were struggling, working hard and still struggling. we want to do that. but there's a balance and individual responsibility and the general welfare of the public by providing a safety net. >> this is roger in mckenzie, alabama, independent. >> good morning, roger.

i appreciate you being on here, sir. i know this is a tough show, especially when you talk about work ethic and such because everybody watching the show ought to be heading out their door going to work and they ain't. >> a good point. >> caller: i'm saying there's only 61% of people in this country actually work. do the other percentage of people who don't work think about that somebody has to work to pay your way? it's like money comes from magic or something. we're $30 trillion in dpebt. but they can't stop it because they're giving away so much. it's going to all crash and burn. i do appreciate you being here, sir. i know it's got to be brave to be on the show. >> what line of work you in, roger? >> caller: i'm in construction and i would be out the door but i just had hard work done.

>> i wish you a speedy and full recovery and thank you for your comments. i agree the problem here in this country is with the welfare state that we created and with this move by this administration and democrats to remove the work incentives, we are having more and more people not have ownership in the society and their contributions to this great country. you have a 75% of the freight in terms of expenses of our government born by the top 10 or 15%. you have almost 50% of the american people not paying anything to contribute to the cost of our government. we're lumarecons. we have ownership of the country and our future. and to your point, the policies

of this administration and my democrat friends are taking us a different direction that will only make matters worse in terms of our recovery, in terms of people contributing, and to your point, national debt at 30 trillion. in the next 30 years, we'll add $112 trillion to the national debt. and that's without the massive tax reconciliation bill. i think that is the biggest threat to the future of our country. china, no doubt the biggest existential threat. there's big problems that have to be addressed. but if we don't start bending the curve on our deficit spending and our national debt, there's not any amount of money we can print or borrow to bailout of that crisis and that, to me, will be the undoing of american exceptionalism if we don't take on seriously and we're not today. on either side of the aisle, by

the way. >> from alabama to mississippi, david in ashland. >> caller: good morning. i'd just like to know what are y'alls plans for the seven states that sent fake electors to the national archives? and do you support the expulsion of congressman that have involvement in that? and as far as being lied to, i would say the republican party has bought into the big lie, hook, line and sinker and they're so far down they can't come back. thank you. good day. >> thank you. with respect to election integrity, let me take that on more bradley. it is clear to me that the constitution delegates the time, place, and manner of authority

to administer elections to the states. my objection, january 6th, was an objection that democrats have offered up and past elections where republicans have won. to the person who won or lost the outcome. it was the process, the election laws were changed outside of the constitutionally-prescribed process, which is the state legislature, where the will of the people is represented in the state. and not on elected judges or elected judges. so, i stand firm on the position that i took to object to those states that made those changes unconstitutionally and i'm disappointed that the supreme court never took up that issue and so, that was squarely in the lap of congress. as the last check on the electoral process. after it was over, the objectors

lost, i saluted as an american. congratulated president biden, and have prayed and hoped that he would reach out and work with republicans to address the real problems facing our country, like the crime spike, like the chaos at the border, like the promises he made to shut down covid and expand testing capacity and other things. those are the issues we ought to be focussed on. instead, this president's been looking backwards. they set a tone that's anything but unifying. those are part of the promises president biden made. that haven't been fulfilled. and that we've certainly seen as much politization and partisanship in the era of the first year of this administration than we have in any past presidency. i'm disappointed. as an american, i hope he'll change course in the next year

and we can work together on the issues most important to the american people. >> and a manner of holding elections for senators and representatives should be prescribed in the legislature thereof, but the congress may, at any time, make or aultder such regulations, as to the place of choosing senators. when does the second clause come into play in your mind? >> i think that we ought to have -- i'm open to a national safeguard, okay. and that would be on election integrity. for example, i think one of the main safeguards that we should have in place is a valid identification for voter registration. 80 plus percent of the american people support that. you can't get on a plane, you can't check into a hotel without

having a photo id. i think voter integrity is inappropriate because it disenfranchises other states when you don't have those safeguards in place. and i think it will also cause questions of the outcome of the election and whether it's real or not, when the american people, by millions, lose confidence in the center piece of our democracy. that's a real problem. i think the issue is more integrity, more safeguards while maintaining appropriate access. i think everybody wants that. i think the lion share of that should be delegated to the states and i'm proud my state of texas and other states have worked on those issues to give greater confidence in our elections. >> good morning. >> caller: good morning,

richard. >> caller: thank you, sir, for taking my call. when democrats were talking about the build back better plan, they were talking about how it was paid for and we all know that somebody has to pay for it. and they always talk about pay your fair share. is that a specific number or is that arbitrary number like going back to the well all the time, every time that they want to spend money, they say you need to pay your fair share. so, what is that number? >> tats -- that's a great question. i don't know that they have any metrics behind pay your fair share. for that's the flag they wrap around more spending proposals. they use income gaps and equity and fairness and the like to

justify the things they want to do to expand, for example, the entitlement programs. as i mentioned before, we have two major entitlement programs, safety nets, i would argue, that are earned benefits by our seniors. and they'll be insolvent in the next 10 years and five years for another. we can't even afford those programs. and the people on the higher income scale of paying more taxes than those on the lower income. we have one of the most progressive taxes in the developed world. and after the tax cuts and jobs act by the republicans. under the leadership of president trump, the tax code actually got more progressive. so, people on the higher end were paying more taxes. people on the lower end were paying less taxes.

