later, realclear education's nathan harden reviews the recent college free speech rankings. we will also take your calls. and you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. "washington journal" is next. ♪ host: good morning and welcome to "washington journal." hasre first lady jill biden found herself in the crosshair of the debate over her title and whether women are accorded the same respect as men for their achievements. a wall street columnist suggested that the future first lady drop her title of "dr." despite her doctorate. are pushing back, saying that jill biden cannot be above criticism. what do you thing about the attacks on jill biden's

doctorate degree? we want to hear from you. we will open our regular lines. that means republicans, your line will be (202) 748-8001. democrats, we want to hear from you at [indiscernible] . -- democrats, we want to hear from you at (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. if you have earned a doctorate degree, we want to hear from you at (202) 748-8003. you can also text us at that same number, (202) 748-8003. and we are always reading on social media, on twitter at @cspanwj and on facebook at facebook.com/cspan. over dr.n, the debate jill biden's degree came up in a wall street journal column on december 11, where joseph epstein wrote a column titled is there a doctor in the white

house? not if you need an m.d. we will start by reading a little of what he wrote. here is where he started -- madame first lady, mrs. biden, jill biden, kiddo --a bit of advice about what may seem like a small but i think is not unimportant matter. any chance you may drop the "dr." before your name? dr. jill biden sounds and feels fraudulent, not to say a touch comic. a dr.egree, i believe, is of education, earned that the university of delaware through a dissertation with the unpromising title student retention at the community college level, meeting students needs. a wise man once said no one unlesscall himself "dr." he has delivered a child. that column by joseph epstein and the wall street journal got

immediate pushback. s themselves. biden thursday night on cbs' late show, jill biden and president-elect joe biden responded to the criticism of the use of the word dr. in their title. [video clip] >> you once said, the rule i've always felt most at home in his dr. biden. some have recently taken it upon themselves the question that title of yours. do you have any reaction? >> that was such a surprise. >> it cop need that it caught me by surprise as well. i did not see that coming. [laughter] >> neither did i. it was really the tone of it. he called me "kiddo" --one of the things i am most proud of is my doctorate. i worked so hard for it. came when i defended my thesis. >> i got to hand her the

doctorate on the state of the user is the -- at the university of delaware. two masters degrees, teaching all the time, went to school at time, and i said why don't you and make us real money? [laughter] >> will look at all the people who came out in support of me. i was just overwhelmed by how gracious people were. >> do you think it may be a bit of a compliment, that people were trying to think of something to criticize you about? [laughter] >> ok, i will take it that way. >> what about you? as a husband who loves this person, did you ever want to pull out the pool chain and go full pop on these people? >> the answer is no. [laughter] >> well -- anyway. [laughter] >> it was just the tone of it. >> i been suppressing my irishness for a long time. >> always the smart thing to do.

host: the wall street journal is pushing back on the criticism of the column. the editorial page wrote this about the criticism -- why go to such lengths to highlight a single op-ed on a relatively minor issue? my guess is that the biden team concluded it was a chance to use the big gun of identity politics to send a message to critics as it prepares to take power. there's nothing like playing the race or gender card to stifle criticism. now the leading holder and is taking a leading role in education policy. she cannot be off-limits for commentary. we want to know of doubt what you think. callingart with horace, on the democratic line. good morning. caller: good morning.

know, i am a first-time caller. i appreciate everything you guys do. but wow. this woman earned her doctorate. people shows you how far .ill go to put you down oh how far they go to -- just to tell this woman that she needs to drop her doctorate, that is crazy, man. guys'm so glad that these will be in the white house, because we need some stability in this country. and her being the first lady, it is going to help joe biden out a whole lot. let's go to bradenton, florida on the democratic line.

good morning. caller: good morning. i want to say there are differences -- trump claims he is a stable genius. that trump knows best on controlling covid-19, asinfectant -- he is successful businessman -- he lost, like, $1 billion. he is a con artist, for god's sake. there is a big difference between jill and trump. jill is more successful than trump. trump, he's a loser. ,ost: let's go to monica calling from michigan on the independent line. monica has earned a doctorate herself. good morning. caller: well, i have to say that i have not quite earned it yet. i am in the final stages of

editing and finalizing it -- host: a.b.d., right? --2) 748-8002 caller: a.b.d. i have spent the last five years earning this. host: what is going to be in? interdisciplinary human services. i find it ironic that the person who wrote that op-ed does not have a doctorate, so they do not know how much work goes into it. if they had bothered to do it themselves, maybe they would not be denigrating the title themselves. it is an enormous amount of work to earn a doctorate, huge sacrifices by everyone in the family. and as a woman, an older woman as well, it makes a difference. when someone tells you just ignore the last five years of your life, just put it down, it does not matter, it does not matter at all, just drop it -- highly insulted.

host: how long have you been working on your doctorate? did i hear you say five years? caller: five years. it is not easy. it is horribly expensive and it is a lot of work. hours spent in the classroom and in research seminars, in research itself. of hundreds of hours just reading other people's research, so you can find an opportunity that has not been covered by someone else. it is an anonymous amount of work. and how anybody could say just drop the title, it is no big deal -- and the comment had to be made by someone who had not bothered to do the work themselves. host: let's go to ben, calling from louisiana on the republican line. caller: good morning. i want to start by saying i want to make two quick points. i am an ardent president trump supporter.

i did not vote for president-elect biden. but i do not think it is appropriate, i do not think it is necessary that people are already, nor should they ever, be attacking his wife's title. i got a bachelors of science degree at penn state university. that was enough work. i cannot imagine the work that goes into a doctorate degree. regardless if i agree with her husband's political policies or not, that has nothing to do with her educational achievements, in my opinion. host: let's go to joann, calling from nevada on the republican line. caller: i am so glad you said nevada right. host: i had to learn that during the presidential election this year. caller: i have been learning it for 40 years, let me tell you. i have no respect for her. absolutely not. she will not be my first lady. what she has done to my first lady now -- she gets the same

thing that my first lady got. be ready for the trumpsters, lady. to joe, calling from aurora, ohio. good morning. caller: good morning. you know, ito say, live with educators all around me. my daughter, my wife, my son. i have seen what it takes to be an educator. i know it takes to get a degree. my wife, at 48 years old, went back to school. i am so proud of the work she did to get her degree in education. -- tocational degrtee say an educational degree is not a doctorate or not representative of being a doctor -- i think that is ridiculous. just appreciate everybody, whether -- i am

definitely more for mr. biden and dr. biden, but what i would say is i am sure -- president trump did some nice things and good things. and i think dr. biden and president biden will do the same. i think we should stop being so defiant with each other. i thank you for the time to express my opinion. host: in an interview with abc news earlier this week, vice president elect kamala harris was asked about the op-ed on dr. jill biden. [video clip] indeeply disappointed that, 2020, that kind of approach would be given any legitimacy. let's be clear about it. she worked hard. she raised her kids, went to school, went to night school, got degrees -- he earned everything she has. that is the american way, the american spirit.

so when there is anyone who tries to diminish the significance of people who work hard, i think it is just not the american way, frankly. host: let's see what some of our social media followers are saying about the attacks on jill biden's doctorate degree. one post from facebook says republicans being mean-spirited and ugly again, will say anything they think fires up the idiots that vote for them. if mys a text that said husband was a senator of the iate and getting a phd in ed, would not have to go to class. another says dr. jill biden says she is more concerned with the tone of the article than the actual result. i have met a lot of them. another text says when you earn your phd, that is the title they give you, a doctor. but nothing like nitpicking,

right? when it comes to being a doctor, i did not even call myself doctor when i was a paramedic. i delivered four kids. another says my professors at engineering school insisted on being called doctor, the title doctor they thought belonged to professionals practicing medicine. i am with my colleagues. one last text says, when i heard dr. martin luther king, i did not think he was a medical doctor. we will go back to your calls and just a moment. before we do, we want to talk a little about the latest going on in congress with the covid-19 relief bill and the government funding bill. we will bring on mike lillis, a reporter with the hill newspaper. guest: thanks for having me. host: tell us what the status is of the house and senate leader''

efforts to reach agreement on a funding bill? the congresshrew -- they do this year after year after year. congress was supposed to pass a short-term funding bill yesterday, known as a continuing resolution. you will hear that term a lot. a two day extension of government funding that would have prevented a shut down -- that prevented a shut down but would have happened at midnight last night. they have said they were close most of the last week, so we are not really sure what that means at this point. a lot of agreement has been made, but there is also a number of outstanding issues. today, theapitol be joined by house leaders who will ira not the

final details. then the half to get the , which is anext arduous undertaking, because it is $2 trillion here, then they have to pass it through the senate and house. or we will have another shut down monday morning. has been that has to wait and see. -- everybody has to wait and see. host: what are the major sticking points between now and sunday? guest: the contours are all kind of in place. concessions have greased the skids, and now they are tinkering at the edges. there is an issue over the direct checks -- back in march, they passed a $1200 check for earning under $75,000.

latestooking like the bill is going to be a $600 check, not a $1200 check. causing concern from those pressing for more. actually prevented the continuing resolution to pass, but they relented. but they want that $1200. and the unemployment insurance extension, the federal portion of that has been an additional $600 a week, back in march. it is looking more and more like that is going to be cut in half to about $300, but now we are hearing that republicans want that number down. there is talk of how long that will last. we hear 10 weeks, but they are playing with that number.

senator pat toomey from pushingania has been since july and insisting these would prohibit emergency lending programs created by the federal reserve that expire at the end of the year, and the provision would say you can continue the programs but they will require congressional approval to do so, which is a high barrier. democrats are saying this is a naked effort to hobble the incoming president, joe biden, reactt allow him to unilaterally to the ongoing crisis. if trump are saying was able to do it unilaterally, why does biden have to get congressional approval? republicans are saying we do not

need these programs anymore, and we have deficit spending concerns. the issue at the moment. likely is it that house and senate leaders will actually come to an agreement before sunday, or are they already preparing another short-term cr? guest: they made one, they can do it again. -- they can throw it together at the last minute, like yesterday. they are hoping that will not be the case. we are hoping it is not the case. everyone wants to get out of town. havers of the house contracted covid-19 in the last week. there is a lot of frustration and agitation.

it creates this urgency for them to get a deal. [indiscernible] a few years ago, we were here on new year's eve and again on new year's day while vice president joe biden and mitch mcconnell were fighting over a spending bill. it happened before that they would have to come back, but everybody is hoping that is not the case. host: we would like to think mike lillis, watching the hill for "the hill" newspaper for talking about the government funding bill and the covid-19 bill. thank you for your time. guest: thanks for having me. host: once again, we are talking to you about the attack on jill

biden's doctorate degree. let's go back to our phone lines. we start with susan, calling from germantown, maryland on the democratic line. caller: good morning. i want to say this is the old a dr. standard -- we had kissinger, no one is saying anything about him. but now we have a new first lady, dr. biden, and she has worked hard and has warned her doctorate with a great deal of pride. it cannot go back to the way it was. conservatives and right-wingers would love to have women as wives, a compass and nothing. the modern women can accomplish anything she wants. it comes down to 2040. in 2040, according to the census, minorities will be the new majority. that includes women. white men will be the minority.

