>> this afternoon, ttimony on the high-risk list of federal agencies most sceptible to waste, fraud, and abuse according to the comptroller general of the government accountability office. he is appearing as the trump administration continues efforts to find wasteful spending. from the house oversight and governnteform committee, watch live at 1:00 p.m. eastern on c-sn3, c-span now, or online at c-span.org. >> c-span, democracy unfiltered. we are funded by these television companies and more, including comcast. >> you think this is just a community center? no, it is way more than that. >> comcast is partnering with 1000 can you be centrist to enable wi-fi some students from low income families can get the tools they need to be readfor anything. >> comcast support c-span as a

public service along with these other vision providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> welcome back. the trumpet administration's efforts to reduce the size of government, i'm joined by thomas betts, the -- thomas schatz, president of citizens against government waste. can you tell us about what you do and how you are funded? guest: it was founded following the great commission under president ronald reagan. it was a conference review of the federal government. i joined citizens against government waste in 1986, working from the senator from new york, funded by taxpayers, associations, corporations, anyone who wants to cut

wasteful spending. host: can you talk about the great commission? and as a previous caller mentioned, the obama administration attempted to rain and government waste. guest: the grace commission by attorneys and accountants, about 2000 volunteers spent a year and a half reviewing the functions of the federal government. they formed in 24 billion dollars over three years. after the grace commission report, president reagan saved about 6% of the total. over time, the grace commission recommendations of the proposals we have made added up to 2.4 trillion dollars in savings.

since the organization was founded. host: this week, you testified before the house oversight committee during a hearing they had on rightsizing the federal government, which is something your organization is obviously focused on. why is this needed in general, the idea of rightsizing the federal government? guest: i was watching some of the questions and comments before i came on, and people have an idea of how much money is being wasted to one of the problems is nobody really knows. improper payments is a great example. 230 $6 billion in 2023 by $2.7 trillion since 2000 three. four pieces of legislation plus a separate bill on fraud, yet the numbers keep going up, or at least are now steady around 230 $6 billion. so if you're talking about elon musk's $2 trillion, that is less

than 10% and a year. the problem is nobody knows how that money is being paid out, thus the reason why they are looking at the payments system. why are these payments being made, who are they going to? these are people who are eligible, they overpaid. this is not anything that would happen in the private sector. nobody would pay bills they did not need to pay, and that is essentially what is happening here. host: what do you think of the way this is happening? most people that are complaining about this are complaining about the process more than the actions themselves. president trump put in elon musk and d.o.g.e. behind this effort. do you feel confident in the way this is being rolled out? guest: anyone who thinks this was not going to happen was not paying attention. he was very clear during the campaign, president trump, about putting elon musk in charge of government inefficiency. they elected him, so that is what he's doing. there may be limits in terms of what they can accomplish, but somebody needs to do something.

i'm not saying they should do it illegally. this is the executive branch, the white house, and the group of people they have asked to look at how money is being spent. in principle, that makes perfect sense, and, again, you have $236 billion of money going out of the federal government, supplemental security income, medicare, medicaid, earned income tax credits, those are four of the top six areas of improper payments. medicare money should be going to medicare beneficiaries. host: you said that this should all be done within the law. there have been several lawsuits against many of these actions. do you think they have been within the confines of the law? guest: well, again, i think they are testing some of those limits, and i think they may be tested over times -- changed over time, but to say don't look at how we are spending the money is not the same thing as saying they are doing it illegally.

they can look at it, and they can determine or help determine whether that system is working. federal systems are incompatible with each other, and i think the easiest thing to point out is there is no single place that anyone can go to find out exactly how each dollar is being spent in the federal government. there are states that have information online, ohio, arizona, and others, and that was part of what was discussed at the hearing, the federal government does not have that. why not? host: there was a lot of controversy, including lawsuits come about elon musk in particular taking over the federal payment system. i wonder if you think that this falls within the realm of d.o.g.e.'s individual mandate? guest: when the grace commission did it work, the executive order establishing the grace commission asked for required cooperation between the