but again all boats were rising on the tide of economic groelgt because we were incentivizing investment and the like. and we're paying into the system. of our federal government and the benefits that acrew to every american. there are far fewer people doing that and in fact, the lion share of the expenses are paid by a small minority of people. again, everybody wants everybody to have the opportunities in this country to do better. the way to do that is not to trap them in some government program and dependency on that program, but to incentivize them to get up and out of it and realize their best potential. >> last call for you, congressman. out of california, again. dennis, independent. >> caller: good morning. i love c-span.

you know, every time a politician comes up, no matter what party, they always talk about the other party, the other party. with all respect, you're a representative, so his job is to bring home the bacon. so, i would ask any politician, but you because you're there, how much have you agreed to cut out of your share when you guys do your horse trading behind doors when your job is to bring home the bacon? it's a farce i think is being pulled by both political parties on the american people. >> congressman arrington. >> you know, i think there's truth to what this gentleman is saying. i think our root cause to the ineffectiveness and even corruption in congress, with respect to how we do the people's business and how we steward taxpayer resources. so, i stand by all the policies

that i mentioned earlier. but i will say that, for example, with respect to the national debt, both parties have contributed to that, both have put that aside because very difficult choices have to be made. politicians don't generally like to make tough decisions and those root causes have to be addressed. that's why i'm proud i'm working with scott peters, a democrat from san diego and 30 democrats and 30 republicans is how we started on addressing the deficit spendsing and our national debt. and putting budged reforms in place that would force congress to operate like every other american. and steward our taxpayer resources and not act like we have an endless supply. that's one example. but i would also say term limits aren't the silver bullet. i think all that would change

the culture and the dynamic for political leaders in this country. and i cochair with a democrat from california. the term limit caucus. we think that would make a positive difference in the way we govern our country. so, i agree with you, sir. both parties are guilty. beyond tax code reform and health care reform and all these other reforms that we perpetuate, to the public and campaigns and the like, we need to reform the united states congress and we don't need just republicans talking about it. we need republicans and democrats working together like i'm doing with scott peters. and by the way, when republicans were in charge, my first term in 2016, those two years, we actually had a budget that we passed out of the house that reduced our mandatory spending, which is what's driving the debt. and since the democrats have

been in office, they haven't even passed the budget out of the committee. i think it's legitimate criticism to levy on the democrats for their lack of effective governing our country and focusing on the big issues. thank you again for your comments. i agree with a lot of what you're saying. >> just briefly. you mentioned term limits. what's a fair term limit and have you agreed to a term limit? >> term limits need to be applied to everybody. if you're just term limiting certain districts than they don't have the ability to have, i think, equal footing and influence with other districts throughout the country or states in the concerning senators. you can't make it so short that they're not effective because it takes time to understand the process. it also takes time to build relationships. not only in your own party but across the aisle, which i think

is important and more so today than ever. my term limit bill, with other democrats and republicans, is a 12-year. that would be two six-year terms in the house. and corresponding to two six-year term thins senate. i think that's plenty of time to make a difference and go home and live under the laws you passed like our founders expected. >> 19 west texas district. always appreciate the time and you chatting with our viewers. >> thank you, john, god bless. >> thank you, sir. back to your phone calls now. we're asking you to return to the question about what's most important to you? as the idea of voting rights is going to be discussed quite a bit on the senate floor today. we want to know if you think the goal of expanding voter access is most important. if you do, 2'02"-748800 --

202-748-8000. go ahead and start calling in and we'll be right back. fundedy these television companies and more including media,. >> the world changed in a minute mediacom was ready, internet traffic soared and we never slowed down. schools and businesses when virtual and we powered amy -- a new reality. >> mediacom support c-span as a public service along with these other television providers giving you a front row seat to democracy. ♪ >> c-span offers a variety of podcasts that i something for every listener. weekdays, "washington today" gives you the latest from

c-span offer as variety of podcast for every listeners. washington today gives you the latest from the nation's capitol and book notes plus has in-depth interviews with writers and their works. while the weekly looks at how issues of the day developed over years. and our occasional series, talking with, features conversations with historians about their lives and works. many television programs are also available as podcasts. you can find them on the c-span now mobile app or wherever you get your podcasts. ♪ get c-span on the go. watch the day's biggest political events live or on demand anytime, anywhere on our new mobile video app. access top highlights. listen to c-span radio and discover new podcasts. download c-span now today.

>> washington journal continues. >> another chance to talk about your priorities when it comes to conducting elections in this country. do you think the goal of expanding voter access is most important? and if you think so, 202-748-8000, or 202-748-8001. we're expecting debate or votes around dinner time this afternoon. on the freedom to vote john r. lewis act, that expanded voting rights bill. the president of the united states likely to be talking about the issues today. he has a press conference scheduled for 4:00 p.m. eastern and we'll be airing that as well. it's c-span 2 where you can watch the action all throughout the day on the floor of the senate. and that debate on the senate,

likely to end with a vote on changing the filibuster rule. and one headline on that from the "washington times." democrats headed towards the doomed vote to remake the filibuster. and one of the reasons is the opposition from members within the democratic party, specifically sinema and joe manchin on changing the filibuster rule. this is joe manchin yesterday as he was asked about the mood by democrats to try to change that rule on the senate floor today. >> i've been very clear about that. i just don't know how you break a rule to make a rule and thinking you're doing something. we've never done this. i've been looking for every precedent i can. the bottom line is everything we've done, they told me about the debt ceiling. that was done by the rules. it was done by the rules o cay. and that was doneual schumer and

