officials accused of insider trading. we look at political voices of latino voters in the u.s. with pew research center's mark hugo lopez. then greg miller of "the washington post" discusses heads of states, public officials, and politicians. "washington journal" is next. ♪ host: this is "washington journal" for october 7. the senate is reportedly on the verge of coming up with a short-term deal to prevent surpassing the debt ceiling limit, a deal offered by the senate minority leader with a short-term raise of the debt limit. in our first hour, you can talk about the deal that has were of been made and talk about how senate and emmett kratz -- senate democrats and republicans are dealing with the issue in what you would like to see. here is how you can call us this

morning. republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, you can call us at (202) 748-8000. independents, call us at (202) 748-8002. if you want to text us this morning, you can do so at (202) 748-8003 and post on our social media sites. many of you are also posting on fate -- already posting on facebook. you can also post on twitter. the reported deal made mention of yesterday on the senate floor and in and around capitol hill. joining us to talk about some of the reporting done on it at this moment is zach cohen, who covers the senate for the national journal. as always, thank you for giving us your time this morning. the lease that you posted yesterday on the national journal site started with democrats saying they thought they had found a solution to the debt ceiling crisis, just not the one they wanted.

can you elaborate? guest: for months, weeks have -- as things have gotten closer and closer, democrats and republicans have been at a standoff. not just whether or not the debt limit should be raised or suspended, but how to go about doing it. republican said that they would not provide support to do it and said that it's up to democrats to go ahead and do that as they have in the past. the difference this time is that republicans have asked them to use the budget reconciliation process, arcane rules that democrats tried to use for the bill back better act. something democrats haven't wanted to do, it's arduous and risky, they say. but yesterday mitch mcconnell, who has been at the vanguard of this republican demand for a net limit raise through budget reconciliation with only democratic votes said that they

would offer a short-term extension of a certain dollar amount with the goal of raising the debt emmett. that is sort of where things left off. chuck schumer early this morning around midnight got to the senate floor and said that they were still negotiating and would come back at 10:00 to see if they got a further update. host: what prompted the senate minority leader to offer that? guest: we are getting closer and closer to the 18th of october, when the treasury department estimated that the federal government will run out of money and won't be able to pay its bills. meaning dramatic cuts to government services, military benefits, or a first-ever default on the national debt. it's never happened in the history of the united states and would have global economic consequences. as that has gotten closer and closer, the markets have sort of gotten a little jittery about it. the last time there was a major

debt limit standoff was 2011. the credit rating of the united states was actually downgraded and that had economic ramifications for years afterwards as well. as it got closer and closer to that, there was supposed to be about yesterday on whether to allow an up-or-down vote on a pause or restriction on how much the government could borrow, which republicans were expected to filibuster. the vote was postponed and we will see if that ends up getting taken up today, potentially as a vehicle for this new interim deal. host: if the debt limit gets pushed to december, what's the interest of senate democrats to come up with a longer-term deal? guest: they were insistent that they had little interest in doing this through reconciliation. the fight could pop up again in a couple of weeks as we get

closer to that date. republicans have said that this is still there referred -- preferred method but that this does by them a little bit of time and if they decide to go the reconciliation route, this would give them the time to do that as well and democrats, it gives them the time to write the act, the $3.5 trillion social infrastructure bill, if you will . health care, childcare, climate change, all the things that democrats have made a priority for years. that is sort of where things are now. host: if december is the new date, what does that do in terms of getting that and other agendas done as well. guest: could be a potentially pivotal month for the debt limit. they are scheduled to wrap up the other parts of the reconciliation effort by the end of october. december is also when the government runs out of money that congress had approved, the

continuing resolution through the third. all government agencies just sort of operating at previous levels until then. lawmakers will have to come up with some sort of agreement on annual government funding by december 3. so, there is a lot on the plate of congress, for the most part they kicked it all back to december or most top mystic, and of october and hanging in the balance is the physical infrastructure bill that the senate passed and that the house is holding on to until the 3.5 trillion democratic domestic agenda bill passes. host: finally, then, how are both sides painting this politically? guest: democrats are happy to say that mcconnell caved on this one. for weeks he said look, we are not going to raise the debt limit other than through reconciliation, democrats have had plenty of time and they should get started and democrats have said no, we are not going

to do that. what republicans will be able to argue for the next couple of weeks is that you were arguing there wasn't enough time and we gave you an extra two months. i imagine that the rhetoric around this will continue to heighten and it isn't exactly clear where the offramp to a full raise or suspension of the debt ceiling is in a couple of months. host: now that the minority leader offered the deal, is it assumed that all republicans in the senate are on board? guest: no, that's the thing. they only need 10 votes to get it done, but a number of republicans have said they won't raise the debt ceiling unless it comes with significant fiscal reform or long-standing arguments from the summer, that democrats doing it through reconciliation, it dictates they won't raise it unless it comes with fiscal reform, something that they have been able to

secure in incremental amounts in the past fights. we will see where they get these votes from, but i assume that if mcconnell is going to offer this, he knows or feels that there is enough interest in averting default that some will join in the effort. host: zach a cohen reports for national journal and as always, thank you for your time this morning. with that as the set up, you can talk about the process playing out around the debt ceiling. the political process, the financial process, all those things. you can call us at (202) 748-8001 for republicans, (202) 748-8000 for democrats, and independents, you can call us at (202) 748-8003 -- at (202) 748-8002. text us at (202) 748-8003. bruce, cleveland, ohio, what do you think about this announcement and where the senate goes from here, bruce? caller: i think this whole thing

is ridiculous. ok? we had an $8 trillion deficit from the previous administration. they are just trying to pay it now. i don't know what's wrong with republican lawmakers. they almost made trump a dictator. we all saw that he's a dictator lover. i don't know why republicans are not fighting it. they did this during those four years with trump. so, why are they trying to do this? i think the whole thing is about they hate that they lost the senate, the house, and the presidency. host: ok, let's go to mark, schenectady, republican line. caller: this ball of whacks has been rolling for so long.