employees and the grace commission. it is essentially the same process. this report inside of the white house. they are part of the executive branch. they should be able to look at how money is being spent. they are not running the system. they are not revealing the information. they can't do that. but they should know how that is being done, because if they were doing this correctly, they will not have to look at it. that is also part of the job of congress, to make sure that money is not being wasted, the $236 billion or $2.7 trillion, and they have four to try to stop this from happening. so someone needs to look at it, and someone needs to explain why it is not working and make suggestions about how to fix it. they will not go in and just take it over. host: you have mentioned this grace commission was a private entity is government spending, effectively also d.o.g.e., a private institute looking at

government spending. what benefits do you think there is, using the private sector for this as opposed to,, say, the inspector general or any entities within the federal government? guest: well, the grace commission relied on a lot of those recommendations. a lot of what d.o.g.e. is doing is not new. one had an out of control, had not done what i had intended to do. people talk about getting rid of the department of education, essentially moving that money back to the state since ronald reagan, a recommendation of hours, and a lot of the other proposals are simply things that have been out there, but the minute that somebody comes in and says, we are going to make that same proposal and do something about it, then everybody gets upset. but there is nothing new about what they are trying to do. it's that people who think it is going to affect their job, is

going to affect the outcomes, it's going to affect something that they want, simply is not true. if you take it into a broader perspective, the more money that can be saved, the more money that can be spent efficiently and help people who truly need help, which is something we have asked congress to figure out for years, but they think spending money is the answer. host: you were at that hearing earlier on wednesday, when house democrats tried and failed to subpoena mosque totestify about--- musk to testify about t d.o.g.e. bang [video clip] rep. connoly: who is this unelected billionaire that he can fire people, offer them early retirement, and that have sweeping changes to agencies without any congressional review, oversight, or concurrence? therefore, mr. chairman, given

his prominence and his importance, i move that the committee subpoena elon musk to come to court as a witness at the earliest possible moment. >> there has been a motion and second. the motion is not debatable. >> why is it not debatable? mr. chair, i would strike the last. chair comer: hold on. >> mr. chairman, why don't we want to debate elon musk coming in at talking about how he has enriched himself? >> mr. chairman? chair comer: the chair recognizes fox.

the notion is not debatable. >> point of order. chair comber state your point. >> mr. chairman, i think it is outrageous that this committee will not even entertain chair comber: that is not a point of order. [overlapping conversations] >> out of order. out of order. this is out of order. demagoguery. >> yes, let's have order in this country. chair comer: you are out of order, you know you are out of order. you know the rules of this committee. host: you were there to see this play out in real time. i like to get your action to that but also do you think that must should appear before congress to explain how he is going about this? guest: before the

hearing, i said to my colleagues, they are probably going to go after elon musk. that was in the first five minutes of the hearing. i think there was some constructive outcome of this discussion, but yes, i think it's up to the president and the executive branch to determine who come before congress. they have not even requested that he show up in the first place. usually it starts with a letter, not a subpoena, so if they had wanted elon musk, they should have worked with the majority and said, let's set a hearing date. let's have people from d.o.g.e. come in. and they started as a confrontation. i think that was not the way to get some cooperation from the administration. president trump has that elon is happy to talk. committees want him to come and talk about what they are doing good on the other hand, they just started, so it might be more beneficial to have that happen at a later date, after some work has been done. i think they are still feeling

their. . way through it is perfectly legitimate. for anyone to request a subpoena in a committee, but that is not the way they usually start. host: we will be taking your calls. our line for republicans is (202) 748-8001. for democrats (202) 748-8000. and for independents, (202) 748-8002. before we get to the callers, i want to bring up more data on government spending, looking specifically at mandatory spending and interest cost growth and how it squeezing discretionary programs as a percentage of federal spending. going back to 1974, total federal spending only made of 18% of gdp, and if you look here, the discretionary spending was about half of that. the mandatory spending roughly the other half. in 2024, discretionary spending

was all the way down to 27%, with mandatory spending 60%, net interest on the national debt, 13%. projected that by 2054, not only will our total spending equal 27% of our gdp, just 18% of that will be discretionary, and the rest mandatory spending. most of the federal spending right now is in mandatory programs like social security, medicare, interest on the national debt, while the efforts of d.o.g.e. are focused on the discretionary programs, because president trump has that he's going to protect. social security and medicare how much do you think d.o.g.e. can really do, given this dynamic? guest: well, if the federal government spent money more efficiently come it and help the economy grow. people, i hope, understand that