mcconnell coming to an agreement. for that's what it's all about. we've done everything along the lines of with the rules. and i don't know why we can't come together and find a pathway forward. but breaking the rules, there's no checks and balances in this process. the only thing we have is the filibuster. think if you have a situation we have right now, where you have the executive branch of government and you have congress, the house and the senate, it's all the same and there's no check and balance because basically just sweep right through and the same thing could happen if republicans had everything. only thing i've said is this. majority of my colleagues in the caucus, democrat caucus, they changed. they changed their minds. i respect that. you have a right to change your mind. i haven't. i hope they respect that too. i've never changed my mind on the filibuster. >> west virginia democrat, joe manchin yesterday talking to

reporters expecting to hear a lot more from senators throughout the day on this debate on that voting rights legislation. the freedom to vote is what it's officially called. asking you if you think the goal of protecting voting integrity is most important or voting access. this is james on the former, on the latter line, excuse me. cleveland, ohio. go ahead. >> caller: i have a problem. i don't want to c-span for 30 years. you've always been fair, first of all. but the thing with this voting. i can't understand why republicans want to prevent people from voting. because my people have died on bridges. my mother and father always told me you have the right to vote.

this is a god-given right to participate and a god-given right to vote. i can't understand why the republicans don't want to allow all people to vote. i don't understand that. >> we just played a clip of joe manchin a democrat, pressing his opposition to changing the filibuster, change the rules in the senate on when debate can end to move this piece of legislation. it's two democrats standing in the way right now, along with all the republicans and changing the rules. >> caller: why don't they carve it out? let these people have their filibuster, okay. carve out the voting part where people like me, my grand kids, can have -- can go and vote

without being intimidated, without all this gerrymandering and redistricting and stuff. you do this mess, okay. but however, we should have this god-given right to vote. >> that's james in ohio. here's more from the senate floor yesterday ahead of the showdown today. this is senator chuck grassley, the republican from iowa, on the tone of this debate over voting rights and his concerns about it. >> let's work together. to boost the confidence of all americans and our elections. let's start rejecting claims that only way the other party can win is by rigging the election. let's retire the short-term strategy of falsely claiming that one of the two parties is a threat democracy. that, in and of itself, is a very undemocratic position to

take. this kind of rhetoric damages civil society and erodes faith in our democracy. for the sake of our country. please stop it. >> chuck grassley on the senate floor. this is pall from alexandria, virginia. what's most important protecting voter access or integrity? >>. >> caller: i think both questions are based on a false premise, first of all. the first question is are you favor expanded access? who says we don't have access now and how has that been substantiated? seconds, voter integrity, thoseerant questions of debate. those are questions of standards. there should be a standard for which is the baseline for whether the voter is identifiable. interestingly enough, 1978

bipartisan commission howard baker was on it. republicans, jimmy carter, i believe, called it together. lots of very good work, lots of good findings, etc. one of the key elements that they found they agreed on, both republicans and democrats, at the time was a simple voter identification. if you could present identification we could attach to you as a resident, as we do currently, we'd be delighted to hold your vote. i think that standard remains and a lot of this is fluf. there is no -- where is the expanded access? and i mean identifiable people, many not being allowed to vote? they're not found. you can't find them. this is not of that caliber. i think the democrats are just reaching so awkwardly that it's just like everybody can see it for what it is. i appreciate the opportunity to comment and i encourage c-span. it's a wonderful, wonderful

medium. thanks so much, john, appreciate it. >> this is johnny down in north carolina. good morning. you're next. >> caller: good morning, sir. yeah, i kind of agree with the last gentleman that just spoke. really those two questions are so far apart and yet so much connected. but in my opinion, without the integrity, access is useless. at this point, i really think we have about as good access as you can get. voters can vote actually by mailing in vote and everything else. you got plenty of access. i know the people voting are voteding as citizens of the united states and have registered and their vote is counting. not a bunch of mail-in votes that come in that's just been scattered about the country. and if you don't get one of your

own, you can find one somebody else is supposed to be using. infeg rety has to be there or it's a waesz of time. >> reporter: good morning. you're next. >> caller: good morning. i view them as equal. we need both to be a functioning democracy. i don't understand the republican party, whether it be the old republican party that i grew up with or the mega republican party, for standing in the way of voting. it seems to me we're going down a very dangerous road to a something none of us are going to like if we let donald trump control this country's future. i don't see how anyone wins that way. >> do you think people should show a driver's license or some

other form of id to vote? >> caller: i don't have a problem with someone showing their driver's license or what that state might deem as proper identification. i do agree that, that is acceptable. >> how do you feel about mail-in balloting? >> caller: i have a unique perspective on this. as you know, here in wisconsin, we get a lot of snow. sometimes it might not be so easy to get to the polling place or here in wisconsin now they're frying to change a lot of laws that are making it difficult because the laws are changing so quickly, even i'd go out february 20th to vote, have apt to do my due diligence to make sure i go to the right polling place.