just the interest the u.s. has to pay on the debt is hundreds of billions of dollars, 7% to 8% of the entire budget. so basically i think that the republicans, what they are doing is trying to gain some leverage of negotiation. it's kind of crappy, but basically they are saying look, you want us to vote for the debt ceiling, give us leeway on the budget bill. i think the democrats simply don't want any of that and they just want everything their way. though, mcconnell wants something, right? give us a little something and the republicans will expand the debt ceiling. host: former president trump himself reporting yesterday that he accused the senate minority leader of folding in the standoff with the democrats, saying "looks like mitch mcconnell folded again, he's got all the cards, time to play the

hand, don't let them destroy our country." that is from "the hill." we are asking your thoughts on this process as it plays out, the political or the financial assess. david in georgia, you are in, good morning. caller: yes, i'm trying to figure what in the world they are doing. everybody's fighting over something they can't control. i just woke up and i saw a man 15 feet standing out in the field of mine, laying out. i looked in food, food was everywhere. the last time i saw something like this, where we are now, nobody's planning anything. not in this country. nobody's doing nothing but bickering. and then we got a plan here that

we can't get rid of. the people are talking about the seasons or whatever, debt ceilings. if you need to raise it, raise it the way we need it to go to keep going. once it shut down, there's no way to restart this thing. don't cut me off. they have forgotten. host: ok, that's david in georgia talking about his take. steve starting with all caps saying why do we have to raise this every year. i want to know. seems to me that if someone isn't doing their job if we have to always raise it. the debt ceiling is just another ploy to spend money, says nancy. politicians don't care about the debt. more hot air and egos getting in the way. bob also test -- texting us from

hometown, illinois, saying that it's needless drama. president biden seems to forget that he voted not to raise the debt ceiling three times. typical washington hypocrisy he says. if you want to send us a text, (202) 748-8003. the white house being asked about the deal offered by mcconnell. it's available online if you want to see it there, but jen psaki responding to what has been proposed. here is some of that from yesterday. [video clip] >> the white house it brought in banking ceos today to talk about how catastrophic it would be if the u.s. were to default. why not send the markets the assurance if you have the opportunity that for the next eight weeks the debt ceiling will be secure? >> if we are looking at the best

options, why kick the can down the road a couple of more weeks? why create an additional layer of uncertainty? why not get it done now? that's our first choice. host: that was the white house press secretary jen psaki from yesterday, referencing the meeting with biden and financial leaders. it's reported this morning some of the responses, certainly as we know there are hundreds of millions of investors involved in the markets today that what earned savings in, according to adina friedman, and we would expect the markets to react very negatively if there is a threat. if you want to see the forum that took place with the presidents -- the president and these leaders, that is still available at the c-span website. we also want to let you know about the c-span now video app. this as events in the house, senate, and other places in washington take place.

it's archived with a lot of content available there. you can download it from your app store or go to our website, c-span.org. marvin in lawrenceburg, new jersey, the independent line, talking about this short-term deal that has been announced or ordered on at least. marvin, go ahead. caller: yeah, pedro, good morning. the whole fiasco that's going on i think really starts with everything that is going on. the debt ceiling, the blockage of pills that biden has put out there. the main thing the democratic party needs to do is to somehow, these two senators, joe manchin and this one from arizona, they need to totally get them out of the way. i don't know how they are going

to do that but it all starts with this inability of these two people who call themselves members of a party that are literally just, i don't know what their agenda is, but they may as well cross over to the other party. they are allies of mitch mcconnell and everybody else. host: what's wrong with the approach they are taking on the issue? in your mind? caller: i think that the approach is all tied up with everything else. it's just how they, in my opinion, it's just how they do things. host: ok. marvin, new jersey, speaking of senator sinema, the hill reporting that the representative from arizona, gallego, has emerged as an early favorite against kristen cinema as patients with her runs out

amid negotiations over the $3.5 trillion climate change package. a 41-year-old in his fourth term representing a phoenix-based district host: thomas is next in freehold, new jersey, democratic line. caller: how are you doing? host: fine, thanks, go ahead. caller: my father always taught me that when your word ain't no good, you ain't no good. these educated people, politicians, they act like they just got out of high school somewhere, like they never even went to high school. how can you make a debt and expect somebody to pay the debt that you created yourself? what is wrong with that?

a house that is divided cannot stand. united states is divided. democrats and republicans are divided. joe manchin, how can he and the other lady, i forgot her name, but anyway, how can you fight against your own party that is trying to help the people? i don't understand that. after you watch what donald trump done, you are meant to come in and do like, like they are undercover republicans. what's wrong with people? what's wrong with this country? they are only hurting the people, not themselves. they got plenty of money. i tell you what's wrong with the country. racist. haters. that's what's wrong. they are following donald trump's orders. host: that's thomas there in new jersey. fred, republican mine, you are next up. caller: yes, how you doing? when are they going to

understand that kristen cinema and joe manchin, that is the problem. we keep spending too much money. somebody needs to tell joe that the credit card is full. these people are, the reason they are the way they are is because we are spending too much money. we keep kicking the can down the road with no fiscal responsibility. host: as far as the short-term deal offered by the minority leader, what do you think of that offer? caller: i think all that is is they just playing cat and mouse. it's terrible, because people cannot come together to run this country like it needs to be run and to me it's just the democrats show no fiscal responsibility, just like the previous caller was saying.

like why don't they, why don't joe manchin and kyrsten sinema become a republican? they are moderate democrats and they got a little common sense about money that we are spending that we don't have. when are they going to understand that? they need to show some common sense. i mean we don't do our own finances at home like that. host: ok, that was fred and george are calling us with his thoughts on the debt ceiling discussion. stephen saying that democrats need to take the deal and it's idiotic where if tax cuts pay for themselves, how does it go straight to the debt? hamlet on twitter saying that mitch mcconnell is playing a game so that he can slow the progress of democrats until the election. douglas from the facebook age saying that it's just ridiculous , gamesmanship instead of

statesmanship, that's how he characterizes what is going on here in washington, d.c.. let's hear from an independent from london, kentucky. brad, good morning. caller: just want to let joe biden and him know that patients with him is wearing thing -- wearing thin. i want to bring attention to colorado in the past week. a woman they're in need of a kidney transplant, she has a donor who is willing to donate a kidney to her and they have denied her the ability to do that now. host: let's stick to the debt ceiling. what do you think of this debate. caller: pedro, set open phones. host: the debt ceiling, what do you think about that? caller: i find with a pressing

issue like the everett -- liberty of all americans like we are facing, an issue like the debt ceiling isn't going to matter. no one's going to call us on the debt. the money doesn't matter to them. the fed prints what it wants. it's printing more money than we have printed in the past few hundred years. you can look up the article. but it said it was open phones, pedro, i felt like i should have been able to talk. host: no, it's a specific question but we appreciate the call this morning. our next guest at 8:00, brian chung, talks about these issues as they relate to the economy and that issue is coming up in about 40 minutes from now if you are interested in those topics. pam in royal, arkansas, democrats line. caller: yes, my name is pam and the reason i'm calling is i can't understand what's wrong with mitch mcconnell.