i will say get over it, it is the way it is today. host: let's go to fred, calling from kentucky on the republican line. caller: good morning. -- women areler already the majority. --way, if somebody wants somebody who earns a doctorate wants to be called doctor, there's no problem. i notice people who earn a doctorate degree are very insistent of being called doctor . i see no problem with that. however, i am kind of disappointed in your topics lately. with thekind of soft important things going on, like this problem with the election, bill that isd this

being passed that you just had a little bit on. really moremany important topics than how somebody is going to spend their money or whether somebody should be called doctor or not. keep watching. we will talk about all those things you talked about later on in the show. in fact, we have had issue on some of those topics yesterday. let's go to bill, calling from augusta, georgia. bill has earned a doctorate as well. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. really love the show, been watching it for years. thank you very much. i want to talk a little bit degree.e e.b.d. i earned my doctorate back in may. degree listeners, that actually addresses a problem and

practice and help solve problems, and one of the most pressing problems is education in this country. i can think of no more important then and field of study how do we educate our young population to become better citizens and really productive members of society. host: you said you earned your doctorate back in may. was yours one? caller: it was. host: where did you get it from? caller: augusta university. host: do you want people to call you doctor? caller: i can go either way with it, but sure. --t: anti-referred to other and do you refer to other people -- caller: i think it is appropriate to be called doctor. host: do you call people with phd's and dvds doctor as well? caller: absolutely. host: anne, calling from erie,.

. pennsylvania caller: good morning. longtime listener, first time caller. a little disappointed in the caller you had a couple calls ago saying, complaining about this being a softball issue. if he was a woman in today's world, he obviously would not feel that way. what i wanted to say about this is i think that epstein's editor, the person who gave the ok for his piece to be printed, i think that person should be revealed, because that person and the wall street journal, in general, and epstein, should be ashamed of themselves. like that one caller said, you would never have epstein disregard dr. kissinger's title the way he did jill biden. by the way, you know what? she did deliver a baby.

so there. [laughter] hopefully, jill biden, the next four years, will do more for this country than just giving a "be best" slogan. host: there are some people still criticizing the degree that jill biden earned. i want to read a little bit from criticism of her degree from the national review. this comes from the national review's article on jill biden, which is titled jill biden's doctorate is garbage because her dissertation is garbage. here is a little from that article. jill biden's doctorate -- dissertation is not an addition to the sum total of human knowledge. fraila gasping, wheezing, disney forest creature that exceeded and noticed that for it makes to be the thing it is

imitating while failing so pathetically that any witnesses to its an attitude must feel compelled come out of manners alone, to drag it to the nearest podium and give it a participation trophy. which is more or less what an ed.d. is. it is a degree that only deeply unimpressive people feel confers honorific of doctor. people who are actually smart understand that being in possession of a credential is no proof of intelligence. former first lady michelle obama responded to this type of criticism as well. this comes from former first lady michelle obama. we are all seeing what happens to so many professional women, whether their titles are dr., ms even first lady, all too often, our accomplishments are met with skepticism, even derision. we are guided by those who choose the weakness of ridicule

over the strength of respect. and yet, somehow, their words can stick. after decades of work, we are forced to prove ourselves all over again. is this really the example we want to set for the next generation? once again, that comes from former first lady michelle obama. we want to hear what you think. let's go back to our phone lines and talk to david, calling from texas on the democratic line. good morning. caller: good morning. i do not have a doctor's degree, but i have a masters degree. i think, from now on, i will require everyone to call me master. how do you think that will go over? host: i do not think that will go over well at all. [laughter] not at all. let's go to dorothy. dorothy is calling from florida on the democratic line. good morning. caller: yes, i would like to say

that i am appalled about these people calling in and thinking that getting a doctor's degree is nothing. , workinge 20 years full-time, raising two children, going to night school to get my bachelors degree. and it was one of the proudest moments i had, walking across that stage and getting that diploma. i cannot believe people are so uneducated and so stupid that they do not realize what goes into getting an education. and i wanted to go for my masters, but i was so burned out, after almost 20 years of going part-time to get a bachelors degree. she is a well educated women, and people like the one that called, i think from georgia or whoda -- that is the one, probably does not even have a college degree, is so stupid that she would say "she's not

going to be my first lady" -- give me a break. i would rather have a well educated first lady in the white house rather than a former -- host: let's go to rich, calling from tennessee on the independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. this is much ado about nothing. op-eds are written daily on every conceivable topic. it was a snarky piece. the tone --i think jill biden was correct, the tone was pretty insulting. but basically, i think the point was -- and look. i am a retired teacher. i have a masters degree plus 45 hours. i could have easily gotten my doctor, had i chosen to do so. -- kind of wish

i did, because my dad wanted me to. he did not graduate high school, and it would have made him proud. it was an endurance contest. i only know a few people who have their doctorate in education who really referred to themselves as doctor. of anhonestly a sign inferiority complex, in my view. we regard that as kind of silly, to be honest -- host: who is the "we" in that sentence? other teachers? caller: yes -- i agree with what the national review said. it does not necessarily imply intelligence, other than just being able to grind it out. i will say this, too. listen to joe biden. when het just joking said it was about getting a raise. the more degrees you have, that is an incentive to do that. that is why i did it, really.

it did not make me a better teacher. and i did not go around bragging about any advanced degrees or anything or even let people know. it was just a way of boosting your pay. also, he said, and there was a good quote from him, who said, again -- you never know when the guy is joking or not, but he said the reason she did it was she was tired of all the mail coming addressed to senator joe biden, and she wanted a title, too. there's is probably some truth to that. host: are you saying your masters degree did not help your career in teaching at all, did not make you a better teacher? caller: probably no, to be honest. i picked up -- i actually got -- what made me a better teacher doinging to workshops and

continuing education, that type of thing that all teachers were required to do. there masters degree, honestly -- and the doctorate -- i wrote three designated papers and put a lot of research and time into it and thought there was some value into them. i could have done a thesis. i finished college in less than three years. and i majored in english and journalism. so i can write, and i can do research. i found very little -- and that was the consensus of my fellow teachers. was we really did not get that much value, as far as translating to the classroom. honestly, i think it really is -- what we call putting on airs, around here, when you insist. -- fine, i am glad she has got a doctorate. more power to her.

but it is deceptive to call yourself doctor. the new york times does not always refer to ben carson as dr. ben carson. and senator paul, ron paul, he is a doctor, medical doctor. all my friends who are doctors and all, they're jim, doug, s arah, joy -- they do not go around insisting people stick title in front of their names. catherine, go to calling from illinois on the democrat line. caller: good morning. ph.dsband is a physicist, in nuclear chemistry. after he got his doctorate, he dr..roud to be called he said to me, in informal settings, around your colleagues, you do not call doctor so-and -- you do not call dr. so-and-so.

you call them by their first name. but if you go to a public forum and giving a lecture, then you call yourself "dr." it puts you at that point where people will listen to what you have to say in your subject matter. so when he was giving a lecture, they called him dr. so-and-so. when he would teach, for his -and-so would. so be put on -- the students would not be required to call him "dr.," but it is the protocol. tell meld say doctor, more, whatever the subject may be. but in an informal setting, you lose the "dr.," because everyone around you is either your best friend or you are around colleagues, and they lose the "dr." jill biden, indeed,

when being addressed in public, she should be called "dr." that is her title. dr. jill biden. but around her friends and her own colleagues, she probably does not want the "dr." because everyone around her is a "dr." that is what i wanted to say. thank you for listening. before we go further, one of our previous callers brought up the style that newspapers and television use when it comes to referring to doctors. most of us use the associated press stylebook, so i want you to know what it is we do on air and in print. most journalists follow the ap style. i will read to you what the ap style says about the use of doctor . first, use doctor in first reference as a formal title

before the name of an individual who holds a doctorate of dental surgery, dr. of medicine, dr. of optometry, doctor of osteopathic medicine, doctor of pediatric medicine, or doctor of veterinary medicine, like dr. jonas salk. if appropriate in the context, dr. may also be used on first reference before the names of individuals who hold other types of doctoral degrees. however, because the public frequently identifies dr. only with physicians, care should be taken to ensure that the individual's specialty is stated in first or second reference. do not use dr. before the names of individuals who only use honorary doctorates or that is why i do not use dr., because mine is honorary mary -- honorary. do not continue the use of dr. in subsequent references.

that is why we do not use "dr." for people who are not physicians, because we use ap style on this show. let's go to paul from minnesota, who has earned a doctorate. caller: good morning. i very much agree with the last caller from illinois. i am a counselor -- i do not have a doctorate but i've worked with many psychologists and educators who do have doctorates. and using their doctorate in a relation to their professional work, i think, is appropriate and good. i think it is relevant. but when they are around their friends or on an informal basis, what they choose to be called, going by their first name seems more the norm. but i want to comment on the tone of the editorial, which i think was condescending, demeaning. i question if the writer would

have written that same editorial had his daughter or spouse had a doctorate. i think we need to turn the page and get off the disrespectful attacks on one another, including candidates, politicians' families. i think we should leave the biden family alone and we should leave the trump family alone. jean callinggo to on the republican line. caller: good morning. so glad you took my call. i watch "washington journal" every morning. i want to say this tends to go further than what we are hearing on the tv. this is a choice of free speech. -- republicans have been demeaned, called every name in the book for four years.

now somebody says something about jill biden, and oh, lord, we are just traitors to the country. inten, i didn't wake up communist china this morning. until january 20, if jill biden is sworn in, that could change. but until then, i have freedom of speech, and i feel like if the democrats can call us every name in the book, then we have a right to do the same thing. if she becomes first lady we have gone from class to crass. that's all i have ot say. host: let's talk to matt, calling from maryland on the democrats line. caller: hello. how are you? host: just fine. go ahead. caller: i think, first of all, that you have allowed these people to call in assuming that

she insisted on being called dr. biden, and she indeed does not. i think that has to be made clear here. second, i think half of these people have called -- who have called in and said they have doctorates are liars. and i think the question you're asking is the wrong one. you are asking these people if she deserves to be called dr. the question should be does she deserve to be held under a hot light for this? as i say, she had said that she does not ask to be called that. in fact, it sounds like she had sort of what was like a nickname. so i think it is up to people to research this, particularly the people that host this show. thank you. host: let's see what some of our social media followers are saying about the attack on jill biden's doctorate degree.