those programs are paid into by current federal workers, these are current workers across the country, and that is the money that goes into those funds. so it would be helpful if there was real and proper payments, medicare, medicaid, supplemental social security, the top six of improper payments. they should start their, and other changes are considered, they will have to wait at a later time. the president is not talking about that. it would make some sense to consider over time increasing the retirement age, which, again, would ease the burden on both of those programs. it is something to consider. at the numbers point out, we will be squeezed out of the programs that most people seem to think the government should

be engaged with. but may be some of those should be turned over to the state. maybe we don't need some of those at all. interest on the debt, by the way, is larger than defense spending. when your family spend that much on interest on credit cards and debt, you are in trouble. host: let's get to your calls. pleasant beach, new jersey on our line for democrats. good morning. caller: i'm calling with my partner. we wanted to know, when should americans start expecting to see the benefit of these audits, in terms of their paycheck and the tax cuts? and we also wanted to know, or any of these institutions or ngo's looking at government spending using usaaspending.gov, and if they are, why would they need to go into agencies and

shrink this to be a very impartial process? guest: we wish it were nonpartisan and bipartisan, but after sitting for that hearing, i can tell you it is not that easy to eliminate wasteful spending in washington. most times when waste is discovered or inefficiency is discovered, the answer on capitol hill is basically to spend more money to solve the problem. so if that is how people who are in charge of these programs think they can be fixed, than that is how you get a lot of the overlap across agencies. host: robert is in new york on our line for republicans. good morning. caller: how about that? caller:good morning. first time caller. the associated press is saying, that if you never said they received $8 million through

democrats. so it is very easy to see which way you swing. i wish you would put more republicans on, too, because you handpick democrats, and then democrats call in as independents, ok, things. like that but it would be nice if you put some republican stations on, maybe fox news, maybe newsmax. guest: do you have a question for mr. schatz? caller: i do not. i can't believe every time you fact-check somebody, you go to a liberal station or a liberal publication. host: we are going to get to people who have questions for us. michelle on our line for independents. go ahead, michelle. caller: i was curious, if they go to the voucher system, will people without children get them? people who don't have children pay the school tax, and we would

like to know if maybe we could get a voucher, and we could say, to school or to a target? as you know, multifamily units pay less in property taxes than residential, so we have at issue here. but i would like a voucher come i would like to say to go to public or charter, and every time i asked a question, i get pooh-poohed off. is it only people with children who get a voucher? why is that? thank you. guest: talking about public education and school choice issues, a lot of states are looking at provide vouchers for families. it has always been for k-12. it has never been for college. it's an interesting idea, but that would be more cost to taxpayers over time. host: we have a question from x. what is your opinion of the firing of the inspectors general? guest: every president has that

option. some presidents have done that, and some have not come of it is entirely up to the discretion of the president to do that. they are not government employees. host: loretta is in cleveland, ohio on our line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. my concern is more with the results of what elon musk is doing. i'm looking at unemployment, i'm looking at homelessness, i'm looking at inflation, i'm looking at prices, and all of the stuff that trump said, out of all of what he had said, he had never said where the money is going. so, i mean, we need a declaration saying that all of the money is going toward paying down the debt, which is why

these leading everybody to believe, but i don't think that's the way it's going to go. i think that they are getting ready to run a heist on america. they are getting ready to set up all the millionaires and billionaires, and they cutting all the programs that people have paid their taxes into. something about this is illegal. i'm sorry. please help me here. thank you. guest: they've been there for about three weeks, i think three weeks on tuesday, so they are not necessarily going to produce results immediately. this is a large operation at the federal government level, and it will take some time to get those results. when you get to the debt, that eliminates the deficit, and that is $2 trillion annually for the next 10 years, so they need to turn this around. i think they are starting now trying to get that done. host: sue in new jersey asks,

what exactly is an improper payment? what is the criteria? is there a list kept of these payments come and how can we access it? guest: improper payments are overpayments, underpayments, payments that should not be made. that's the easiest way to describe them. most of them are overpayments, payments for people who are not eligible to receive the money. and that is on the government accountability website, and the details and the programs that are covered and examined are on those websites. host: i just looked at the government accountable to office website, and they have a report here from march of last year pointing out that the federal government made $236 billion in improper payments in the last fiscal year, and it breaks down where those payments went, if they were reported by 14 agencies across 71 programs, and 74% of those areas were overpayments, as you decide. guest: and by the way, that is