he changes his mind and flip-flops like a fish. someone needs to do something for the seniors. i don't know if it's in the bill, but the disabled people in arkansas are the lowest paid in the united states. i hope it's in the bill, the republicans need to get on with it and let the bill get past. host: in which case -- in this case why do you say that mcconnell flip-flops? caller: he's going for that that ceiling one day, changes his mind the next day. on everything. just like donald trump. host: only because it's a short-term extension, he wants the democrats to pass reconciliation long-term. caller: he does? host: yeah, do you think the democrats should do that? caller: yeah, i do, i want to past. somebody's got to do something around here. host: gotcha.

one of the thoughts coming yesterday on this topic, from the defense secretary, lloyd austin, talking about what would happen. saying that if the u.s. defaults it would undermine the economic strength on which our national security rests and seriously harm our service members and their families. i have no authority or ability to make sure that our servicemembers or contractors would be paid in full or on time and added that the department may not be able to dole out the benefit to veterans or issue payments to contractors and that america defaulting on its loan would undermine its international reputation adding it as a trustworthy partner. paul, louisiana, fulsome. go ahead. caller: there's a couple of

books people need to read to understand this. one is called jackal island and it's about the beginning of the federal reserve and how it got started and what it was supposed to be about. there's another one that explains about democracy, when you have more people with their hands out, you get more votes from people wanting money and that's exactly what's happening. their work ethic has fallen apart. host: how does that relate to the debt ceiling? caller: number one, a country can't tax their way into prosperity, number one. and they can't borrow their way into prosperity. it's an impossibility. it's like comparing, you know, these new windmills and clean energy.

you can't have a country without petroleum and gas to produce the energy to charge the batteries to do this. it's an impossibility. ask any engineer that works for any company and they will explain it to you. host: how does that deal with the debt ceiling? caller: because we are digging a deeper and deeper hole. we are just like venezuela, we are going to collapse underneath the weight of our debt and borrowing. host: ok, that was paul in louisiana. pompano beach, sergio, good morning. caller: good morning, pedro, how are you, sir? host: i'm fine, go ahead.

caller: what i saw with president biden getting all of these business leaders and speaking upon the debt ceiling, it helps them to erase our debt, bring economic prosperity. i especially liked it when mitch mcconnell looked to come in to help us raise and take care of the debt so that there was economic prosperity for jobs and what have you and the infrastructure bill that helped to bring our prosperity, especially 4, 4, for the buses and whatnot. we definitely need to work together to raise the debt and erase the debt so that we can have those types of things. host: ok, sergio referencing that meeting with financial

leaders. you can still find it all online if you want to see it there, but it was during the forum yesterday with the president talked about issues relating to the debt ceiling, what it does and doesn't do, with his current economic agenda. here's part of his statement from yesterday. [video clip] >> we need to act. the united states pays its bills , it's who we are, it's who we have been and it is who we are going to continue to be, god willing. the full faith and credit of the united states. let me be clear, raising the debt limit is paying our old that's. it's nothing to do with new spending. nothing to do with my plans on infrastructure or building back better, both of which are paid for, but they are not even in the queue right now. it's about paying for what we owe and preventing a catastrophic event from occurring in the economy.

host: that's the president from yesterday. pap, twitter, this comment saying that the government handling the debt ceiling, i will gladly pay you tuesday for a hamburger today. david says why not try to balance the budget instead of raise the budget? i think everyone would be on board with that. when it comes to the military aspects and other things, we are talking about social security recipients not receiving their benefits if it isn't raised and the republicans are willing to do that, then they don't deserve to say they represent their constituents. michael, albuquerque, new mexico, democratic line, hello. caller: good morning, pedro. a couple of thoughts that i have on this thing, first is that the debt ceiling should be raised and that it's a short-term force. but until we get to fiscal

responsibility in this country, then i think we should have a national sales tax for buyers and sellers. paying down this enormous debt that seems to be just spiraling into a bankruptcy. which would be just horrible to the mainstream americans of this country. so, that's my thought on it. host: ok. michael there, in new mexico, we have got about half an hour to go. if you want to get your comments in on this and related matters, (202) 748-8001 for republicans, (202) 748-8000 free democrats, and (202) 748-8002 for independents. the texas tribune reporting this

morning that a federal judge temporarily blocked the texas near total abortion ban wednesday as part of a lawsuit that the biden administration launched against the state that bars abortions as early as six weeks of pregnancy but it's not clear how they will enforce it in the state filed a notice of appeal and will almost definitely seek an emergency stay in the fifth secret court of appeals, known as the nation's most conservative appellate court. more there in the tribune if you want to read more from texas on that. corona delmar, catherine, republican line. host: good morning, -- caller: good morning, america. none of us in america should have old debt. we need to be responsible for our own money. i don't have old debt. the president brought up the distinction between raising the debt ceiling being old debt.

this has been going on for decades. i'm a senior and i remember when i was 19, 20 years old. there were gas wars, everyone was up in arms about it. reading about a hammer causing $750 that the government was paying for. the waste is absurd. that's part of our old debt. wish we keep paying over and over and over and it's outrageous. the federal government has gotten humongous. it's irresponsible, fiscally. it is falling on our backs and right now, with the costs of basic food and basic gas, he says out of the same breath that he wants to spend trillions more for medicare for illegal aliens and he calls them migrants? this has gone too far, it's radical and we can't afford it.