so, and there are people out there that are disabled that have the right to vote. so, mail-in ballots are important for all of society to be heard. >> bobby joe, wisconsin, this is just bob in pennsylvania. good morning. you're next. >> caller: yes, thanks for taking my call. i'm for expanding voting rights but i have a comment for c-span. i question even your topic this morning. i remember after january 6th, c-span, when people would call in with this information, would say it was not true. at least would c-span please put up the number of fraudialant votes compared to the number of votes. thank you very much. >> and we're going to be talking

a lot about that, how it doesn't happen much in this country, according to several different studies. we're going to be joined in about 45 minutes by the president of the brendan center for that conversation. and the author of the book, the fight to vote and his name. so, stick around. and we'll talk about that as well. bruce, alabama, good morning. go ahead. >> caller: yes. there's always stuff about the election and all that stuff. i think the national election should be that each state only get one electoral college vote and that's it. the first one to 26 wins when it comes to president. this would solve it all. what would it matter if one state cheated over another. you cheated over one electoral vote.

what hurts is when states like california get 65 and others get 56. and others only get 17 or 11. >> those states have a lot more people than the states that get fewer electoral votes. >> caller: i don't like the way their state is run, move. >> okay, but in terms of the electoral college and your concern, thats would give the states with -- we have a lot fewer voters, the same say as say the state of california, which has a whole lot of voters? >> caller: the popular vote matters in your state. but when it comes to vote for president, there's 50 states. so, first one to 26 wins the president. it doesn't matter. if you don't like the way it's run in your state, move. >> all right. bruce bringing up some of the concerns about the electoral college and whether it's fair

for folks who live in large states and small states. there's a lot of debate. we've talked about that on the program several times about a proposal to change the electoral college. good morning. you're next. >> caller: morning, john.next. >> caller: morning. why is it that we never had a voting problem up here in wisconsin? minnesota, michigan -- michigan does, but it only seems like it's down south or on the east coast, and it's always the democratic states. and we know there's an election coming up now. why aren't they putting out more and more places where people can vote? and if you can't make it to go to vote, get it set up so you know who those people are, so you have somebody available to take a ballot to them, so that they can vote. people can go to the grocery

store, you can go to vote. one more thing i would like to call you out on, john, is when this lady from wisconsin just called a little bit ago and happened to slam our greatest president ever. you ever ask that caller, do you know of anything that president trump has done good? do you think president trump did something good for this country as far as border security and making this country better? and making it oil independent. oil makes this world go around. it's going to go bye-bye some day. but we're a long ways from it. and we need it now. because that keep everything going. so shutting tat oil down like he did, and he shut that great big gas company down out there in

pennsylvania. that was going to supply all that natural gas. >> all right, that's wisconsin. this is barron out of minnesota, the land of 10,000 lakes. go ahead. >> caller: yes, i don't understand why there's a problem with expanding voting rights. i don't understand expanding with the integrity we have, there's no problem with integrity. just donald trump has really, really messed up this country with all these lies and muddying the waters, just a con game he's doing, and it doesn't make sense. we should expand the voting and everything like that, because it just doesn't make sense. all of a sudden because he loses the presidency, we have to start talking about integrity. we got all these issues going on

that need lower level voting and things like that. all because he's lying, and people have to start realizing that it's not all about what donald trump says because he just totally ruined this country. >> this is jay in raleigh, north carolina. good morning. >> caller: good morning. i tend to think that the premise of having it as an either/or selection, access or integrity, i tend to, like the woman from wisconsin said, i think you have to have both. i think that's where the problem is. >> it's okay to answer both, jay. just trying to find a way to split up the phone lines. it's okay to say both. >> caller: yeah, i understand. but i think that's the problem that we have now in our elected officials and these states and policies. everyone is looking at it as what team are you on? are you on team access, are you

on team integrity? i think the problem really is that, one, you have individuals who are stifling access, and it's proven. i'm here in north carolina, and we have unfortunately republican legislation, where to quote the courts, with surgical precision, they attempted to put barriers to access. i think, in terms of integrity, sure, i heard some people talk about the congressman earlier talk about the id. yes, we can have that conversation about ids. i think the problem with the ids is that you have states that only accept certain ids. and so, you know, there are just some commonsense things we're not sitting down to talk about because we're still doing this divided team left and team

right. >> here's another one that folks who are concerned about the integrity issue bring up, that during covid, during the 2020 election, there were a lot of states that expanded rules on vote by mail or drop boxes. other ways that election day change from how it had been in the past. and some of those states have now gone back and have rethought some of those changes. those changes that were made in an emergency during a pandemic, with an eye towards maybe the end of a pandemic, the end of an emergency. is it is it okay to go back and rethink and maybe bring back some of those rules to what they were before? >> caller: well, that's a great example that you bring up. so, of course, we had this worldwide pandemic that people were, you know, people were concerned about going to the polls, right? but what's never talked about is

that you had for 30 years had mail-in ballots, absentee ballots, so what's happening now is that based on the turnout of the election that happened this past election, you have people saying, well now we need to maybe not have mail-in ballots and absentee ballots. but as i said, you had states who had that for 30 years. and so now it's all of a sudden a problem. i can remember when individuals complained about people not going to vote, that there were more people voting for american idol than people going to vote. and now we have, oh, we identified ways in which individuals can vote. someone just gave a very commonsense explanation about why people in wisconsin and in snowy states have difficulty getting to the voting lines. and instead of people talking about making it easier to vote,