not the whole government, because there are 400 agencies. and they initially did not even count medicare part c, medicare advantage, which is pretty low, but 230 $6 billion, but is not everything. host: dan is in ohio on our line for republicans. good morning. caller: ok, so have we ever had a government out of it? and when the democrats say, you know, government officials should be doing this, government officials have failed to do this for decades. the fact is, the democrats don't want transparency. what they want is for people to not be able to see how they are spending their tax money. the fact is some of the democrats go around saying we need more money for roads and bridges, but instead, they are spending money for -- for, um,

sex changes in guatemala. they are spending money for politico and other left-wing media groups, millions of dollars of my taxpayer money are going to left-wing media groups. so we need to get a handle on this. we need to get a grip. we want transparency. have we ever had a government audit? host: i think we get the idea. regarding sex changes in guatemala, that is not -- it is labeled by the "washington post" fact checkers as misleading. it suggests that usaid arrange for sex changes. the three-year grant to lambda association, a guatemala lgbtqia+ organization, to

strengthen trans let organizations to deliver a from a health care, advocate for improved quality, and access to service, and provide economic empowerment opportunities. officials could not be reached by the washington post, but a former senior usaid official who work on these programs, the agency said i regularly went to the hill and communicated on the record to know that the usaid gender affirming care does not include surgeries, hormone replacement therapies, or any other medical information. the couple of other folks have mentioned it. but if you want to respond to the caller's points. guest: on audits, citizens against government waste suggested that the chief financial officers council be appointed to agencies, and there have been on his. the only places where the audits have not been 100% clean is the pentagon. only the marines have had a clean audit. every other agency has had a clean audit.

it does not change how much is being spent. it does not provide them as i mentioned earlier, one place where tax killers -- taxpayers go to find out what is going on with that money. host: a new article came out yesterday and politico. musk says treasury d.o.g.e. instituting to all government payments. it will have a new categorization code and rationale for the money spent. elon musk said saturday with the treasury department and his department government efficiency have reached an agreement, change in reporting requirements for all outgoing government payments. the government payments will now have a payment categorization code for auditing purposes, he wrote on x, the social media site he runs -- he owns. they are not applying any judgment to this rationale, but all payments must have one. musk added that the do not pay

list of people or companies who do not -- you should not receive government money should be updated weekly if not daily. your thoughts on the strategy? guest: that sounds like a government and good management. we've always talked about the management piece of this. not exciting, but that is a perfect example of something that is not being done. i don't know how anyone could argue with that. if you don't have the rationale or the statutory authority to spend money, then it should not be spent. i don't know, again, why that does not make perfect sense. to address one of the earlier point, he's just going in there and taking the money and he's going to use it for his own purposes, this is exactly what needs to be done. the do not pay list, by the way, was also a problem during covid. they do not use it for a lot of the money that went out, and there were people who were in eligible to receive funds who got the money because they just did not question it. host: paul is in new york city on our line for independents. good morning. caller: good morning.

so, as you noted, this has been tried several times by different administrations. i remember al gore. many times this has been tried. . i wonder whether or not this effort of objection and wall street, which, by the way come are done it seems without any controversial government policy, whether immigration or education, transportation, telecommunications, whatever it is, it seems like somebody wants to sue and get lost in court and slope it down, so that basically the effort, it seems to become is obstruct them obstruct, and maybe there will be a change in the new administration. and then it becomes expedient for politicians to never follow through on cutting costs. so that is my question there. my other question, i watched part of the hearing, and there was someone i think from kansas, and she said she was able to do this without any layoffs, that

she worked with the legislature, etc. i don't know if you're familiar with the situation, but it sounds like you might be. and i'm wondering, you know, is that because the politics are more reasonable? and then finally, you know, here in new york, we've seen programs like education get a huge increase in spending, and the outcomes don't change them or they get sometimes worse. so if you could comment on that, that would be great, guys. thank you. guest: we are going backwards. i grew up without a department of education, and it's simpler than that. spending has gone up, that's the chart that shows the department of education in 1977. the objective to increase test scores, that did not happen. the money should go to the classroom and not the bureaucracies. your question about governor reynolds from iowa, i sat next to her, so i know what she did. she had a does bang grew before