host: ok, let's hear from rita in alabama. caller: good morning, everybody. proud to be alive. this here has been going on ever since the world began. i'm 74 years old and this is the first time i can say i have more money right now then in 74 years, but here in alabama we are taxed to death. where is all the tax money going . anyway, mr. mitch mcconnell, the reason he's got so much, his son-in-law was a cocaine dealer. thanks and god bless america. host: ok. cherry hill. orlando. caller: did you say orlando? host: yes.

caller: the first thing we have got to do is take politics out of it. we believe in certain things in certain things and demand certain things and through that, we vote and select our leaders. i feel that republicans are playing a very dangerous game, all of this delusion about the things they fabricate. we need to outright call it as it is. these guys are in a position of governmental authority and they are misusing it for their own personal gain. that's a criminal violation. host: do the democrats have a responsibility when it comes to the debt ceiling? caller: absolutely, everyone has a responsibility, republicans and democrats. you know, it's out of control. we are going to lose the balance of the country based on what these politicians are doing.

host: you called it a political process, how do you separate the two? caller: when you are in a position of authority to make a decision and you want to move something forward, we all know that we are in trouble with regards to the debt ceiling and everything else. we need to move forward as a country. the republicans are blocking it. democrats are blocking it. in reality? if you have that responsibility, don't the out there for your own personal gain, making the wrong decisions just to live disillusioned about who we are and what we do. host: ok, that was orlando there, giving us a call. you are welcome to do the same in the time we have left.

this is from "the washington post," how to close the deal, they write -- host: again, that is "the washington post," offering their take. the editorial this morning, the international perspective here they say, the cradle-to-grave welfare states are financed by middle-class value added payroll taxes with social security tax

rates at 36% in spain and 65 percent in france with value-added taxes and most european economies being around 20% and there are not enough rich to finance the entitlement. democrats know this, which is why they are resorting to gimmicks to disguise the spending in the 10 year budget window. more of that is available if you want to read the lead editorial from open the wall street journal" this morning. the debt ceiling, the back and forth taking place in the senate amongst democrats and republicans on raising the ceiling, our topic for the next minutes. woodstock, connecticut, independent line. caller: good morning, in 2018 we defaulted on our debt. the country is bankrupt. if we don't make a payment, 100 and 39 countries are signed on

to take on the dollar as a world currency and then we are screwed . prepare, people. it's coming. get supplies. get gas, get butter. we are going to be shut down. host: new york, good morning. caller: i don't think the democrats have to do anything. when they go to dig about on the debt ceiling and every single democrat votes in favor of raising it and mitch mcconnell is not going to crash the government and let the republicans take the blame and the responsibility for it. he will cave. they need to call his left. he's a bully but he's not stupid. host: in this case you think that he will take a deal? host: yes. -- caller: yes.

he will never let the country go into default on that. it would be too disastrous for the country and in this case, the republicans would be the one to blame. host: should democrats consider passage through reconciliation? caller: they really don't need to. they need to put mitch mcconnell in the hot seat. host: if you go to the website, "the balance," they write that throughout modern history the u.s. has never defaulted on its debt, they have a self-imposed borrowing limit and overtime they have raised or suspended the limit to help prevent the u.s. from defaulting on the debt. it was reached once august the first of this year as put in place by the bipartisan budget act of 2019 and congress has until the 18th of this month to raise it.

they go on from there talking a little bit about the history of the debt ceiling and close calls , you can find more at their website. new york, republic of, matt, hello. caller: i have a couple of things related to the debt ceiling. a little bit of history, since we are doing some history stuff. i keep hearing bill clinton getting credit for a balanced budget. what everybody else forgets about is that didn't happen until the republicans took control of congress with the contract for america. let's get this clear. if it wasn't for a republican congress, bill clinton wouldn't have signed the bills he did and wouldn't have said that the era of big government is over. host: so bring us up to the modern day around the current debate.

caller: modern-day, they are going to pass a debt ceiling and i keep hearing the liar in chief, biden, saying it has nothing to do with his spending package, which is totally absolutely ridiculous. you can't borrow more money if you don't pay your old debts. they want to borrow new more money. back to the history, joe biden himself as a u.s. senator voted three times against raising the debt ceiling while the republicans were in charge. when he talks about hypocrisy, he's the biggest one in the room. host: off of facebook, when it comes to the actions of senator mcconnell, calling him caving mcconnell. that's how she phrases it. charlston, donald scott, state try raising the debt ceiling at your house every year and watch what happens.

tom, sorry if i'm mispronouncing your name, saying stop playing games. the debt ceiling was a world war i gimmick to begin with. facebook is there if you want to make these comments. from gilbert, arizona, independent line, joseph, hello. caller: thank you for letting me speak. the democrats should just go through budget reconciliation and pass the debt ceiling instead of waiting to the 11th hour situation where something could happen. they have the power to do it. just go do it. the other thing i wanted to say is that i have a little bit of trouble with the harassment of like kyrsten sinema. seems like if you don't agree with the far left, they harass you, they put you in a dangerous

situation. she must've felt threatened. she didn't know if those people that came into the restroom had a gun or a knife. she was just using the restroom and they were harassing her. and i think they are using fear and intimidation on somebody who just simply doesn't agree. so, negotiate. you know? don't try to force people through intimidation, going outside their house or to airports. negotiate. host: that's joseph in arizona, talking about the senator there, kyrsten sinema. bernie sanders in a joint statement condemned the protests against the senator as it didn't include a rebuke of her political views. they say that the move is emblematic of the hostility between the progressive and moderate embers who have been sparring over the scope of the

presidential agenda, they wanted to urge her to drop her opposition to prescription drug reform and the biden social safety net expansion. saying that an email exchange between the senator and aids revealed that he withheld his name from a joint statement clearing protesters who followed her into the bathroom and filmed her while using the restroom as open plainly inappropriate and unacceptable," adding that the communications director be edited to say that we hope she will change her decision and support major budget reconciliation. it goes on from there. you can find more of that story this morning on the axios website. people commenting on the efforts by the white house to pass the bill back better budget agenda, the 3.5 trillion dollar package you have been hearing about. as you have been hearing over the last few weeks and months,