like in neighborhoods where i'm from, we have lines for four that's hours. that's crazy. that's that's crazy. and then and then you go into the suburbs and i can vote in 15 minutes. and no one's talking about doing anything about that. so sure, yeah, let's have debates about maybe there might be changes, but they have to be commonsense things, not, oh, well, there's a pandemic and we made these laws to make it easier, and the proof is in the there there were more people that and that's what and that's what we want. >> jay, how often do we get to just the commonsense things in these debates today? >> caller: not often enough, not unfortunately. not often enough, because everyone is on team this or team i that. i mean, i'm a democrat. and there are times in which there might be some policies from a republican side that might make sense. and i was expecting there might be republicans who feel the same

way. but then you have these politicians who just, well, i'm going to put my finger to the wind to find out where is the public going, and that's the side -- that's what i'm going to to do. to that extreme. >> thanks for the call. i appreciate it. walter in butler, indiana. good morning. you're next. >> caller: good morning, sir. thanks for my call. thanks for taking my call. i guess i had to take integrity out of either of the two choices, but i think if i had a second, the most important thing is the enlightenment of the public, of the people to make an informed decision. socrates said as far as voting, he said i don't think the average citizen should vote unless they're well versed in how to run a republic, and he used this analogy. if i need to get across a great ocean, i don't want anybody to just willy-nilly raise their hand and say i can do it. i want a captain that's sea worthy, that's skilled at how to get me across my journey, and how much more important it is to

keep our republic whole with an enlightened public. in a perfect world, but that's what we should discuss, an enlightened public that's informed, that's not lured by a thing like a bailout or a stimulus check or an iphone or when you when you pose the question of expand voting rights, it's kind of a blurred question because, well, can 10-year-olds vote? are there things right now that prevent black people from voting? well, well, of course not. are there things that cause women not to vote? of course not. so it makes it seem like there's actual restrictions because of the color of their skin or their creed or their sexual orientation, which none of that if is. if you would say, would you want to make it more efficient to vote, and lock in a person like the last caller was spot on, there's no reason in this day and age where you can't be able to prove who you are to vote. and the idea that it's racist or

swayed toward one person is a ridiculous notion. if you need to get on a bus, on a plane, a pharmacy, you prove >> id. >> that's walter in indiana. one last call in this segment, steve in alexandria, virginia. good morning. go ahead. >> caller: good morning. and thank you very much for c-sp you you know, i'm agreeing pretty much with everybody who is saying this is sort of a false you choice. you can have both integrity and access. but i will say this, and i'll leave this story with you. yesterday, earlier last week, i went in to renew my library card, and what was the thing they asked me to provide? proof of residency. that was to get a library card, i folks. i think we can at least ask that of our voting populous. thank you. >> that's steve in virginia. our last caller in this segment. still time, though, towards the end of our program if you didn't make it in in this part of our program today for this discussion. but up next, we'll turn our

attention to a new law that took effect at the beginning of the year that bans surprise medical billing, and that conversation with patricia kelmar, health care campaign director. and we'll talk about where democrats go from here on voting righ michael michael waldman our guest from the brennan center for justice. stick around. we'll be right back. >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we're funded by these television companies and more, including charter communications. >> broadband is a force for that's empowerment. that's why charter has invested billions building infrastructure, upgrading technology, empowering opportunity in communities big and small. charter is connecting us. >> charter communications supports c-span as a public

along along with these other television providers. giving you a front-row seat to democracy. >> >> sunday, february 6th, on in depth, georgetown university law professor sheryll cashin will be our guest. her many books include the failures of integration, the agitator's daughter, place not race, and her latest, white space, black hood. join in the conversation with your phone calls, facebook comments, texts, and tweets. live sunday, february 6th, at noon eastern on book tv on c-span2. >> >> download c-span's new mobile app and stay up to date with live video coverage of the day's biggest political events from live streams of the house and senate floor and key congressional hearings to white house events and supreme court oral arguments. even our live interactive

morning program, "washington journal," where we hear your voices every day. c-span now has you covered. download the app for free today. >> "washington journal" >> >> patricia kelmar joins us now. she serves as director of health care campaigns at the public interest research group. joins us today as a new ban on surprise medical bills went into effect at the beginning of this year. so patricia, first, start by explaining what a surprise medical bill is. >> well, of course, there are a lot of bills we get from our doctors and hospitals that are but surprising. but this term, surprise medical bill, is the particular bill that you get from an out-of-network hospital or doctor, and it's one that you did not agree to, necessarily, or expect. so that's the situation where

you might go to an in-network hospital, but unbeknownest to you, an out of network anesthesiologist gives you anesthesia for your surgery. we expected to get anesthesia, but we expected the services at our in-network hospital to be in-network as well. so those bills can be very expensive because our insurance company only pays part of that bill, and we're left with that larger remaining amount. that's what makes a surprise, and that's what's frustrating. >> what do we know about how big of a problem this has been for americans every year? >> yeah, it's a growing problem, actually, a pervasive billing practice that has been growing in both emergency rooms and in 1 hospitals. 1 in 5 americans insured americans who either get surgery or go to an emergency room are likely to receive a surprise medical bill. and those bills can be in the hundreds to thousands of