let's start with a text that says it is disgusting. dr. biden earned that title, as did my own husband. coming from the wall street journal, it is of no surprise to me. dr. biden has class and character and has every right to continue to use that title. go dr. biden, our next first lady. a post from facebook says why and how did fred broker call himself a dr. without having earned a doctorate? dr. jill biden did earned her doctorate. seb gorka would be an example of a person that would not be a doctor but uses the title to gain credibility. another one says that having a doctorate does not necessarily mean you are smarter than the rest, it proves you're willing to stay in school longer than the rest.

and another says if the writer had "dr." in front of his name, he would know the hard work that went into earning that degree. another text said if we had a woman as president made to a man, accomplish educator with a ph.d, few would object to him using the title. and one last text says have s, but theyh ph.d' do not flaunt it or use it for personal gain. we will go back to our phone lines and see what you think about the attacks on jill biden's doctorate degree. let's go to randy, calling from michigan. caller: good morning. i would like to start by thanking you and all the other great men and women it takes to bring us this show and wish you a safe and happy holidays. i personally believe she can ifl and use that word "dr." she wants. we have a guy on tv called dr.

phil, and i have not seen anybody raise all sorts of canes about that. he is not a doctor. it is shameful that these people -- being just a high school graduate, it is embarrassing to watch these people knock down someone who has put the time into try to educate herself more. no matter what little to letter word or whatever you put in front of somebody's name. oute are a lot of doctors there -- like they always told me, what do they call a guy that passed medical school with a d-? they call him "dr." thank you. and merry christmas to everyone. callingt's go to james from fort myers, florida on the independent line. good morning. caller: hi. you're my favorite. i love to listen to you on saturday mornings. of course, i listen to "washington journal" every

morning. my wife is a well educated women. hasis not a doctor but she a masters degree. i have some college. i did not graduate from college, but i worked in high schools as a substitute teacher. so i am around a lot of educated people. to me, dr. biden is a very unassuming woman. she seems so humble. i am so proud to know that she will be our first lady. i just think she is a wonderful person. what i know of her and what i see on the television, she is -- he is just the best -- she is just th e best. i fully support her. and dr. martin luther king, what about him? was he a doctor of medicine? no. no one complained about that. i am not complaining about it either. i think it is fine. but it is a matter of respect,

and she does deserve our respect. she has worked hard for it. ,n her wonderful humility she shows every day the kind of person she is. host: let's go to gerard, calling from texas. caller: good morning. you for allowing me on this great show. public speaking is a hard thing for many people. but i think this is just a continuation of the last four years, of going after education, going after facts, going after science. mindset of thee thinking of the last four years that is going out the door. dr. jill biden, whatever she did washer doctorate and she

conferred that title, she earned it. compare that to the educational secretary that was named over the last four years. i wonder if she has one. i have not checked it. i should not have talked about, making a statement faced on my profession, but if anybody has any knowledge on that, please expound on whether our education secretary, who is our head educator for the united states, if she has a doctorate. callingt's go to will, from north carolina on the republican line. it -- go ahead. caller: yes, i believe that is a formality. civilizedtop being people. i think we should try to at andt be formal about it

just forget about all the hatred and stuff. doctor and worked so hard to get it -- i went to college and have a nursing degree -- only an associate's, though. it was pretty hard. also expensive. so i believe that we should try to be respectful so we can move forward, you know. host: i completely agree with you. i have a master in fine arts, and it was not easy and it did make me a better writer, which is what i went there for. caller: i agree. thank you so much. host: let's talk to ginger, calling from st. louis, missouri on the democratic line. caller: good morning. i would like to say rupert murdoch has a hand in the wall street journal and in fox tv. and they kind of push hate and

disagreement. and until we really figure out that people have factions they are trying to move forward, and that means by pushing someone else back, we are never going to get a handle on what is crazy in this country. don't dislike anyone. i want my people back, the people i love back. people were mad at me about obama care because they watched fox, and they were like it is all my fault. i thought, no, i just have cancer. it is not my fault. but it was weird to watch people change. i really have to blame rupert murdoch. he just got the vaccine, and i want everyone on fake fox news to know that. he just got the vaccine. please, please get the vaccine. and that is why want to say. i love you all. i love you republicans. i want you back in my country. host: let's go to norma, calling

from missouri. caller: good morning. everyone is talking about respect and, you know, the part of dr. jill biden. i understand she earned that. but we talk about respect, but is, form upset about was years, dr. ben carson part of the administration, and no one would call him dr. ben carson. brain surgeon. he divided twins that were conjoined -- host: i can tell you that i, on the show and other places, i have seen "dr. ben carson" repeatedly. caller: i am talking about democrats who come onto different television shows, cnn

and stuff, and they call him "ben carson. " they don't call him "dr. ben carson." besides that, they talk about our firsthe will be lady, but on facebook, when we were talking about dr. jill biden, that came on and called -- there were several people on there going on about at least we do not have someone in the white house that is going to be in there that is -- that posed nude in every single "playboy" or magazine -- that is just the difference between democrats and republicans. callingt's go to dave from indiana on the independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. i just find it ironic.

i really do. i think it's funny. first of all, there's a reason people do not go by there titles. i agree with the other guy. he had a masters degree -- you do not go around telling everyone you are a master, ok? you just do not do that. every lawyer out there, probably 90% of the people in congress as a lawyer, and they have doctors of jurisprudence degrees, and they could go by the title of "dr." too. it would be confusing if you had to call lawyers doctors. a master's has degree, to call them masters -- at some point in time, this is nothing.

you talk about organized confusion. every lawyer has got a doctorates degree, and they do not go by "dr." carol, callingto on the republican line. caller: hello. host: go ahead. caller: i am just saying she is a dr., which means she is very smart. has she asked her husband how the chinese bought all the texas property for windmills? that sounded kind of weird to me. if i was that smart, i would have asked. host: when would she have asked that, when did this happen? caller: i saw it on tv three or four days ago. host: if it happened in the last three or four years, how would -- are you there? caller: yeah. pened in it hap

the last four years, how would the bidens know? caller: i saw in the last four days. host: but they have not been inaugurated yet, how would they know? caller: they would know if the chinese bought thousands of acres in texas for windmills. host: ok. let's go to jim calling from iowa on the independent line. good morning. caller: i do not understand why we are having a topic about this. we should have a topic about policies. know people are haters of educated women. jill biden has her doctorate.

i am proud to see a first lady with a doctorate. or any woman or man with a doctorate. i have a degree. i am so tired of the name-calling, the labeling. it does not make any sense, attacking jill biden. what did melania trump do that was so great? we still have our first lady there. let's talk about that. host: let's go to andrew, calling from houston, texas on the democratic line. caller: thank you so much for taking my call this morning. i would like to make two points. my first point is i am a student of music, studied music at university, and my professor was a doctor. most of the people who know her and her life away from the university and her friends and even colleagues, they call her by her first name. a studentecause i was

of hers come out of respect, i always referred to her as "dr." i think that is something that is very important. i want to say also some of their previous callers have said why are we even talking about this, why is this an issue? the republicans trashed the lamia trump, said they did not like her showing her bare arms -- the republicans trashed the trump, said they did not like her showing her bare arms -- i am sorry, they did that to michelle obama. melania trump did that, and she is the best ever. in and theyen comes jumped on that. no one ever said that people should call her dr. jill biden. someone wrote that in an op-ed. [indiscernible] -- host: let's go to r.j.

caller: good morning. love your program. very good. i am a retired therapist. i've a ph.d. in the right setting, it can be used. she don't need to be using in that setting. inple who are uneducated this country see that and think she is a medical doctor. you need to go by the ap standard, which you said. host: let's talk to donna, calling from vero beach, flor ida, on the republican line. caller: good morning. i would like to say i have delivered a baby, but i'm certainly not a doctor, as reference to the very beginning of your show. and also that if you are for -- if you refer to mismanners and

courtesy, if you addressed a it would beem, president joseph biden and first dr. of education jill biden. that is the correct way to address them. now, in personal business, you know, with their friends and etc., the "dr." is dropped. but if you use "doctor of education," it is understood. that is all i can say about it. thank you for letting me be on your show. host: let's read a couple more tweets before the top of the hour. one text came in that said, as the father of a young lady who has earned a doctorate, i take extreme umbrage to what this wall street journal columnist implied.

another says one hallmark of a well-crafted editorial is that it holds a reader's attention throughout, the end result being the reader reflect upon what he or she has read. the use of the dismissive "toots" by the writer ended any serious consideration and begged comparison to a high school sophomore's first draft. another says it seems funny you make a big deal about not calling jill biden and biden, but for four years, i've heard the media refer to president trump as just trump. no problem with that. we would like to thank all of our viewers for participating. coming up next, a discussion on hunger and food insecurity during the pandemic with heather taylor with bread for the world. later, realclear education's nathan harden joins us to talk about their 2020 college free speech rankings. we will be right back. ♪

>> sunday on book tv. the book strong minute, mussolini to the president. she is interviewed by sherry berman. about a lostam grandeur that only the leader knows how to capture for their people. that's a very convincing and appealing thing to many people, especially if they feel things have passed them by or they feel dissatisfied. they are the only people who can see the future. onsunday at 9:00 eastern

on book tv on c-span 2. sunday night on q&a, the book once a warrior, the disaster response organization he founded. >> the humanitarian community is not a fan of the military. for good reason. the majority of the humanitarian suffering around the world is the result of armed conflict. it's almost as though career humanitarians despise the military almost out of an obligation. that we had been trained with all of these skills, we develop these experiences that were applicable to these disaster zones.

none of these humanitarian agencies were recruiting those men and women into their ranks. that was a waste of human capital. on q&a.y night at 8:00 >> washington journal continues. host: we are back with heather taylor, the campaign director for bread for the world. she is here to talk about u.s. hunger and food insecurity during covid-19. good morning. in were last on this show may, when we talked about food insecurity back then. have things gotten better or worse since may? while i amve to say, honored to be back and have this opportunity to speak with you

again, i am deeply saddened that things have not gotten better. i am here, essentially making the same push that i did months ago when interventions could have been made. americans will face hunger now that we are at the close of the year. --s includes 11 mildred million children. many of the resources that food banks had are starting to run out. donations, food donations are down. estimates are showing that food banks, the need will increase early 2021.y 60% by because benefits are expiring it, what they would normally receive from the usda under federal food programs will drop

if an intervention is not done by 50%. better,ave not gotten not just because the pandemic has persisted, but because we have not done our jobs to take the interventions that are standing before us. talk specifically about your organization and what you do to help fight food insecurity. tell us what bread for the world is and who funds you. guest: certainly. we are a christian advocacy organization. we work with denominations across the country to mobilize and urge congress to pass legislation to address hunger and poverty. we are funded through primary donors, churches that support us.