joe manchin of west virginia, once again going the work camera to talk about his concern. here is some of what he had to say area [video clip] >> i have been clear about who we are as a society in a nation and why we are the hope of the world. i don't believe that this should be an entitlement society, we should be a compassionate, rewarding society. compassion means taking care of those that can't take care of themselves. whether they are young or have had some type of challenge in life. mental or physical. those are responsibilities that we have and we can all meet them and i feel very strongly about that. we will continue to take the time to get this done quickly. let's make sure that we do it and we do it right. host: another person responding

to those comments by senator manchin, senator bernie sanders himself. [video clip] >> as i understand it he doesn't want to see the country become an entitlement society. i'm not exactly sure what he means by that. does that mean that we end the $300 direct payments for working-class parents that have cut childhood poverty in this country as a result of the american rescue plan in half? is protecting working families and cutting childhood poverty and entitlement? does senator manchin think that we should once again have one of the highest levels of childhood poverty of any major country on earth? at a time when millions of seniors in vermont, west virginia, across the country have teeth rotting in their mouths, when they can't afford

hearing aids in order to communicate with their grandchildren and when they can't afford a pair of glasses in order to read a newspaper, does senator manchin really believe that seniors are not entitled to digest their food or to hear and see properly? is that really too much to ask in the richest country on earth? host: "the new york times," saying the white house is planning to spend $1 billion to boost at home rapid covid tests, saying that it reflects the growing emphasis on at-home testing as a tool for slowing the spread of covid-19 and the president said in september that he would use the defense production act to increase rapid testing kit production and would work with retailers to expand the capability, pledging roughly 280 million tests.

if you go to "the wall street journal," aspects of the student loan relief program getting an overhaul, according to david harrison, saying that to qualify for loan forgiveness a borrower must work in a public sector job and have made 120 on-time payments towards repaying the debt and the program is available only to borrowers with a specific type of student loan from the federal government known as direct loans. it has caused confusion among borrowers and the department has previously allowed borrowers to consolidate that's into direct loans but didn't cough -- two count repayments before consolidation. if you go to "the washington times," the select committee and looking at the events of january 6, from sean mcglocklin this morning, trump allies saying that mark meadows, longtime trump aide dansk vino, chi schip patel, and steve bannon were

issued subpoenas last month requesting that they provide specific host: let's hear from carlos and washington, d.c., republican line, good morning. caller: i appreciate being able to express myself. i think that our problems today are so much more cultural than economic. 2008, public that was at $10 trillion. that's just 18, 19 years ago and it took two centuries plus to create the debt. it doubled in the following eight years to $20 trillion and over the last five we are now approaching 29 trillion. host: and what that means for

the current discussions on debt ceilings? caller: i think american families have to live within their means and so should the federal government. i don't agree with it -- president biden when he says every major economist thinks we should invest in deficit spending to generate economic growth. i also think that what he said, reward work not wealth, it's not just misguided, but it lacks the intellect to see it's not so. there is no private sector that can keep up with washington spending trillions it doesn't have. trillions not yet created. trillions without precedent or charter. trillions unfathomable and unsustainable. more public spending than the world has ever seen. host: ok. kansas city, missouri, democratic line.

caller: i just wanted to say that we have been struggling for years with the debt. there's just a lot of stuff that's totally unnecessary. first of all, no one ever mentions the fact that we have a creator and he's on his way back. we are not probably going to be here all that long. how do we know how many years we are going to be here? why do the people have to suffer and go through what we are going through, especially children, older people, sick people. why do they have to suffer, depending on what might happen years from now when we may not have years from now? host: well, we are dealing with the debt

ceiling right now. what you think about what's going on in congress over that? caller: i think it's horrible. i think if we owe something, we should pay it. however. the democrats and the republicans need to get together to do what they were hired by the people to do. to take care of our country, first of all. my mom taught me charity begins at home. then abroad. let's take care of our home and the things we are supposed to do. host: ok. william, martinsburg, west virginia, independent line. caller: my view on the debt ceiling, it points to the important underlying issue that the american people needs to address. we haven't debt because we spend. we want this country to be great

. we invest in roads, bridges, invest in the hard and soft infrastructures. but how do we fund it? how do we create a great society? we can choose to have debt or we can choose to increase taxes and pay for what we are actually getting. increasing taxes will pay for ongoing programs, but then we still have the issue of the death where we previously spent the money and have to pay it. so, whether it is the interest or the interest and the principal. you still have to address that portion, but how do we want to move forward as an american people? we shouldn't just let the house in the senate passed things to spend money. the american people need to speak up with a voice and let them know what we want. don't have them dictate to us. they are there to represent us and build a better greater

country and let's get the politics out of it. thank you. host: ok. anthony, democratic line, los angeles. caller: good morning, good morning. it's really simple. i agree with a lot of what the people are saying here. but let us realize one thing. democrats, republicans, and independents, we are americans. ok? we have a debt ceiling and it can be resolved. we need to act on it. the president has the executive. we have the people and the crew. democrats are in control because of the will of the people. use common sense. we are coming off a pandemic right now and history is, we must step forward together and make the moves that will be for

the people. if we get the people working and they are able to work, we can overcome this, but we have to realize we are americans first. host: ok, another los angeles resident, burn -- bernard, republican line. caller: we should fail the debt and when the president says all this other spending that is trip -- trillions of dollars that's paid for, that's a lie. that's all i've got to say. host: in international news, from "the washington post," flights from -- flights of patients to other places, dropping off, as many as seven flights per day to haiti last week, returning 700 migrants

daily. tuesday the agency refer -- return 67. the cause of the drop-off is that most have been processed by authorities and far fewer haitians have crossed since the closure on september 24, according to the officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the data with reporters. "the wall street journal" takes a look at the world health organization" acting the world's first malaria shot. reporting that concerns about the relatively low efficacy of the shot the wires four doses over 18 months and the complexity of deploying it in some of the most fragile health systems in the world delayed a positive recommendation from the geneva-based agency but still, the world horror -- world health organization director general said that abroad rollout of it could save tens of thousands of lives every year. more on that story this morning