>> dollars. >> so what is the no surprises act, and is this problem now taken care of? >> well, it's taken care of for most surprise medical bills. it's a landmark consumer protection we fought for years to get. several states actually passed laws initially to show that this can be done. we can stop those surprise medical bills from coming, and now luckily, congress responded as well with a lot of encouragement from consumers and insured americans across the so country. so what it does is it prohibits surprise medical bills, those out-of-network bills from occurring and from you receiving them in three specific situations. the the first is emergency no no matter where you're taken for emergency treatment, you only pay your in-network cost, your copays, you co-insurance, your for deductible. for emergency treatment, no more surprise medical bills. and the second important area is

also air ambulances. if you're transported by a helicopter or an airplane to get treatment, that's another area where you'll no longer be paying that extra charge as an out of network service. and then the most important one that i think is frustrating for americans is when you have done everything right. you have gone to your in-network hospital, you have chosen your in-network provider, and somewhere along the line, a radiologist, an anesthesiologist or labwork was done out of network and you're left holding the bag. now those bills will be banned as well. most in-network services will be >> we pause >> we pause there and invite viewers to join in the conversation. because our because our phone lines are different this morning. if you're somebody who has received a surprise medical bill, phone line for you, health care 202-748-8000. health care providers, medical professionals, 202-748-8001. want to hear your stories. and all others, 202-748-8002.

patricia kelmar will be with us until the top of the hour at 9:00 eastern. we want to hear your stories, your experiences in this area. as folks are calling in, you mentioned that we fought for years to get this passed. remind folks what us purg is and the evolution of this >> legislation? >> it's a public interest research group, we're over 40 years old and we have state organizations in a couple dozen people might people might be familiar with their local mass pirg or new jersey pirg chapter. we're off knocking on doors, and we fight for the consumers and we fight for transparency. in the health care space, we're especially looking at high-value health care, making sure that what we're paying with our health care dollar is getting us good service, quality service, and that we know those prices up

so front. so in the case of surprise billing, this has been a really important issue for us because we're paying our insurance we premiums. we understand what our copays are, coinsurance are, but when we suddenly get charged by an out of network provider, somebody who we didn't even necessarily choose ourselves, that's when it becomes unfair. we have had no ability to negotiate or find another provider. and we're left paying a lot of money. these bills, like i said, are in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. and most people only have about $400 in their savings account. so it can set you way back. >> and this legislation we're talking about, as we said, went into effect at the beginning of this year. when was it actually passed by congress and signed into law? >> right. so there's about a two-year battle to pass it, and it was finally signed at the very end of the congressional session in 2020. it's taken it's taken an entire year to write the rules that are going to make this law go into effect.

there's a lot of details, the providers need to know they can no longer send these bills. the insurance companies have to be able to identify which bills are illegal. and help the consumer understand what their rights are. and then now, we're on i guess the dog and pony show to tell people that their rights are in effect right now. they should still be watching their medical bills and making sure that they're keeping track of what their rights are and not paying bills that are illegal. >> with that, some calls and stories from you, our viewers. this is debbie in greenville, illinois. that line for those who have received a surprise medical go bill. go ahead. >> caller: good morning. > thank you for taking my call. yes, i'm a 47-year-old mother. a registered nurse, and a case manager for a health insurance company. my my 15-year-old daughter, january 30th of 2021, unfortunately

tried to hurt herself, and i had to call the ambulance. now, mind you, the ambulance that we called for 911 is less than a mile from the hospital to our home. we were billed $1,000 from the ambulance. i have been fighting with the ambulance company because they're saying they're out of network. well, unfortunately, that cannot be true in an emergency situation where someone calls 911 and an ambulance is called out, and you continue to bill that individual. so it's just important to definitely be a self-advocate when it comes to your health care, and watch your bills. and be in contact not only with the biller who is sending you the bill but also your health insurance company as well. >> debbie, thanks for the call, and sharing that story. >> yeah, that's great advice. and i'm so sorry that that happened to you. unfor

unfortunately, the no surprises act does not protect you in the future from these ground ambulance bills. and that was a big gap from our perspective. there is going to be a study commissioned that's supposed to come up with some good solutions so we can close that gap, but unfortunately, right now for ground ambulances, we don't have surprise out of network billing. there are about ten states in the country that do have protections, and so i always recommend you call the state insurance department and ask if your state has any kind of protection from an out of network ground ambulance. but otherwise, as the caller said, definitely call your insurance, call the provider in this case, the ambulance company, and see if you can work out a deal. >> from greenville, illinois, to green belt, maryland, this is sebastian. good morning. >> caller: hi. good morning.

yeah, i had access to a bill from radiological services i was provided for my wife. the insurance had the bill, but i was surprised to get a bill in the mail of a couple hundred dollars. i'm wondering if this is also part of what we're talking about here. thank you. >> it might be. yeah, it might be part of -- it might be covered. i think one thing that people have to always remember is that you do owe your deductible first. so if you have quite a high deductible, you have to pay all of that, if it's a $1,000 deductible, you have to pay all of that. sometimes those bills, especially at the beginning of the year when your deductible resets, you might get a very large bill because you haven't met your deductible yet.