let's talk about the statistics right now. how many americans are considered hungry or food insecure? what exactly is food insecurity? insecurity is an everyday term, it means people do not have the ability to get access to healthy food and nutrition they need to sustain themselves and their family. in america, that is because they don't have sufficient income. people are skipping meals, they are rationing. with the unemployment rate still double what was, it's just under 7%. many americans, many families are still not able to put food on the table. we deem them to be food insecure. host: how many people in america

do we consider talking about that are going hungry? guest: by the end of this year, estimates are showing 50 million americans are going hungry, are facing hunger and food insecurity. host: we have a chart i want to show you from the associated press. by the end of this year, they will be putting out 1.6 million pounds of food to families. like you said it, rising from 35 million to more than 50 million. be evenequences will more dire for children. one and four children will face hunger by the end of the year. is it the unemployment rate?

is it covid? what is causing this huge jump in the numbers. guest: it's a combination of factors. it's fair to say in 2020, covid is at the root. that 8 million people have fallen into poverty since the pandemic began. when congress passed the first package, that dropped. it dropped to 4 million. because there has not been a second stimulus, people are still out of work. the rate of people contracting the virus is increasing. they themselves cannot work. when we had 8 million people who poverty, thatfrom means they are not able to meet basic essential needs like putting food on the table.

host: our viewers can take part in this conversation. for this segment, we will open up regional lines. if you are in the eastern or central time zone, you can call (202) 748-8000. if you are in the mountain and pacific time zones, your number will be (202) 748-8001. we will open up a special line for our viewers who are food insecure. for those of you who are food insecure, we want to hear what you are going through. your number is going to be (202) 748-8002. you can text us. always reading social media on twitter. you told us earlier that food for the world is a christian -based organization. what roles do faith-based

organizations have to play right now in fighting food insecurity and hunger? guest: i am glad you asked that question. it is bread for the world. faith-based organizations have a significant role, many already have food pantries. they are now partnering in new ways with food banks across the country. some of them are turning their community centers into food distribution centers to ensure that the food is distributed to their congregations and partnering alongside these food banks. they are getting the word out as to how they can access meals. say that into addition to what we might have as a traditional charitable act,

the congregations we work with also are exercising their faith through advocacy. they understand it is important to contact their members of congress. ask congress to invest in federal food programs like snap. and congregations the partner with us are asking congress to increase the monthly benefits by 15%. impacts the ability to millions of americans. food banks and charity organizations are crucial. they cannot do it alone. that was the truth before the pandemic hit. andust come together mobilize and work on the ground in our communities. we know that god cares about

people. it impact people. we have a role to play in shaping policy and programs that can improve the lives of our brothers and sisters. host: you brought up snap. can you tell our viewers what snap is? it's an acronym. if the supplemental nutrition assistance program. familieses benefits to so they can purchase groceries each month. we are pushing for that monthly benefit increase. eachtranslates to $25 for individual. it's not a windfall. it doesn't totally solve food insecurity. it gives name the ability to go to the grocery store and to purchase online in many instances.

the online purchase option has been extended. households, they can purchase groceries online so they're not exposing themselves to the virus, depending on where they live. they can make healthy choices for food and feed their families. host: let's let our viewers join the conversation. we will start with gary in georgia. good morning. caller: good morning. is doubleoyment rate what it was prior to the pandemic. it's close to what was right before the election. i'm having an issue with where we are saying there are so many people that are unemployed when we are sitting -- i own a business.

i am trying to hire people. the first thing they say to me is can we get paid off the books. if i don't, i will lose my unemployment. host: going ahead and respond. guest: we know there are instances where people -- i don't want to make any assumptions. a number ofnow is individuals across the country did not make a living wage. they may have had a job, before the pandemic they had a tough time making ends meet. with all of the added stress and experiences amid the pandemic, it only worsened the situation.

sometimes people are juggling it to make ends meet, even when they are employed and frontline workers. knowing it is hardly enough, especially with the minimum wage will -- is not increased in over a decade. i want to say that respect to snap, the food program i am discussing, it has a high integrity rate. study shows that 99% of individuals on snap are eligible and are spending the funds in the correct manner. there aremean incidents where this is not the case? absolutely.

there are kinks in the system and we must be good stewards. large, it is doing its job. it is the most effective antihunger program in the world -- in the united states. we have to push forward. even before the pandemic, it wasn't just about the number of people who had jobs. it was about people who were able to sustain themselves and make ends meet, even though they were not getting a living wage. host: let's talk to mo from virginia. good morning. caller: i'm trying to get an understanding. we don't have starvation in america. what is the root cause. hunger.saying there is you have people that have money that fit in that category.

that's about making the right choice, choosing the right food. wanted to say. i just don't understand the cause of the situation. guest: it's twofold. one is the ability to access food. thank you for the question. i think clarity is important. my purpose here today is not to talk in circles, but to bring it home. it is about choices. we all make good choices and not so good choices. we cannot control what people do. what we can do is give them the ability to make that choice in the first place. we put in place antihunger programs like snap to give people the resources, to give

them the freedom to make choices, to give them the ability to go to farmers markets, to go to the grocery store. there are other ways we can educate the population about nutrition. at the end of the day, the choice does fall to us. when we have a situation where people can't make the choice because they don't have enough money, they don't have enough resources or they lost their job or someone in their family is impacted, then we have a responsibility to help our neighbor. we have a responsibility at the individual level. the wealthiest nation in the world has a responsibility that is shared as well. we talked about the rise in child hunger. feeding america says one in four

children may face hunger i the end of the year. did any of the recent stimulus bills do anything or address childhood hunger? guest: they did. a lot of our partners applaud the efforts that are been made, particularly around school meals. we knew that schools shut down across the country as a result of the pandemic. had to shut down again. different children contracted the disease. they adopted hybrid models. home the still at remainder of the week and did not have access to school meals. familieswho live with that are eligible for free or reduced meals were able to get access to meals through the

pandemic. was a program that was successful. this fall, congress extended this program through 2021. that is in place. that is something that is certainly helping to combat childhood hunger. we know that families are still struggling as are individuals. it is very important that we invest in the snap program. from daniel is calling pennsylvania. good morning. caller: good morning. don't see you going out of business anytime soon. to a scientist from berkeley university. said you take three

countries, china, india, brazil, the population consumes as much as we do in the united states. need eight planets for a sustainable world. community of 3000 people that are totally sustainable. planet livedon the like that, you would still need three planets. we are extremely overpopulated. seed then old saying, belly and the soul shall follow. are you supportive of family planning, abortions, things of that sort to reduce the

population? thank you for listening to me. guest: thank you for your question. thenot certain about statistics that you mentioned, whether they are pre-or post pandemic. what i will say is critical here in the united states isn't just the amount we consume is a total population, who has access within our population. continues to suffer from poverty? whose poverty rates have been increasing as a result of the pandemic. it's about helping those who are in need. that is a bible verse comes out of matthew: 25. jesus teaches to help the least among us. thousands or are

millions who are doing well, it's about who among us does not have access? who among us does not have the ability to sustain themselves or have the food they need for good nutrition for their families. and is who we must focus on who we must assist. this is what we endeavor to do and what we encourage every listener to do. contact congress and asked them of snap. 15% with respect to abortion and reproductive health, bread for the world is in antihunger organization. our mission is to end hunger. this is what we focus on. we have a high regard for ensuring children and infants, including the unborn, get the nutrition they need. it is critical that mothers in the first days of their

pregnancy and raising their child receive proper nutrition. if that child receives excellent nutrition, it determines their physical development and the way their mind develops and gives them the ability to perform well. these are critical factors that determine the future of our children. we cannot underscore enough the importance of nutrition. this is why we are here. it's not just talking points. it's because we have a cause where statistics and our moral obligation lines. criticalt is now more than ever before in our lifetime to make smart strategic decisions like investing in snap. mediawe have some social

follows who have written into say -- i will read one of them. importantfor your work. i pledge to do better in my donations. some want to know what you would suggest for them to do outside the advocacy you are talking about. how would they be best -- what would be the best way to donate money to fighting hunger? suggest -- i do want to say that investing in advocacy is effective. toncourage you to go bread.org. donate,re compelled to we are having an end of your match program. your dollars will go further. should be able to impact we get these policies pushed forwards. out your local food bank.

right now, they are in need. we are talking about food banks across the country. these are real conversations we are having. we understand they are running out of donations. they are hard-pressed for volunteers because some of their volunteers have covid. people have fears about exposing themselves. they are in need. they are worried they are going to lose federal support they relied on up until this point. banks, with local food your local congregation to the extent that they have food pantries and can assist communities who are in need. host: mike is calling from illinois. good morning. caller: hello, good morning. thanks for taking my call. .'m concerned

thesituation of people aret rate, dying from covid-19. trump is thinking about pardoning himself and his family. it's unbelievable how the american people can trust politicians in this situation. other countries are watching us. many have lost their confidence in the united states. especially european countries. i am originally from turkey. activistssh political today, the turkish people no longer consider the united states as an ally. they have given up hope on the

united states. thank you. host: respond. guest: thank you. is not perfect by any means. the hopeful news in this situation is we are working with congress, which includes hundreds of individuals. many of whom are there for the right reasons. they want to do the best to serve the public. we have a chance to make a difference right now. it has been a tough year politically. hunger is not a political issue. it is a human issue. we have a chance right now to influence the results. toncourage everyone to go bread.org. form right there

where you can write your representative. you can use the template. you can modify it. .lick it's easy. reach out to your representative. we want to bring hope, not hunger to america for the holidays. mentioned earlier food banks is a good place for people to volunteer and to put their money toward fighting hunger. for those of our viewers who don't know, what is a food bank? how do they operate? guest: food banks are essentially like a warehouse. food, tons of food and they deliver it to local smaller organizations and congregations that run food pantries. warehouse toas a gather food supplies and

distributed to other distribution centers and better ensure that people are getting access to the food they need. let's go back to the phone lines. dave is calling from new york. good morning. caller: good morning. i'm going to try to be quick. with the taxrt off cuts for the corporations. 2008, the majority of toey they saved has gone share buybacks. to enrich the executives. hit, there was a huge problem in the market. the federal reserve printed $3 trillion. one of the main parts of that

was to back the corporate debt. to bail out the corporations who had spent all their money on share buybacks and didn't have enough to get through the thing. we bailed them out. , how do you like explain this double standard. it's no problem to bella wall street and put interest rates at zero. the cost of capital is free. trillion in 2008 and handed it to wall street. when it comes to poor people, it's somehow their fault. you are sinful, it is socialist. we pretty much have zero interest rates. we fix the price of capital. we gave $7 trillion away for free.

how is that not socialist? believe -- we can't get away from the reality that moral -- its also a reflects our values and what we deem to be important. orpite some of the bailout the debt relief you described, we are proud of the fact that through our advocacy and the work of many of our partner we were able to keep traditional cuts. it was a fight. officialsremind our of the moral obligation. it is true.