at "the washington journal,". independent line, db, hello. you are on, go ahead. caller: talking about the debt ceiling, $29 trillion national debt to kilis. that's what focus on. the democrats want to do a bunch of new spending on new programs. i'm not necessarily against those. but how can you do that when we keep going into deficit spending? we need to pay down not just the national debt. personally i'd like to see it go the opposite way. the senate wants to be $29 trillion in debt, i want to see esco a trillion dollars in surplus. yeah, cut taxes when you start to hit a certain level so that

you are not over spending in another way, but the whole point is that if we actually were paying the interest on the debt that we have, that could be money that was actually spent to help. to do the things we need to do. right now what we are doing is charging everything to a credit card at a high interest rate and we can't sustain that. that's just all there is to it. host: boca raton, florida, democrats line. hello? caller: yes, i believe we should use the chinese credit card and, you know, maximize our resources. if we are able to have this money, even though it is debt, we have got to pass more benefits because people need it. there are more democrats in the

u.s. overall, but republicans are afraid to admit it. even trump said that if they all voted, the republican party be over. host: cnn reporting that nasa is planning to launch a spacecraft that will deliberately crash into an asteroid. this is their double asteroid redirection test aboard the spacex falcon nine admission in california and after launching they will test this technology in september of 2022 to see how it impacts the motion of a near earth asteroid in space. the target is a small moon orbiting a near mirth -- near earth asteroid. scott, carpentersville,caller: . i have not had a chance to

listen to the whole show so maybe this was covered earlier. it seems like we go through this debt crisis every two years. it gives the politicians a chance to take a chunk of skin out of each other, but we never accomplish anything with respect to reducing spending. rather than go through this charade, is there any way they can raise the debt limit to an astronomical level or 10 quad rillion dollars so that we did not have to waste time with this? there are a lot of problem is in the world that can be addressed rather than this self-inflicted crisis. if there is any way they can do that, i would encourage them to raise the limit and save us all a bunch of time. host: scott in illinois finishing off this hour, taking your calls on the debt ceiling and the issues around it. we appreciate all of you who participated. our next guest will talk about that in light of actions of the federal reserve. brian cheung who is a finance

reporter for yahoo finance will join us next for that discussion. later on, republicans are expanding their outreach to latino voters after gains in the 2020 election. we will look at this with mark hugo lopez of the pew research center. those conversations coming up on "washington journal." ♪ >> weekends on c-span2 bring you the best in american history and nonfiction books. saturday at 2:00 p.m. eastern on "the presidency," thomas jefferson, abraham lincoln, franklin roosevelt, lyndon johnson and richard nixon faced not only political opponents, but americans who actually hated them. the american historical association panel examines the reasons. at 8:00 p.m., we will feature two programs on women's

political causes in the late 19th century. first, professor allison laying teaches a class on the women's suffrage movement drawing from her book. she describes how women's voting rights activists used imagery to support their causes. at 8:40, professor richardson talks about the new roles women assumed in the workforce and politics during the late 19th century, plus the employment gains in nursing, teaching, and social work. she looks at the political organizations run by women focusing on prohibition in women's suffrage. book tv features leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books. on sunday at 2:00 p.m. eastern, the 21st annual national book festival, an event hosted by the library of congress featuring live and taped segments. authors include joseph ellis, catherine belton, janice to mira, olivia campbell, in kansas

democratic representative sharice davids. at 10:00 p.m., journalist lizzie johnson talks about her book "paradise: one town struggle to survive in american wildfire." she is interviewed by the ceo of the society of american foresters. watch american history and book tv every weekend on c-span2 and find a full schedule on your program guide or visit c-span.org. >> "washington journal" continues. host: brian cheung is a reporter for yahoo finance reporting on issues of the federal reserve, economics, and banking since 2018. thanks for giving us your time. guest: good morning. host: we saw yesterday at the white house president biden talking about issues of the debt ceiling but amongst members of the banking community, wall

street, nasdaq, what is the importance of those heads of institutions with the current discussion in washington? guest: when it comes to the debt ceiling, the stakes could not be larger. any sort of default of the world's largest economy would have massive consequences not just domestic but around the world. when you think about the debt ceiling, you have to consider that what it is essentially is a constraint on the ability of the u.s. treasury to issue a new death and a human let to the debt that has already been -- accumulate to the debt that has already been put in place. the treasury has its hands tied. janet yellen has been pressing for months on congress to do something about the debt ceiling, knowing that it was reinstated effective august. what is at stake is the treasury not being able to pay its bills. it will not be able to do that past october 18. currently tapping into extraordinary measures to pay off those bills. the bills look like u.s. treasuries.

these debts that the united states issues in the form of a 30 year bond or a tenure bind which might be held here or upon -- here or abroad, their interest payments due and if the u.s. government cannot pay those interest payments and pay what it owes on that debt, it is possible we could get a downgrade. we saw s&p do something even though the debt ceiling was resolved in those 2011 negotiations. maybe something similar happens in this case if the dysfunction continues and if that were to happen, a failure to pay the debt could lead to further downgrades and contagion in the u.s. treasury market, which is the most liquid and the moral -- liquid in the world. basically every other financial market is indexed to it. it is not that exaggerated to say that the stakes are so large and that is why you saw the treasury secretary use words like economic catastrophe and calamity to describe what is at risk here. host: when it comes to

organizations that monitor the country's credit rating, who are those organizations and how are they looking at the united states these days? guest: the three major agencies are fish, movies, and s&p. these are independent, private assessor's of the credit worthiness not just of the united states, but they do corporate ratings. they are supposed to be the most trusted names within the finance and for the ability of any entities to repay debt that it has issued. when it comes to the united states, with the exception of s&p, they all gave the united states the highest marks when it comes to the ability to repay the debt. s&p in 2011 downgraded the united states from a aa to a aa plus peter still a pretty good rating. they were citing dysfunction in washington and the inability to respond to the debt ceiling. as far as the current situation,

what we have heard from all of the agencies, none of them have hit the panic button yet, but have simply said there should be some caution. you had movies saying they are holding their outlook on the u.s.'s aa rating -- aaa rating. but they said they are able to raise the debt limit in time to avoid an interest payment. that was a few days before we got the mitch mcconnell update that he was willing to compromise on a short-term resolution to the debt ceiling crisis, but then we saw yesterday goldman saying they were questioning the ability or the willingness of the democrats to take up that deal. you have seen a lot of movement over the last 12 hours. we will see if any of these agencies have any update on what they see going on. host: you talked about the treasury department and the measures they take or what they can do during this time. you report on the federal reserve. how do they look at this situation and what actions could they take? guest: this is a tricky