but radiology services are a common area of surprise medical bills, so the first thing i would do is call your insurance company and see whether that couple hundred dollars you owe is because of an out-of-network charge or whether it's just that you haven't met your deductible yet. >> todd is next. and the city is ansanagin, michigan? >> ansanagin. i go to the v.a. i never had a medical bill in 40 years. they pay for everything. and you know, i keep getting in the mail hammered with all these things for medicare advantage and part b and all this garbage, which what it is is garbage. and you know, something needs to

be done about that predatory insurance claims and all that. and i talked to somebody, i said, well, should i enroll in part b and part c? he goes you're in the v.a., so you get your scripts mailed to you for free. why can't the rest of the country have that plan? >> a little bit of a different topic, but ms. kelmar, any thoughts? >> you're lucky to have such good coverage. it's true that there are -- this surprise billing problem does not exist for the veterans administration health plans or medicaid or medicare. so luckily, that hasn't been a problem for those populations. but for the regular commercially insured, we have been suffering with this. and you know, i think maybe what

the caller is talking about is, you know, one plan, the kind of coverage that everyone just pays one amount, and we're all covered. but we're not there in america yet. >> well, it brings up, i noted your title, director of health care campaigns at u.s. pirg. what's another health care campaign you're working on right now? >> well, so we're working on prescription drug prices, which i know can get the ire up of lots of people. because the area that we're specifically focusing on right now is the issue of how patents are keeping generic drugs which are less expensive from coming to market. so we have been seeing pharmaceutical companies be able to create these what we call patent tickets, they keep filing new patents on the exact same medication that's been out for years, to extend the life of their patent. as long as they have a patent,

then no generic drugs can come into the market and they can't compete. if you're the only one on the market with this kind of medication, you can set your price at whatever you want. and then the provider, the insurers, and individuals with no insurance just have to pay that price. that's another area we're working on. high prescription drug prices and the problem of patent abuse. >> mary grace in green cove spring, florida. you're next. >> caller: good morning. and thank you for taking my call. and patricia, this is a very informative segment here because i had an experience, i had health insurance. and i received a surprise medical bill. i was going -- i went for my physical. and i was telling the doctor everything that was going on with me and so forth. then i received a bill from the insurance company saying that this was a medical care office

visit because i had some things that i had to go get radiology for. and it was my physical. and i called up the insurance company. and i told them, i said, i don't understand why i'm going to have to pay. i went for my physical. i understand the radiology part of it that i had to pay. i get that. but my office visit was charged. and usually for a physical, you don't. and she said to me that she gets many calls because this has been happening all over the united states, that when you go in for your physical and you tell the doctor what's going on with you, they code it as a charge. so now i owe $300. i mean, i don't understand this. i'm really upset about that. i pay my insurance. and i'm very fortunate that i'm able to pay for this bill.

but i mean, why are they -- who did this? the insurance company? i don't know. >> let me let patricia jump in. >> well, that's very frustrating. so the situation sounds like it's a practice that we know exists, and it's really hard to prove, because we don't get our prices up front. but it's something known as upcoding. and so some provider offices will just add extra billing codes to a regular physician annual physical. and that sounds like what you might have experienced. you know, this is a problem across the board with all of our health care. we rarely get prices up front. and then we get the service, and then we do feel that obligation like, oh, well, i did get the service, so maybe i should pay that bill. but it really puts us in a bind

because we are paying a lot for our premiums and we are expecting to be able to go in for our annual physical and have an honest and up front conversation with our physician about, you know, what the problem is. and then to find out that you're being upcharged with no additional care, it felt very much like a physical to you. i would call the provider and just ask for a clearer explanation as to why this wasn't charged as a regular physical. that just sounds like upcoding to me. and you can always complain about billing charges like this in the doctor's office, to your own insurance department. usually there's a phone number there, and a consumer complaint line. that's another option for you, because if they're doing it to you, they could likely be doing it to multiple patients or all of their patients. and it's just not fair. >> twitter wants you to come back to the topic of ground

ambulances, tweeting during this segment, ambulance is another provider that plays the out of network game. check your own town or city. they probably don't participate in any health plans so they can bill you and sell your account to the collection agency and then the real fun begins. can you speak to ambulances a little more? >> that's exactly right. so i can quickly say the states where there are some ambulance protections. colorado, delaware, florida, illinois, maine, maryland, new york, ohio, vermont, and west virginia. so if you -- you may have some coverage and protection from out of network balance billing there in those states. but you're right. and it's frustrating, right? we're doing the right thing as a patient. we're calling and getting the services that we need. we're helping our insurance company stay healthier by not ignoring a serious problem and getting the care we need. so, you know, i always recommend people call the ambulance, if

it's an emergency, do that. but it is a frustrating situation to know that ambulance companies stay out of network and therefore are allowed to charge whatever they want. the insurance company will pay a portion, and you're left holding the rest of it. so we do need to get some more sense to this system, some communities are lucky and pay for ground ambulances through taxes or as a volunteer service. or the county has picked up the tab. but in those communities that don't have that protection, ground ambulances, those bills are a source of, you know, entry into medical debt. it can spiral that way. >> less than ten minutes left with patricia kelmar. on twitterer, uspirg. this is elise in springfield, virginia. good morning. >> caller: good morning.

i have another problem that i think really needs to be looked at. as far as billing. i ended up going into the emergency room to be examined because i didn't know if i was having a stroke or a heart attack. what i didn't know was that when you go to the emergency room, you end up being parked as an outpatient as far as billing. the other thing i found was, so there are different charges that are associated with that and the way the insurance covers. because of my age, most people billing probably thought i was on medicare. i wasn't. i was on private insurance. but i spent the evening and i was told i had to stay overnight. again, not being told why i needed to stay overnight. but i was there. and again, it was as an outpatient status. then when i found out about the bill that came after that, there were charges that were

associated with coding that claimed that i was experiencing pins and needles, which is a non-emergent code. and therefore, wasn't covered by my insurance company. and then when i went back to the billing office and they explained to me why they put the codes that way, it was because the way the doctor had essentially put the code information in. i fought with a major hospital in this area for probably about five months to try to get this resolved. i ended up having to write an appeal to my insurance company, which they granted, and they said you had an emergency, and this was definitely should have been covered as an emergency. but you know, when you have to go back and forth between different offices and different individuals, you get very little support, and all they keep saying is we can help you structure this bill so you can pay it over time, and it's like, but i shouldn't have had a bill. >> elise, thanks for sharing that story.