doge -- d.o.g.e. group before d.o.g.e., and they were able to get these kinds of things done. in terms of what members of congress and say or don't say and the bureaucracy, yes, it is true, a a lot of federal agencies figure they can out last any attempt to reduce their power. host: how much do you think a congressional buy in is what dougie is doing? guest: 73% of the recommendations it required approval by congress. i know there's focus on the executive branch first to do what they can inside the agencies, which i think makes a lot of sense, and then after that, i know that the recommendations are due by july of next year, 2026. that is where i think they will have more work together with congress, because a lot of those changes, you can eliminate --

you cannot eliminate the funding to the states without congress. you can make proposals. but if you measure by outcomes, you will not have the departments spending money the way to spending it. it would go to the states. . they would make it more efficient. we want our kids to be the most educated, but they are not. that is really come part of the one of the reasons, and the department of education is not getting results, just spending money. host: dave in orlando, florida asks, which is more important, republican waste or democratic waste? guest: everybody wastes money. there's no question. citizens against government waste tracks earmarks, spending every year. some years republicans spend more, some years democrats spend more. it's not a huge amount of money come about $23 billion on average that we find each year. but that in turn encourages or incentivizes members to vote for these large spending bills in return for a few million dollars in their facing districts, so we

think that has an adverse effect on trying to cut spending. host: mike is an illinois on our line from republicans. good morning. caller: good morning. i just think that all the ways that is being done, i think we need to trace back all those usaid payments and find out who they come back to, because i think the reason that congressmen are squealing so much is because the kickbacks that are coming back to them or to the groups they support is going to really expose the congressmen. and i think that is where we really need to go, because i think that is where we are going to get congress to sit down and shut up and quit wasting our money when people realize that not only is that money going to other countries, but it is coming back into the country for kickbacks for congressman. guest: i don't think there is any evidence of kickbacks. certainly organizations that see money come of that support ideas that members of congress in

support. and the programs that have been discussed both in that hearing and elsewhere, simply in some cases ideological, and some pieces because the biden administration gets less funding for the programs, maybe there is too much distressing loud and agencies, and congress needs to say, -- too much distressing allowed in agencies, and congress need to say, you don't need to do that. host: ervin on our line for democrats. caller: my name is ervin. i've been a democrat for 20 years. there've been a lot of changes in the government. especially the leader, donald trump, i'm not super fond of. for example, the desire for donald trump 2 -- host: in california on our line for independents. good morning, william dash or rodney, i'm sorry. caller: rodney, i'm retired.

i've been working with the federal government for now over 40 years. i see that dr. schatz is a knowledgeable person in relation to budget. my question is, i look at things from a national defense perspectives, so if you look at the oversight and get accountability part, how do you measure from that angle? i know you are not a federal, pentagon type person, but you are not accounting for. that element. guest: we are. 25% of savings came from the department of defense. we will have them i think on monday, another blog post with the joint site, which we have been writing for many years, a massive program that unfortunately is not working as intended. so, believe me, we are interested in wasteful spending across every element of the federal government. host: we have another question

for max from jd reading who asks, can you explainegal basis for attempting to disband or restructure agencies like usaid without explicit congressional approval, considering these agencies were established by acts of congress? guest: there was some discretion with some agencies and others no discretion. congressman ro khanna asked me that question, and my answer was, i think they are testing the limits, but obviously they cannot do anything that is not within the constitutional boundaries of what they could do inside this group inside of the white house. host: there was quite a bit of back-and-forth in that hearing as well as elsewhere. how much congress can do. as this process is ongoing. as you mentioned, this is very early in the process appeared what role do you think congress should be playing now in working with the d.o.g.e. group? guest: well, if congress had been doing their job, in our

view, they would not need d.o.g.e. i don't say that facetiously. local governments have to balance their budgets. families have to balance their budgets. federal government has not done that and is not required to do that. whatever they're doing is drawing more attention to the problem inside of washington. to trillion dollar annual deficit, i talk about that often. of course that's what we care about. it impacts our children and grandchildren. it has an impact now because it is so large. if we had enough money, we would be able to finance a lot of the programs that people would like to have, but, again, how much money should be spent to get congress to address what congress wants to achieve? that is the question that should be asked by every member of congress. when we get that answer, we will know how much we really need. host: in "the," about elon musk's d.o.g.e., giving the