situation because the federal reserve is an independent into the. they control monetary policy. are not the ones that issued debt. there has been focused on the money printing done by jay powell and the federal reserve, but that is a separate issue than treasury debt issuance. that is something that is in the hands of the u.s. treasury and janet yellen. however, because of the stakes and the possibility of what would be a default of the world's largest economy, it falls within the purview of the federal reserve to offer commentary on what the stakes might be to the economy if that were to happen. we had commentary from jay powell in congressional testimony not long ago saying that congress should act quickly to address the debt ceiling and make sure the united states can pay its bills. he stopped there. did not offer any recommendations. simply saying they should raise the debt ceiling, which is something coalesced by the white

house yesterday, prevailing view among the wall street community. host: this is brian cheung with yahoo finance. he is a reporter for that organization. if you want to ask him questions on matter of the economy and other economic issues in washington, you are invited to call. republicans (202) 748-8001. democrats (202) 748-8000. independent (202) 748-8002. text your questions or comments at (202) 748-8003. especially with these debates in washington over the debt ceiling and future spending, you also report on matters of the economy. what are those leaders not only in washington, wall street, and otherwise looking as far as decisions made to -- made here, but how it might affect the economy as it currently stands? guest: we have to understand we are already in a situation where

we are continuing to climb out of the hole that we had from the pandemic last year. there are still millions out of the labor force compared to pre-pandemic levels and the federal reserve and fiscal policy makers are trying to figure out how to get those people to come back into the workforce, especially with the pandemic still raging. the delta caused some slowdowns. it is the reason why when you take a look at recent jobs reports, there were some misses compared to what wall street was hoping for in terms of the amount of jobs that would have been recovered in the later months of the summer this year. when you compound that upon the risk of a possible default of the world's largest economy, the risk as far as the downside goes is definitely something that not just economists, but investors are watching. you have seen the jittering this in the markets. we have positive days this week. there were a few days over the last few weeks where we did see almost 400 point declines on the dow index. investors are getting jeery

because of the aggregate downside risk that we are seeing to the u.s. economy. if the debt ceiling issue is resolved or kicked down the road, maybe investors have more short-term confidence over the next few months. delta case is continuing to take down, that may be a positive headwind. maybe another variant of the virus will not pop up in the future. it underscores how the uncertainty continues to be a persistent issue for anyone watching either stocks or the economic numbers as well. host: we will see the labor department release information tomorrow as far as jobs. any indications for other sectors about what that report might look like? guest: when we talk about the job gains, there are millions of people out of the labor force compared to pre-pandemic levels. it is definitely not going to be the case that the jobs report we will see tomorrow, which covers the month of september, will be able to plug the remaining gap.

the prevailing assumption is that the labor market slowdown has been slower in these parts of the month than they were earlier in the summer and late spring where there was optimism that we would see some one million plus payroll gains per report. since that point, i do not believe we have seen a single jobs report over the course of this summer that has clocked in at one million for a single month. it seems like we should expect something lower. washington has been all over the place in terms of what to estimate for tomorrow's jobs report. it seems like for the federal reserve as long as that is a positive number, they may have a green light on pulling back some of the monetary accommodation they have been providing through the pandemic and the recovery. the federal reserve has been buying assets through its quantitative easing program. it has been paced at $120 billion per month and keeping interest rates at a near zero target. whether or not the federal reserve could get a green light as soon as early november to start paring back those programs

or slowing the pace of its asset purchases is something that could happen depending on the outcome of tomorrow's report. host: our first caller is from montgomery, alabama. democrats line. this is john. you are on with our guest. go ahead. caller: good morning. my comment or what i would like for your guest to speak to is the disparity in the amount that red and blue states contribute to the national gdp. predominately, at least half of the states, mostly red states, their budgets are made up of 30% or 35% federal money. i find it highly hypocritical that gop representatives would hem and haw about the national debt and putting money on the credit card and all of that foolishness when their states are literally dependent on

federal dollars. i live in a state where we have so much poverty, 98%, 99% of our school districts qualify for federal money to give free lunch to the students. but we have people in the state and people across this country that are republican that pretend as if all money from the federal government is bad and they have all the answers. yet and still, they have no answers for how to solve these problems and how to address it. capitalism has not done it. trickle down has not done it. the free market has not done it. their conservative values have not done it. maybe if your guest can illustrate that the distinction between how much they actually contribute versus how much they take, maybe it will open someone's eyes or at least let them see that it is a fool's errand to pretend that the republicans have a high ground when it comes to sprinting --

spending. guest: it is a selling point that state spending and spending has already been authorized is going to be dependent on where you are in the country. there is a total amount of debt that we have acute related, but it is going to look different in the pace of spending and what you are spending on will be different depending on what region you are looking at. it is important to draw a distinction between state spending and budget that are controlled by each state legislature and in the overall federal debt. municipal governments, whether or not that is your city that you live in or whether or not it is a state that you reside in, they will have their own budgetary approaches to the type of spending they are doing. at a federal level were the usual -- where the u.s. treasury is and that is what we are given with when it comes to the issues and being able to pay our bills. there is federal spending that

gets funneled down to state spending. we can draw that delineation in a separate conversation, but there are different types of conversations here. on the aggregate level, spending on a state level does at some point point up to where we are as a nation. host: this is sy in plainview, new york. republican line. caller: good morning. i was wondering what you thought about janet yellen's proposal to look at bank accounts that have transactions of $600. also, why are we now not a net exporter of oil when joe biden recently asked opec to raise oil production? this seems to contradict his clean energy agenda. guest: on the first point, i believe you are preferring to -- referring to the proposal of

janet yellen wish would require -- which would require any bill from congress in a bank account of over six on a dollar to the irs and this would be information that the banks would be reported to the irs as a way to more closely track tax evasion for if people were trying to skirt the ability to pay taxes by fragmenting their deposits into $600 or less increments. this is a contentious topic. i have talked to community bankers who said this would be a massive burden and they have customers that are worried about this would be increasing the amount of government information that they have and government insight into their personal transactions. janet yellen last week was insistent that they are not going to track individual transactions. jade -- they just want to track pieces of information with regard to the way that banks are

reported to the irs in accounts that are open that have $600 in the account. this is a push and pull. we have seen the secretary when she was pressed by lawmakers about whether or not she was open. she was adamant on not wanting to change this rule. community bankers are not happy. the baking lobbyist pushing back on this as well. we will see as the debate happens on capitol hill if that changes. host: this is joe from pittsburgh. independent line. caller: two points, pedro. thank you for letting me call in. i still wish we could have the callers come in by area of the country and not by democrat, republican, and independent. i do not think that helps. i think people are biased against you as soon as you call in as a democrat or republican. with that being said, brian, if you had a brother or sister or child that kept borrowing money and spending more than they made, would you let them do that?