ms. kelmar. >> yes, elise, i'm sorry that happened to you. the last thing we need when we're trying to recover, especially from something as traumatic as experiencing something that might look like a heart attack or a stroke, is the agony of trying to figure out what you're being billed for, why you're being billed that, and how you're going to pay the bill. and so i'm sorry for that experience. you did all the right things, though, and so kudos to you. you know, you checked your bill. you didn't just blindly accept the charges. and you filed an appeal. the important thing for people to know is, when you go to an emergency room, the insurance company needs to cover that charge as an emergency under what they call a reasonable person standard. so if you reasonably think you needed emergency care in this case, clearly you felt that, then you had every right to go to the emergency room and

receive that care. so people should remember that. if you're reasonably scared and worried about your health, that is the time to go to the emergency room, and your insurance company should cover that, and no matter how the emergency room billed it, you should file an appeal with the insurance company to make sure that they cover it for you. those appeals can be a little difficult and hard, and many states, there are organizations set up, they're called consumer assistance programs. you can google them in your state to see if you have one. and they can help you file those appeals and fight for your bills. those consumer assist programs were created when we first got the affordable care act. unfortunately, they haven't been funded in years so we have been trying to continue to get funding for them because they play a really important role for consumers. >> that line for medical professionals, henry is a physician out of portsmouth, virginia. good morning, sir. >> caller: good morning.

i'm calling because virginia has a law that other states and our congress might want to consider. it's called donations of professional services. it's available online. it's a tax credit for doctors, dentists, and lawyers who help indigent people. it's a somewhat narrow law, the last time i checked, in that you have to go to a particular location to get this care. a far better law would be one that allowed doctors, dentists, and lawyers to give their care in their own private office where things are far more efficient. and i think that this adoption of this virginia law would extend access to care much more

efficiently than our current system. >> henry, how many doctors do you know make use of this law? is it something that a lot of your colleagues do? >> caller: i don't know the answer to that. it's an excellent question. and the last time i tried to check it online, i couldn't find the answer. i think it's something that ought to be taught in medical school, that this is one way to approach the question of access to care. >> thanks for the call, sir. ms. kelmar. >> thank you, i did not realize that was a program. it sounds like a great option for people. >> the idea of coding, it seems to have struck a chord with folks on twitter. one writing there's so many unexplained codes and charges on medical bills. how is a patient supposed to have a chance to know what it is and what isn't a legitimate charge?

>> very difficult. very difficult. you can call your insurance company and ask them to talk you through it so that you understand what that code means. and then try to understand it from the perspective of your personal experience and what happened. usually, you get an explanation of benefits which should be a little bit more easy to understand, and so you can compare that with the final bill. so those are two tips that i have. but it is -- it is very difficult. there are efforts in some states to get something known as, like, a plain language and one bill instead of us getting bills over the course of six weeks or ten weeks or 12 weeks from all the different providers if we have had a hospitalization, that they compile it all in one bill and we can manage it that way. definitely a lot of room for improvement in billing. and always the consumer has been

on the back end, right? it's not for our sake that they're creating these bills. it's whatever language they want to talk to themselves. but we need to start demanding more and more of our health care dollars coming out of our own pocket to pay for this care, and we need to know that those prices up front. one thing that i want to mention f i could. >> go ahead. >> for people who don't have insurance, the no surprises act, this new law, actually gives them a new power, so they are allowed to and the provider must provide an estimate of charges for any care that they're going to pay for out of pocket. so if you don't -- if you're not putting this through insurance or if you're uninsured, you can ask the provider for an estimate of charges. and then when you get that final bill, if that estimate is -- if the final bill is more than $400 over your estimate, there's a

provider/patient dispute system where you can go to an arbitrator and fight down that bill. people should know that. >> last call and running short on time, but darlene has been waiting out in washington, d.c. can you make it quick? >> i can. good morning. mine is an ambulance story, too. maybe one day you can throw my story out there and something will get done. i learned if you're from home, right at your home where you pay your property taxes, an ambulance ride to the hospital is going to cost you zero. it's covered. but my husband has congestive heart failure, and he was coming back with a friend from reno, nevada, for a car show, and his defibrillator started going off, and they were about 42 miles from reno coming back home. it was going off, so they called an ambulance. they took him back to reno. 42 miles. they charged me $13,700.

it was not covered by my insurance because they weren't a vendor in the system and the ambulance company wasn't going to apply to be a vendor. i had to call them and say, what do you do? she said you can fill out our hardship paperwork. so i did. they knocked 70% off, $3,300 i ended up paying. my husband and i are on a fixed income. but there's no way that they were going to get paid, maybe one day help will be there. thank you. >> thank you, darlene. ms. kelmar, last minute for you. >> yeah, ambulances is next on my campaign, so i appreciate these stories. and i am sorry to say i can't help with that situation. yeah. >> if you want to check out the health care campaigns of u.s. pirg, it's uspirg.org. patricia is the director of those campaigns, and certainly do appreciate the time this morning. >> thank you. thank y