we must speak about our american values as well. as well as look to stimulate the economy and make strategic decisions. an additional point i have yet to raise, for every dollar that is invested in snap, that translates into $1.50 of economic activity. it stimulates the economy. it is a proven program that helps people come out of poverty. there is a misnomer that the vast majority of people on snap are dependent on it and stay on it their entire lives. that's not what studies show. it is a support mechanism that helps people come out of poverty, to feed their families. by pushing these policies, we are being strategic and helping dynamics to occur.

are also making a statement about our world, about our values. we are not slapping labels on one side or the other. we are pressing into the need to do right. one thing the pandemic has done, it has taken down barriers. virus is immune to this or the impact of it. banks individuals at food were new, people who did not, before. people who were volunteers and manned the food banks. they are now in need themselves. this is an opportunity to do right. to stand by what we say we believe as an american society.

host: one of our social media follows once to know about a mixed message that has been sent out to the people. our country may have a hunger issue, i'm hearing that we have an obesity epidemic. which is it? guest: this is a great question. i recently heard one colleague describe it as two sides of the same coin. people do not have access to nutrition.o afford eating what they can. they are eating often food that may be low in nutrition value. it's cheap and it's accessible. promotion ofthe sugars and food that can create

addictions. by and large, people are just trying to get what they can afford. the nutrition factor is secondary. people who are food insecure. in obesityeeped because they are resorting to what is available and not necessarily what is most nutritious and accessible. host: let's talk to stephen who is calling from florida. morning. caller: good morning. thank you for your time. my question is quick. i know several people that i work with, they want to be married. they are not married because they are afraid of losing their benefits. anything where people with children it can be married and not be penalized for

marriage or working multiple jobs? guest: thanks for the question. certain about the implications of marriage. who isdo know is eligible for programs like snap largely depends on income. what is an individual or a family household income? marital status is not as much of a factor. ist we should focus on ensuring that jobs are available and they are paying a living wage. peoplemaking sure that can have access to programs like snap so they can meet their most basic needs. host: most americans who use snap benefits are required to

means youores, that have to go out into areas where you may get coronavirus. are there any efforts to change this? guest: there have been pilot programs. individuals in various states could purchase groceries online. pandemic, these efforts have been expanded. site, 90% ofsda snap households now have the ability to purchase groceries online through the program. their exposure to the virus. don, callingalk to from north carolina. caller: good morning. professor.ormer

i have been unemployed for almost eight years. jobs andof getting certain institutions. i want to talk about the impact of the attack on the middle class, the rising of rent. of economics.g i had to reinvent myself. free food was given by whole foods. they would let the food rot. fresh fruits and vesicles. i would go in get it. can you talk about education and how to use food.

they migrate. they make do with less. we have a generation. they would get their kids something from mcdonald's. there's a lot going on with food. there is so much of a discussion. host: go ahead and discuss it. guest: you are right. there are so many factors, which is why we need so many partners and work in coalition and why everyone has a role to play. i am glad that you brought it back to the issue of cost-of-living. out asy not have come

clearly when i was speaking earlier about living wages. wage stays the more, thea decade or cost of living goes up and up. that includes rent. that's not only in cities or urban communities. i have lived in rural and urban communities. it is across the board. it's not just about the employment rate and you people have jobs. that's one question. ofondarily, it's an issue are they making enough to make ends meet, to make the cost-of-living, to be able to live in a studio or one bedroom accessnt, to be able to decent food and to purchase food that is necessary. you are correct. education about what we eat is critical. players, schools

complete a role. the government can play a role. nowften have nutritionists trying to improve school meals so kids are not just getting something to eat, they're getting the right thing to eat and they are getting better educated. say i had the opportunity to live in another country, in africa. you are correct. there are many places around the world where they have access to fruits and vegetables. here, we have a lot of processed food. that speaks to the way our food is produced. it is a large issue. we can educate our community. we can share the knowledge.

we can share the knowledge you know with your family and children. we can also pull in players, particularly in the public sector such as schools and the government to continue to educate people about how to make good choices and urge the government to ensure that people have the ability to make those good choices on their own. can get as see if we couple of quick questions in. philip does calling from oklahoma city. hello. i would like heather to address the issue, this bogus definition called food insecurity was concocted to sweep up as many people as possible into this category, to create the appearance of a massive problem.

one out of seven people are food insecure. that's completely meaningless. it's like saying people could use extra money. this big broadd definition of food insecurity with hunger. in most peoples minds, they are supposed to mean the same thing. you are writing this trojan every liberal trope and socialist trope in the world. what a bogus movement. host: is food insecurity bogus? guest: the collar is challenging . i do appreciate the question and will do my best to respond in a way that i've responded to other callers who raised issues around rent. food insecurity is not a bogus

term. it does have a definition. it is simply individuals who do not have enough or the ability to access sufficient nutritious food to be healthy for their families. intoerica, that translates not having sufficient income to be able to make the food purses necessary. they are food insecure. again, i think it's important to remember this is an issue that existed in our country before the pandemic. i will also share that growing up as a child, even below the poverty level, i understand personally what that experience is like. term ort is not a bogus

a description of a circumstance. i lived it. by the grace in it of god and many other factors. it is pervasive. the pandemic has only exacerbated the circumstances. people arehat standing in line at food banks across the country, we see cars upon cars, lines of individuals. that isn't bogus. that's reality. i'm confident people have better things to do. it is something that we see now because people do not have a choice. they are food insecure. us, not asbent upon conservatives or liberals, as humans to be able to reach out

and meet that need. host: we would like to thank heather taylor from bread for the world for coming on with us this morning and talking about u.s. hunger and food insecurity during the pandemic. thank you so much for taking time with us this morning. guest: thank you for having me. att: we will take a look real clear educations free-speech rankings with nathan harden. he will be with us in just a moment. we will be right back. >> today on the communicators, the head of public policy for zoom on the videoconferencing companies growth during covid-19. >> it's been a transformational here. we went from something on the meeting 10 million

participants to something north of 300 million. prior to the pandemic, we were focused entirely on business customers. all of that changed. the pandemic arrived, we understood we have the opportunity to connect not just families,but people, schools, health care institutions. it's been extraordinary. quickly, to scale up to avoid disruptions and be there for people. eastern on 6:30 p.m. the communicators on c-span. to c-span's podcaster weekly. we are talking to robert browning, who directs the c-span archives about the use of lame-duck sessions to tackle

big-ticket legislation. find the weekly where you get your podcasts. >> you are watching c-span, your unfiltered view of government. -- cabley the table television companies and brought to you by your television provider. >> washington journal continues. we are back with the education editor. he is here to talk with us about the recent college free-speech rankings. did morning. guest: thanks for having me on the program. free-speechs what means. on campus aspeech we know it is a hot political topic. we see it in the news.

protesthether it's a tile on campus or a controversial speaker that might corrupt in controversy, we want to put some bones to the issue. with a couple of other organizations conducted on thegest ever survey topic of free speech ever conducted. 20,000 students across 55 universities. we asked them a series of questions in the survey. openness.eir how open were they or how to have awas it conversation on things like abortion or affirmative-action or gun control. we asked them about tolerance. how willing would they be to speaker onr allow a

campus who had a controversial point of view. we went to the issue of self-expression. ever had to at the censor themselves in the classroom. we asked them about their sense of the support for free speech. did the people in charge on campus foster an environment conducive to open discussion. we looked at the actual speech policies that were in place, were there restrictive policies and the written student handbook. created a scale between zero and 100. we wereese responses, able to rank these 55 schools in the area of free speech.

host: you identified the number. i was going to ask you, how may schools did you look at and how did you decide which schools to look at? guest: we would have loved to have surveyed every school in the country. that wasn't feasible. this is a cross-section. there are some of the elite schools, the brand name schools. we also included a cross-section geographically. schools,your big state we weren't able to do the liberal arts colleges and some of the smaller schools. in this round, we focused on these large big conference schools across the country. young student applying to college, there is a good chance that the schools you are interested in be included on

the survey. we have plans to expand in future versions. cross-section in terms of elite schools, big state schools, we've got a good picture of how the history of free-speech stacked up across these institutions. host: walk us through some of the findings. who turned out to be the best school when it comes to free speech for college students? guest: this was no surprise for us. the university of chicago came in number one. they've become known for this issue. their president has been very thattive establishing school as a place where academic freedom is protected and free-speech will be promoted.

i think that's a difference. academia, anybody in they will say of course i support free speech on campus. what we found is the institutes that take a proactive view and cultivate a climate of open inquiry, those made a real difference. the university of chicago is famous for the chicago statement. students across the political spectrum, this is key, whether liberal or conservative, they ranked chicago very highly. host: what school was at the bottom? unfortunately, this went to depaul university. they were the opposite case. they were ranked very lowly by

both liberals and conservatives. they were the lowest ranked among conservative students who took our survey. they were the fourth lowest among liberals. something is not clicking there. there were some bigger schools that surprised us. they came up near the bottom, including university of texas at austin, lsu. reigning championship of football. they did not do well in the free-speech competition. the top 10 of our rankings 10 that seven out of were large public institutions. flip the coin over, seven out of 10 of the lowest were private universities, typically more elite schools, including

dartmouth. we did find a little bit of a distinction there. free-speechit less according to these students on some of the more elite campuses. host: let's let our viewers join in. we are going to open up special lines. one group we want to hear from our actual college students and their parents. we want to know what you think about free-speech on college campuses. college students and parents, your number is (202) 748-8000. another important troop is college educators. if you are a college educator and you want to talk about free-speech, your line is (202) 748-8001. aboutll want to hear from free-speech on college campuses.

everyone else, call (202) 748-8002. keep in mind, you can always text us. nathan, you just mentioned this. there was a little bit at the end of your statement. i wanted you to go into this a little bit more. was there a big difference between private and public universities when it came to these rankings? guest: i think it helps if we look at some of the individual questions to get a sense of this. university, one of the most prestigious in the country, the number is 42% of

students said it was ok in some circumstances to shout down a speaker that you disagreed with. was only 13% at kansas state. that's a little bit of a glimpse into this public versus private distinction. things.ther at columbia, 10% said they saw violence as an acceptable response to offensive speech in some circumstances. there seems to be a more intense a raw speech climate. that broadly speaking,

most students said they felt that their administration protected speech. at the same time, a majority said i am self censoring in some circumstances. due to peer may be pressure. even if a university broadly speaking is trying to promote free speech on campus or professor in his or her classroom, a lot of students expressed fear about what their peers might think if they held a political view that was unpopular. from your report, 60% of students can recall at least one time during their college experience where they did not share their perspective for fear

of how others would respond. one of the biggest problems is not the administration, it is students on students. is that what you see? guest: i think so. you know, it is both. we know that there are some students who say that they weren't comfortable expressing a difference of opinion with their professors, but i think we have to look at this issue in a broader context than what is going on in the classroom. we live in an era when social media is a soda the primary means, in some cases, where people live out their social lives. that can be a polarizing landscape. and, you know, we know from politicalies that the landscape is getting more polarized. conservatives are getting more conservative, liberals are

getting more liberal, and there seems to be less willingness to discuss differences across controversial issues. even if the university does everything right, and i think this is important to note, at the university of chicago, we praised them for all they are doing on this issue, but they still only scored a 64 out of 100 on our survey, the average being 52. 64 is still a failing grade if you take a final exam in most classes, but i think we need to grade on a curve here because culturally, and where we are in our political landscape, students are bringing a lot of this into the classroom with them. and we believe that when a college or university takes a proactive approach, like the university of chicago, they can make a measurable difference in the climate on campus.