example, at the educational department, the tech billionaire's team has turned to artificial intelligence to hunt for potential.spending cuts . what potential risks does ai bring? guest: under the grace commission, there was not ai, and there was no social media. and both of those really change how this gets done. social media, you get both sides, of course, the lawn talking about how he's doing things and people yelling at him, unfortunately talking about his staff and doing nasty things to them, again, unfortunate. but ai is a tool that can help, like, for example, in medicine, if you can find something that physicians cannot be able to find right away, they can find it faster. if someone says congress want to spend money to achieve this objective, as i've mentioned several times, what is the best

way to do that? one quick example, broadband. everybody wants to be connected to the internet, or at least the people that do want to be connected, many of them have not been connected. there were 133 federal broadband programs across 15 agencies, and there's a program called e, broadband equity access and deployment. $42 billion in infrastructure bill passed in 2021 that has yet to get start running, because of all the regulation and delays. we want people to be connected. you need a handful administered by a few agencies, cooperating with each other to get that done. it is fairly simple, but that's not how it has happened. host: we go to kc, pennsylvania on our line for independents. good morning, jim. caller: good morning. hello? host: yes, you have a question

for mr. schatz? caller: yes, elon musk is making me so nervous, how he's doing his business for us. anybody can do what he's doing, tearing things apart, instead of using a scalpel and pulling out the vent like peace. of course people take advantage of that. i feel like the people who needed are losing out, and i would like to know how elon musk has the power to do what he can do, although i understand the president for that power. we do, of course, listen to him and sometimes disagree, and this is what i'm saying, i disagree

with all the power elon musk has , and he's making me very nervous, like many other people. i made retired, disabled vet, and maybe he thinks i'm on a different path than that noise. i would like to thank you for listening to me. i always wanted to say this, i did not say it right away, first time caller. big fan. thank you for your time. i hope this made some sense. [laughs] guest: thank you for your service. no one can find out where the money has been wasted, unless they examine everything. so by looking at overall payments, it will help to determine how the payments are being made and what might be wasted. and, again, we mentioned a little while ago, that he went and cooperated and said hey, we get information about every

payment. we need to update it so people are not getting money for which they are not eligible. that is easier to see where that money is going, then they can figure out what should not be paid and made a dent in that $236 billion of improper payments. host: ken is in north carolina honor line for independents. good morning. caller: hi, how are you this morning? host: good, thanks. caller: i would like to ask mr. schatz, does he know that in the declaration of independence, where it ever said that federal workers should be unionized? i'd also like to know why teachers in new york, california, and other places think the department of education have to really, i mean, it is almost an act of congress, it is like pulling teeth to get them to be fired. and why do they have so much power? and does he know that since 1977, since the department of

education was formed, our grades -- different countries have gone significantly down. i'm 60 years cold. i'm a vet. my family has been in the military for 100 years. anyway, our educational system has poured all of this money into it, yet we had some of the lowest scores in the world compared to other countries. so why is all this money being wasted? and yet, you know, it's democrats, a lot of a come his republicans, too, everybody has their hand in the cookie jar. it's pathetic that our country has all this money come and we cannot even educate our kids. i would like to see what he has to say about that. guest: i agree. i mention i was brought up without a department of education. money should go to the states. it's not like the 1960's, where

there were states that were not educating their children. now, every one of those states is concerned about educating their kids, competing with others. thank you for your service, by the way. and getting rid of the department of education is not eliminating every program. it is figuring out which ones are working effectively, so we can be distributed, working with other agencies, or back to the states. so i think one of the most horrible ideas ever come on to everybody who has paid off their loans -- ideas ever, debt forgiveness, unfair to everyone who has paid off their loans. it's both sides. they need to figure out what to do with that money. they need to figure out how to do this effectively commanded it's not doing it the way they are doing it now host:. -- now. host: ken also asked about the unitization of federal workers.

guest: i guess the founders probably did not think about that, that's a good point. but it is where it is now. not every agency has unionized workers. teachers unions are local, not federal. i think the idea of putting money into the classroom, giving parents more control of where they'd like to send their children, look, school choice is most popular in areas where schools are poorly performing. they want their schools to succeed. i think that is something else that needs to be looked at. host: that's all the time we have for our segment. thank>> "washington journal" continues. host: becky pringle is the president of the national teachers. in about two hours, the senate health education and labor committee will hold a vote on whether to advance linda