but they will not be able to solve this problem on their own. host: the report shows just like -- or the overall groups, the university of chicago was number one best overall and number one ranked by liberals. texasth conservatives, a&m university jumps to the top. what are the differences there? guest: students naturally feel more comfortable expressing themselves when everyone agrees with them. texas a&m university is one of the more conservative schools in terms of how students self identify. naturally, there is more of a sense of comfort from conservatives there. but i think it is important to note that conservatives also ranked the university of chicago highly, even though it is one of the most liberal schools in our survey.

and on the other hand, you can wheret schools like lsu, there was a significant amount therey of conservatives and they did not do so well overall. at think that there are -- any time there is a place where everybody agrees with you, yes, you will feel more comfortable. bu thatt is only part of the story because clearly some liberal institutions are doing well, even among conservatives. so we want to highlight that that a distinction there -- data distinction. host: we will start with mark calling from new jersey. what's the name of the city? caller: hi, can you hear me? host: go ahead. parsippany, new

jersey. host: i got it. go ahead. caller: i want to say that you do a great job, i love everyone at c-span. please bring steve scully back. for the gues is, i want to challenge him a little bit because i think this way of presenting free speech is a little myopic or a little one-sided. the goal of the university is to create an atmosphere conducive to the education of everyone. is in the world, there discrimination. in the world, there is hate. and the free speech issue has been weaponized in certain ways in this country. i want to bring to your attention the westborough baptist church, which won a

supreme court case and they would have hateful slogans outside of funerals for u.s. veterans. and i will not say what they said, but essentially that go had hates -- then they would thw in a hateful term. they even did this when mr. rogers died, who had the show for children. and they said it was free speech . that kind of rhetoric is not conducive to education. heere's a need to control t dialogue on a campus. and i would like to know what the speaker thinks about that. guest: thank you for the comment. course you aref right, in some cases speech can be, you know, so outside the bounds that it compromises the purpose of the classroom itself

or, you know, there is the famous example, you cannot shout fire in a crowded building. when we look at the other issues, especially what i think you are getting at racial topics, sexual politics, things like that that are real hot that's where, um, the rubber meets the road in free speech. everybody is for free speech until it comes to speech that is offensive to you. are there are some bounds that are sort of outside? yeah, you could come up with a few. i do not think that you could dedicate a week of lectures to the westborough baptist church and invite them to come and force all of your students to go. we could come up with examples.

but i think what we should aim for is the widest possible platform for speech. and i think if we use the most extreme example, for instance, like the caller did, we are not getting at the heart of the issue because often times what we are finding is that it's views that are within mainstream of political discourse are the ones being silenced or the speaker thinks, shouted down. there was a petition going on at hadard to ban anyone who served in the trump administration from visiting or teaching or guest lecturing at the school. that's the kind of thing we are getting at in the survey, is thosean openness, even

views you find offensive, and if not, are we so limiting the worldview that students would encounter in the classroom? this is a place where students should be able to openly debate and exchange ideas, be exposed to ideas and that may they were not exposed to growing up. if we do not allow a broad section of views in the classroom, not only allowed but encouraged that, students will not come away prepared to deal with diversity that exists in the real world. this is part of the reason why we see such destructive polarized nation in our political discourse today, almost an inability to have political discourse. an inability to even agree on the facts, in some cases, because on both sides we are finding that people are less and less used to encountering views they disagree with and more

likely to sort of create a strawman in their minds or demonize those who oppose them politically or ideologically or religiously. so, the classroom is a great place to break the barriers down, if it is functioning correctly. host: nathan, who had most concerns about free speech? was it liberals or conservatives? in washington, we hear talk about the liberal ivory tower at universities, but who is the most concerned about it on college campuses, the liberals or conservatives or is it equal? guest: it does q1 way. -- does scale a little bit -- skew a little bit one way. it does seem to be a liberal because, because conservatives seem to be in the minority on college campuses, right?

in our survey, they were a handful of schools that had a slight majority of conservative students. but there were a lot of schools where the liberals outnumbered the conservatives by even 8 or 10 to 1. whichever group was in the minority would feel like the issue is more important to them. and we did find conservatives were more likely to say that they had self-centered. that number was 72% versus 55% for the liberals. that's a lot for liberal students, also, but it is -- i think that we, unfortunately the issue can -- we can miss the point somewhat. if you are on the political left, you can start to feel defensive because you do not want to really think of the university as a place where people are being indoctrinated. and that is not a fair

assessment either. i think what we are looking at on the balance, do students of all political persuasions feel comfortable? if you go to byu for example, liberal students do not necessarily feel very good about the free speech culture there, according to our survey. so, yes, it can go both ways, but because of the landscape and because conservatives are in the minority at most of these schools, it does tend to be more of a concern to those students, but i think it is a concern broadly speaking for all students, regardless of their political ideology. host: let's go back to the phones and talk with richard in idaho. good morning. caller: good morning. merry christmas and happy hanukkah. this is a very good subject. one thing i think you can do, if

you are going to expand your study, is maybe look at the difference between free speech, but also lying. if you can do that, i think that is part of the problem. that we listen to all of the lies, especially in politics. and then they can say it and go on. i think that something has to be studied on people lying. thank you. you guys do a great job at c-span. host: go ahead and respond. guest: thank you. all theseering at difficult to pronounce cities we are getting this morning. i mentioned before, can we even agree on the facts sometimes? the big topic this year has been facebook and twitter, many on

the right feeling that the platforms sort of unfairly censored their views with the election. and those on the left felt they did not do enough of the, you know, countering the misinformation and so forth. so, again, this is in the air, the sense of can we agree on what is true or not? and i think the more itemized we are in our political discourse, the less likely we are to be able to recognize a common set of truth and facts. inquiry,oint of open starting with our college campuses, but extending into our political discourse writ large, is so important. the fact is all of us have blind spots, no matter who we are. and we have our own limited set of experiences. group -- i grew up in a certain kind of household, a certain

kind of economic bracket, a certain religious context, and whoever you are out there, you grew up in your own set. you have a unique set of views and experiences of that i do not have. so, if we cannot come together and really listen to one another and learn to respect opposing views that we do not agree with, even those we find abhorrent in some cases, we do not have to respect the view, but we have to respect one's right to have that view, we will find our view of the world is or has fewer places where it overlaps with those that we disagree with. so getting to the question of seeh and the facts that we eroding right now, i think we can trace it back, to a large degree, to what is happening in our universities. host: one of our social media

followers wants to know how deeply you dug into the data and did your study find any regional preference for free speech. guest: you know, the one regional issue that stood out, and i apologize to the northeastern listeners, but the northeastern schools did struggle more than other areas of the country. and make of that what you will, whether it is cultural or political context that is there, perhaps. i mentioned to some of the more elite schools tended to struggle, so that could be part of the regional breakdown as well, because many of those schools, certainly the ivy league schools, that is where they exist. so, we found some correlation there, but it was not strict one

to one. not to sound like a broken record, but bringing up the university of chicago, this was a large, urban and very left-leaning city and left-leaning university, but they really bucked the trend and they scored a very highly, again, among conservatives who attend there. we took that as a real message. we hope other university leaders can really use this rankings as a way to see where they stand. not long agoail from a university that scored it the bottom in our rankings. and they said, we support free speech, i am paraphrasing, but we see that our students, they are not getting the message. we will take that as an instructive thing. yes, we are stacking the schools up, giving them a grade,

but we want to see this also as a tool, not only that the administrators can see where there's ghost dance and how they might -- their school stands and how they might improve, but as a student who may want to apply, you can see where this goes stack up. you can look at our rankings, you can see the numbers for yourself and get information that has never been available before. host: let's go back to the phones and talk with robin in columbus, ohio. robin is a college parent. good morning. caller: thank you for the topic. i have a question for the guest. speechs of ranking free levels across universities, were community colleges considered in your research? studies, itnd my

would not be a surprise that the more elite ivory schools would not have as high of a level of free speech, if you look at who they have historically enrolled. you would not see the same ratio of ethnic diversity needed for students to be exposed to different perspectives and to be challenged. so i am wondering what your thoughts are on that? thank you for the topic. guest: thank you for the question. unfortunately, we were not able to include any community colleges. total,, we only had 55 which is a small slice of the pie. and i would love it if we could, if we could expand to include more schools in the future versions of this. but we did, we did make sure that we got a good sample of

minority voices included in our survey. we found interesting data there. instance,topics, for we found black students were more likely to feel that those were difficult for them to discuss on campus. that was, i think the number was 66% of black students felt that that was difficult versus 43% of of the population as a whole. so we can see there, that depending on your ethnic group, again, we have touched on political ideology as well, that there are different hot button issues that are problematic or students feel less comfortable talking about, for whatever reason. host: let's go to mike from akron, ohio. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span.

i was a student at kent state in 1971,70's, beginning in one year after the shooting took place. at that time, my sister was on campus, my cousin was in the national guard on campus, and we have had many interesting discussions about that day, but the past few years there has been some people from the nra, led by a very attractive young lady, with about 150 people with her, claiming if the students would have been well armed on may 4, 1970, two students would have been better -- the students would have been better off. i said to my cousin, if they had been well armed, you would've had 400 and students and four dead guardsmen. if i may say one more thing, too, my view of the second amendment -- i ticket was well written except for the -- think

that it was well written except for the last word. everyone of our rights has some infringements. how do you think a person would be accepted at the nra if they said, just change the last word in the second amendment from infringed to abolished. i do not own a gun. i never have. but if somebody owns a gun, that is fine. what do you think about this woman? she comes to campus at least two times a year and all she does is she and her friends claim is that the students would have been better off if they were well armed. and where it kent state rank on this poll, overall, when it comes to free speech? guest: thank you for sharing your personal history. unfortunately, we were not able to include kent state in this ranking. if you go to our website, you --l see that the 55 schools

our website, you will see the 55 schools in the survey. we hope to expand in the future. first of all, i can tell that this is a very personal issue to you, because you had family, you are close to the situation. and, um, i am not aware of the specific speaker you are talking about, but i think this is a good example of where having that big tent, and even allowing ideas that are offensive to some, may be so important. because if you look at, you know, gun control, that is a polarizing issue. people feel passionate about it. people have a personal connection to gun violence or something like that. this is an issue that we -- it is a 50-50 issue in the country

where people feel one way or the other. abortion is another. issues, racial issues, black lives matter has been in the news. this is really where free speech on campus becomes so critical, because we have to be able to engage with views we disagree with. in most cases, nobody is forcing students to attend a lecture by a guest like an nra member. they are free to go or not go in the circumstances, but i would say that even if you are an opponent of gun rights, it did not sound like you were, but even if he were strongly opposed, going to a place where you hear the other side, where you hear their point of view, could do nothing but strengthen your own arguments. it might open a window of

understanding into why are these people there? why are there millions who look at this issue so differently from me? and, hopefully, they will extend the same to you. there will be another opportunity where an opponent or an opponent of the nra, or somebody who supports stronger gun restrictions, would then be allowed the same platform. that is the ideal, that you get all of these views and a forum to debate. and everybody has the opportunity to gain better understanding of those that differ from them. and i think that can only be a positive for our society. host: let's go to nelson, he was calling from redwood city, california. good morning. caller: good morning. well, i guess that you need to expand in the feature, because i was thinking, how in the world

could evergreen college not being number one on the liberal objectiveing the most -- objected to a conservative voice. and liberty university on the right, i do not think they are having liberal speakers there. and i am a bible believing christian, but i am african-american, so i am with the lincoln project and a republican against that right-wingism. college, they have lectures on how tyco was not a racist. another university talked about -- even though republicans already apologized for it. and i guess that black woman at the university is getting a lot of flack for sharing those ideas and saying there was not a switch in the south, stuff like

that. but i like what you said about e people lectures wher have different views. for instance, in charlottesville, i would not have been like those people yelling the next day that the young guy who is in a confederate uniform, with a rifle -- some white lady was yelling at him, she was progressive. i would've said, i appreciate all of your family that part in the wars, but why do you have to identify exclusively with the confederates when so much of the south part in other wars, and know, meleven -- you gibson's think about how the south fought in the revolutionary war. why can't we celebrate that? i like to ask questions like that, instead of just yelling in

people's faces. host: go ahead and respond. guest: thank you for that, for that comment and question. this is such a great example when it comes to racial politics in this country, in particular. battle nothing that can extremism like open inquiry and free speech, in my opinion. the best weapon against bad speech is more speech, not less. like wetimes we feel are, in some parts of the country maybe, whether it is the northeast, or at elite schools, where we are winning the battle against views we oppose by silencing them. often, it is the opposite. by silencing those views, we

shovel them into the corner where maybe that viewpoint grows more extreme. and likewise for ourselves. so engaging across opposing views, engaging people of different backgrounds and different racial backgrounds, economic backgrounds, that can only help eliminate the problem of political extremism. when we encounter those opposing views and we see that there is a robe person behind it, we get to know their story, they also have a chance to get to know our story, they get a chance to listen to us, hopefully. the more that we try to eliminate the views that we disagree with, the more likely we are to really give fertile ground to the extreme elements in those views. so i think that we need to look at our universities as ground zero for how we can begin to combat this problem that we are

seeing in our political culture. host: we have spent time talking about college students, but there is also college educators and we actually have one on the line that wants to talk with us. so we will go to neil, calling from minnesota, a college educator. good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to back up and pick up on the caller, several back, who talked about the notion of truth being optional. guest seems to operate on the assumption that the last four years have not happened, that we could have a give and take. it's not 1990, right? donald trump has changed the republican party fundamentally. truth is optional. truth does not exist. so the notion we can have a give and take, i mean, this is not

how it works anymore, right? i mean, you have -- it's acceptable now to say, i do not think that global climate change is happening. and that is my view. and all views are equal. it doesn't exist, etc. you have major contradictions. it's 30le framing is -- years old, right? if you want to have a discussion about free speech, you have to start with the world that exists. and the speech that exists. host: go ahead and respond before we run out of time, nathan. guest: thank you for the question. ultimately, who gets to decide what speech is allowed and what isn't, i think that we are in a dangerous place when we give any group the ability to decide ultimately what is acceptable.

the reality is we have a 50-50 country here, millions of people voted for donald trump, millions voted against him. we need to engage one another to solve the political problems in this country. divide,the cultural more importantly, that we now have. and if we do not embrace free speech, broadly speaking, then we are actually supporting that goal, ultimately. host: we would like to thank nathan harden, the project coordinator for realcleareducation, for coming this morning to talk about the 2020 college free speech rankings. thank you so much for being with us. guest: it has been a pleasure. thank you for having us. host: coming up next, back to the phone lines to talk about what is going on in congress. with stimulus talks continuing, a looming shutdown, you could

see the numbers on the screen if you want to call and talk about that. we will take those calls in just a minute. we will be right back. ♪ announcer: in american history tv on c-span3, exploring the people and events that tell the american story, every weekend. today at 6:00 p.m., the civil war, on the relationship between ulysses s grant and william tecumseh sherman, with david petraeus and a historian. flagler college professor michael butler on music in the post-civil rights era, highlighting james brown, marvin gaye and george clinton. sunday at 6:00 p.m. on american artifacts, we are at the smithsonian art museum with elinor jones harvey for the alexander von humboldt exhibit,

talking about his influence on generations of americans. tour ofp.m., a virtual the george w. bush presidential library in dallas, showcasing the legacy of the 43rd president. watch american history tv today on c-span3. ♪ announcer: with coronavirus cases increasing across the country, use our website, c-span.org/coronavirus to follow the trends, track the spread with interactive maps and watch updates on demand come anytime, at c-span.org/coronavirus. "washington journal" continues. host: we will open up the phone lines to you for this final segment, where we will talk about what is going on on

capitol hill right now when it comes to the omnibus bill and the covid really fill. we want to hear -- bill. we want to hear from you. republicans, you are at 202-748-8001. democrats at 202-748-8000. independents, we want you to call 202-748-8002. lines are also open for texting at 202-748-8003. let's set the stage of what is going on in congress. here is a story from politico today. "congress has two more days for a package, even as lawmakers stumble in their efforts to seal the deal on a $900 billion relief agreement. but it did not turn into a debacle like it once seemed. they approved a 48 hours spending bill to avoid a senatorsand two

relented on threats to shut the government down in their bid for a larger stimulus check than the $600 under consideration. while they threatened to object to the stopgap bill, it went mcconnell's mitch promised to keep the senate in session until a covid deal is reached. the senate will reconvene on saturday morning as they tried to break the impasses on the federal reserve's lending programs, rescue for entertainment venues and disaster relief funding." congress will be back in session today, as they work to figure out what will happen with the stimulus bill and government funding. now, other things going on with that bill is they are trying to decide which groups it will get funding, and which will not. the washington post has a story that says "aides to cities and

states it likely not be in that bill." i want the reader from that story this morning. "the congressional negotiators have largely slashed new budget aid for cities and states, as they rush to assemble a $900 billion coronavirus relief bill, a decision that has left mayors and governors nationwide bracing for another economic blow. the critical omission arrives as mayors in new orleans and san francisco, and governors in new york and illinois have sounded fresh alarms in recent weeks about the perils of sustained action by washington, warning they may have no choice but to raise taxes, layoff public sector workers or cut spending on critical government programs to break even as they enter next year." once again, we want to know what you think about what is going on

on capitol hill right now. let's start with sam calling from georgia on the republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. i love this show. republican, but years ago i voted democrat. bill was a $1.9 trillion months ago. and now, again, i do not know what happened. noy changed their mind and they arew looking at $900 billion. and thewashington, reason is, nancy pelosi was talking about people needing money right away because they have to pay their rent and pay for groceries, but when she was given the $1.9 trillion, she played politics because they -- she could have said, ok, let's

pass this to the people and then we will work on another one. but she did not do that. she was playing politics. at the same time, what got me confused is the republican side, which they have approved the $1.9 trillion at that time, but now they could not do it, they have come up with an excuse. everyone is playing politics. i do not know which one to vote, or i do not know who is right, but everybody is playing politics here, so i do not know what to say. that i want to remind you later on today there is going to and department of defense department of health and human services briefing with senior officials, including health and human secretary alex azar about operation warp speed and the covid-19 vaccine distribution. you can see that briefing live

on c-span at 10:30 a.m. eastern. once again, you can see it here on c-span, on c-span.org, and as always on the free c-span radio app. and later this afternoon, this is going to happen today as well -- later this afternoon, president-elect joe biden will announce his climate and energy team, including his nominee for the interior secretary and energy secretary. you can see the announcement live at 2:30 p.m. on c-span, always, onand, as the free c-span radio app. let's talk to david calling from south carolina on the democratic line. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call, sir. host: go ahead. caller: i wanted to ask a question. out, trying to get this

i am a disabled veteran and i see that veterans at the va hospital, they do not even have so shots there for us first, i was hoping somebody could help us there, because there are many older people, like myself. and this disease is running rampant down here. but they are not set up to help us at the v.a. nathan harden hopefully -- host: hopefully, they can get that addressed today when they do the briefing on operation warp speed. perhaps they will talk about what will happen on who will get the vaccine next and what will happen with the veterans, which we know they need as much help as we can give them. let's go to chris in oak park, illinois on the democratic line. caller: good morning. i guess i am, i'm not really

torn on this, i believe the democrats are correct because aid to cities and states in a time when the tax revenues, in terms of income, to keep vital services open is in jeopardy. meanwhile, the republicans are holding out for, you know, liability insurance for employers. i can understand that, but aren't employees covered by workmen's comp.? useddn't that be the total -- tool used, or is this covering businesses because people might trace their illness if they shop in that store, at which point i think those people are on their own and the business should not be liable. thank you for taking my call. have a good day. host: bob is calling from virginia on the independent line. bob, good morning. caller: good morning.

thank you for taking my call. i understand that the governors and mayors would prefer that the federal government way in and relieve them of any responsibility to their budget issues. i do understand, but i think it is a comp out for governors and mayors to say there is nothing that they can do. they have taxing authority, they have the ability to look inside of their budgets and not necessarily critical -- uh critical expenditures, but there is always a -- factor. so i understand her desire for the feds to help them, but they have property taxes, sales taxes, and if they exercise the leadership that they are supposed to have, they can explain to their people why one time a specific covid increase in taxes would be necessary and

that they will be rescinded on the others of the pandemic. thank you. host: one thing i want to bring into the conversation is something we talked about just yesterday, which was the huge cybersecurity hack of the u.s. government, and of private companies, that has been going on apparently since march. the u.s. government actually has responded to this with the secretary of state mike pompeo saying in an interview on friday that we can see clearly that it was the russians behind a massive cyberattack that breached dozens of government agencies, think tanks and companies. this is coming from axios. mike pompeo's comments are the first from the administration publicly linking russia to the hack. president trump has yet to address the issue. the state department is one of

the federal agencies found to have been attacked, according to the washington post. and that cybersecurity investors or agency said on thursday that the breach was a grave risk to the federal government. and russian president vladimir putin has denied involvement in the hacking, according to the washington post. it, secretaryve of state mike pompeo being the first trump official saying it is pretty clearly the russians behind the massive cyberattack's breachedve government agencies and private companies in the u.s. now let's speak with larry calling from alabama on the republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i want to know where the democrats get off. they said the veterans would get

a cost-of-living raise, and we only gated -- got a 1.3% raise. we only get to see a doctor but once a year. we are lucky if we can even get our medications on time. host: who are you saying, who are you blaming for this? caller: i am blaming the democrats, because nancy pelosi should not even open her mouth. host: ok. let's go to billy, who is calling from utah on the republican line. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. i believe that the stimulus checks will be a conflict of interest. there is a runoff going on in georgia and i do not see either 600, you know, besides the 1200 that was given extra forand unemployment, the 300. i do not see that being

agreed-upon. there might be another day or two before they come up with the notof the package, but i do see money coming toward what we had in march. mick: fromet's go to new york on the democratic line. good morning. caller: it is mike. thank you for taking my call. axiosst to comment on the story with the secretary of state. i think we have had leadership in the country that has not focused on the people, and he is more focused on himself. so, hopefully, soon we will have leadership that focuses on the presidential daily brief, security matters, matters of state, and not just a of self-service. thank you. host: let's see what our social media followers are saying about the congressional action going on on capitol hill today. here's a text.

"all i ask is that they debate bills eight hours a day, five days a week, not just committee meetings. debate every bill." have ourext says, "we senator, ron johnson, not wanting to issue stimulus checks because he wants us to think of the children of future generations. what about the children now who are starving because their parents re out of work -- are out of work?" "it looks like republicans do not want to help states and cities in crisis. it makes the next administration look good." finally, "what does it tell you in congress is willing to agonize this much after -- over helping regular folks when trillions of dollars of flow with ease to corporations and rich folks?" let's go back to the phone lines.

gloria calling from tacoma, washington on the democratic line. good morning. caller: yes, good morning. i have a problem with them with the stimulus check, when back in june they had a chance to vote on the check. and they are sitting on it. mitch mcconnell sent on it until after the election. and he is still sitting on it. what they should do is give up their paychecks, the senator should give up their paychecks, and that way we would not have a problem with everybody getting money. and they are sitting back and talking about, well, this and that, this and that. they are not doing their job and they want to blame everybody but their selves. is is a problem with this country, when you have the senate that will not open their mouths to say anything, to go

against the president because they are scared of him. theyll this bullying that are doing is hurting this country. take a look at the country, and stop worrying about what one person is doing and the next person is doing -- get up off of your behinds give these people what they need. they are getting on my nerves talking. and that president not saying nothing when he should have done something since he knew about the virus since november of last year. and he is still not opening his mouth, besides wanting to be known. host: let's go to charlie calling from california on the republican line. good morning. caller: how are you? i wanted to remind people that three months ago, when nancy

pelosi was asking for $2.1 trillion and the republicans were only offering $950 billion -- well, donald trump realized out, by theicks time people get them it would be election time and they would vote for him. tohe went from $950 billion $1.9 trillion. were apartlose they from what nancy pelosi wanted and what the republicans would have given at that time. we could have had this done three months ago. we could have had a wonderful thanksgiving and christmas, but instead it was stay inside and eat canned food for the seniors. i just got my social security uptick for next year, it will be $18. founden half of my newly

thyroid problem and paying for the prescription for that, so i am still in the hole. but this could have been taken care of, but nancy pelosi did not want the checks to go out with donald trump's name on them. host: one of the main characters in the middle of the covid stimulus debate is senator ron johnson, as one of our social media followers pointed out earlier. i will read from politico about ron johnson and what he is doing on capitol hill. "the senator is rolling out a board platform as he weighs whether to run for reelection. he is the guy that twice shut down $1200 to bless checks that would have gone to hundreds of thousands of his constituents. johnson defended his objection to the pandemic proposal from senator bernie sanders on friday, citing concerns about

the federal deficit and accused the vermont independent of lying about the gop position on coronavirus relief. johnson in a speech cited a proposal the gop released early in the fall that included money for unemployment benefits, another round of money for the paycheck protection program, and liability reform. however, dismissed is, as a partisan bill and it said it was inadequate. johnson has argued that the federal deficit is the reason he ran for office and suggested the money in previous packages went unspent." that is coming from senator ron johnson, who has been one of the major characters in the debate over the stimulus checks. that story came out of politico. let's go back to our phone lines wastalk with amir who calling from sun valley, california on the independent line. good morning. caller: good morning to you and

all who are listening. i called a couple times, i was only given a few seconds to talk about the subject matter. but i am an independent and i tend to see things more neutral and i noticed that nancy pelosi and the democratic party tend to use the stimulus package in order to gain political points. like charlie was saying prior to the phone call, initially she talked about a $3 trillion to most package and now she has reduced it to $1 trillion. in that original package she was asking for help for illegal immigrants. and it was a no go from president trump. the siting of the sources, but no disrespect, you tend to cite the new york times, the washington post, but you do not cite things like the washington post, if maybe you would consider changing that. yesterday, i was watching and

looking at the limited congress they were having a headed they were discussing nonsense, not things that matter to us americans. the political stemless package and at the lockdowns. the problem is career politicians that have been there for decades that have gotten campaign contributions, it does not allow them to see things as clearly as people who are more not accepting these kind of contributions. we do not necessarily need stimulus, we need operation warp speed to continue on. host: let me interrupt a really quickly, because i know that i read at least one article from the washington post this morning and i had several articles from the washington post yesterday, so i know that may be you did not mean it when you said it, but it is one of the sources that we do use only show. caller: the new york post. my deepest apologies. host: i just wanted to make sure

that we knew what you were talking about. scott is calling from charlotte, north carolina on the democratic line. good morning. caller: how are you doing? 'm 61 years old and i grew up in a world where you had to go to school and graduate, and then go to college, if you chose to, how torn how to be -- or support you and your family. and you could be president of the united states. i have been watching the news every day and i know about the stimulus checks. i grew up in poverty. now i live a decent life. my mom raised us right. she wanted a big family. and my thought is, why [indiscernible]

up the street and you can see babies sleeping in the cold. i have been homeless before. but i watch this president. they knew that donald trump had a closet and are they still put him in that office. host:host: let's go to paul, calling from houston, texas on the independent line. caller: i called independent because i was not sure where i would fit. i only want to point out to everyone listening that i have been watching the show for a couple weeks now, that is all, but here is what i want to say -- i believe america is getting red,d down by only having blue, republican, democrat. when washington took his oath as a nationalist, he foresaw that there would be an incredible amount of different parties and everything.

he recognized that there would be different needs, different wants. and i do not know what happened. it has been this way since the civil war, only republican and democrat. the independents do not seem to make a mark. i believe it has a lot to do with the media reporting and so on and so forth. you go for the biggest eye-opener, the quickest soundbite. that is all i wanted to comment on. we do not have to be democrats, we do not have to be republicans. we are being forced into a position, many of us do not feel comfortable in. host: let's go to doris in tennessee on the republican line. good morning. caller: -- host: are you there? so we willar her, move to diana in wisconsin on

the democratic line. good morning. caller: good morning, sir. i would like to know, besides me, is there anybody else in this country that thinks that maybe the piece of crab -- crap in the white house has gotten his hands on the codes and given them to putin, so they could hack into our country? ked into aey sure hac lot of different things. and we do not know what he talks about and gets his marching orders. he will not let anybody into the room, or listen in. and anybody who can put a bounty and r young men and women say nothing or do nothing ought to be taken out, lined up and

shot. host: let's go to james calling from pennsylvania on the republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. it totally gets me. i believe in this to most package, but when you look at nancy pelosi and the democrats, they want to bail out all the cities and states that had problems before the virus. and then they basically, with the virus, nobody is giving donald trump any credit. host: keep going. caller: that is what gets me. the one guy said he was homeless. that's sinful, but you cannot blame donald trump for that. look at nancy pelosi, san francisco, what is going on in her city. they are in the streets. you cannot just give money out like it is popcorn. callingt's go to anne from georgia on the democratic line. good morning. caller: good morning, thank you

for taking my call. theuple things, i'm sure topic was about the stimulus, right? other topics are being brought up. but think about it this way, congress works 133 days a year, most people work 240 days. the rank-and-file make $135,000 a year, that's $1300 a day. the house wants to provide a stimulus check of $1200 for each person. the senate, $600. the stimulus is a one time disaster relief payment. , butnot per day, per week it is per year. and the other thing i am interested in is everybody is complaining about the money for city and local governments, that is the pay that we need for a policeman, government workers that provide safety for our

community and aid our communities. that is an important part of the stimulus package. host: sorry, we are running out of time. i want to thank all of our guests, viewers and a social media followers followers -- followers for being with us for another edition of washington journal. have a great saturday, everyone. ♪ [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2020] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] ♪ journal.'s washington every day, we take your calls live on the news of the day and discuss policy issues that impact you. we are featuring our annual

author's week series. one hour each day with a new author. coming up sunday morning, author morrow on his book god and mammon. watch c-span's washington journal live at 7:00 eastern sunday morning and join the discussion with your calls, comments, text, and tweets. health and human services secretary alex azar will be joined this morning by senior officials on operation warp speed to talk about covid-19 vaccine distribution. a second vaccine, made by moderna, was approved yesterday. we will have live coverage at 10:30 eastern. this afternoon, president-elect biden announces his climate and energy team, including the nominees for interior secretary

and energy secretary. 2:30 p.m. at eastern also here on c-span. and both events will be live online at c-span.org or listen on the free c-span radio ap p. >> today, on the communicators, zoom's head of global public policy on the videoconferencing company's growth during the pandemic. >> it has been an utterly transformational year for this company. we went from something on the order of 10 million daily meeting participants in december to something north of 300 million in april. we, prior to the pandemic, were focused almost entirely on business customers. and of course all that changed. and when the pandemic arrived, we understood that we had the

opportunity to connect not just companies, but people, families, you know, faith institutions, schools, health care institutions, and it has just been extraordinary. we worked to scale up incredibly quickly to avoid disruptions and to be there for people. ceo today at 6:30 p.m. eastern on the communicators on c-span. listen to c-span's podcast the weekly. we are talking to purdue university political scientist robert browning, who directs the c-span archives about congress's increasing use of lame-duck sessions to tackle big-ticket legislation. klein c-span's the weekly where you get your podcasts. -- find c-span's the weekly where you get your podcasts. holder and is taking a leading role in education policy. she cannot be off-limits for commentary. we want to know of doubt what you think. let's