would you not advise them to try to control spending set of going into debt? why do we allow the country to do that? thank you. guest: this brings up the question of why the united states has a debt ceiling. we need to first of all draw a distinction between the ability of the government to spend and personal households. it is not necessarily as comparable as a person having a credit line because the government and the u.s. is the strongest creditor in the world, their constraints are not the same as a household constraints. i think it is a salient point that when it comes to spending and the ability to rack up your debt, that should not be infinite. the reason why the debt ceiling exist as a mechanism that the country has been using since the 1910s, it has been a mechanism that congress has employed over the last hundred years, is to have some sort of constraint

on government spending. the debt ceiling does not constrain the spending. it only constrains the ability of the u.s. treasury to issue the debt to cover bills it is already racked up. it is weird. it is a statutory limit, but it does not control the spending itself. there are questions about whether or not the debt ceiling would be better served by some alternative type of legislative mechanism that controls the number and the budget reconciliation it can have as opposed to the ability of the treasury to pay bills it has already racked up. that is why you heard the treasury secretary say she would be in support of abolishing the debt ceiling. you also heard more interesting proposals like minting a platinum coin which would be within the law of the treasury's authority to mint a coin that could absorb $1 trillion of the debt that would be held by the federal reserve and taken up against the balance sheet that

would wipe out the existence of $1 trillion of debt from the debt stock and whether or not that might alleviate things is one thing. you heard the secretary say she thinks it is not a feasible idea , that it is a gimmick. unlikely we will see that as the case. this is off of that conversation about how useful is the debt ceiling as a mechanism, separate from what they believe or not that that stock is unstable. that is something that could be heated up as we do kick the can down to december that members of congress will be willing to take up. host: a viewer from mississippi asks what you mean when you say the federal reserve is an independent entity. guest: that is an important question. the federal reserve has a shiny building off of constitution avenue. it was borne by the federal reserve act over 100 years ago. however, its structure allows it to be independent from the perspective that even though its board members, jay powell, he is

nominated by the white house and confirmed by the senate. so are the other members of the board of governors. the bank itself does not report to the white house. jay powell does not go to the white house on a regular basis and discuss with the president what the game plan is with how to engineer the economic policy. the federal reserve sits independently. they are not subvert to the demands or the wants or the needs of the president regardless of whether you are a republican or democrat. they make their monetary policy decisions independently and this is important because the idea of the federal reserve is to act as a macroeconomic stabilizer of policy. if there were to be some sort of unseen shock like a pandemic that forces the economy to close, the federal reserve can use its monetary policy tools to make sure that the economy can be sustained with employment and

stable prices and make sure inflation is not out of control and make sure that there are not any financial stability risks in the banking system since that is the primary means by which the federal reserve implements its policies through the banking system. independence is something you have heard the fed chairman talk repeatedly about. that was the case during the trump administration when there were concerns that maybe the trump administration was trying to heavy-handed the federal reserve into lowering interest rates during the china trade war. if you're hitting it now in the context of whether or not the chairman should try to change policy with regard to higher inflationary pressures now. it is independently controlled, independent definitely operated by the federal reserve. host: you hinted at this, but how does the federal reserve change in operation after the 2007-2008 financial crisis and bear a synthetic could return to the previous mode of operation? guest: there are different modes of operation. one interesting point is the 13

three authorities. the federal reserve has the ability during crisis to do more extraordinary types of measures in terms of opening up lines of credit or opening up certain lending facilities that they could use to backstop certain markets that might be spending out of control. we will take for example in 2020 when the pandemic was first raging, there was a lot of concern about the ability of municipal governments to be able to finance shortfalls in their budget. we saw that there were a lot of issues with municipalities being able to collect tax revenues with the economy shut down. the federal reserve opened up a municipal facility to offer lines of credit to essentially those municipalities that might be struggling. they did something similar for corporations through corporate credit facilities. they were offering the ability to take up corporate debt in exchange for the liquidity during the crisis.

these types of authorities were something that the federal reserve had more ease to do in 2007 and 2008. in the following years after the crisis, there were some new restraints put in on the federal reserve that required them to get signoff from the u.s. treasury and the white house to be able to do this type of lending. they could not use their own money. they cannot sustain major losses. when the fed set up the municipal facility and other backstops last year, they had to do so in conjunction with the treasury and they had to get authorization through congress via the cares act to do that type of lending. the federal reserve in 2020 had more of a congressional process to go about doing some of its emergency response to the crisis . as we saw through 2020, largely be avoided a financial crisis. largely, the federal reserve in addition to congress through the

cares act was able to avoid a real massive financial market contagion. host: this is brian cheung who reports for yahoo finance. up next, jeff from nebraska. republican line. caller: aren't there certain things that have to be paid? i was listening to mark and he came out and said that there has to be $45 billion paid on interest. the military has to be paid. nobody, they get to a point where an order to default, they have to go outside certain things. there is no way that we are going to go bust because there are certain things that have to be paid. one other item, if i could. they reported that there were 25, maybe 30 states that had not

even requested certain moneys because there wasn't so much out there. the states do not even know what they've got out there to spend, there is so much money out there. host: thank you. guest: on the first bit, i was going to point out that it is indeed the case that the treasury has in the short term immediate bills it has to pay that are not just paying interest on those holding u.s. treasuries. as you point out, the treasury is responsible for getting social security payments out there. it is responsible for getting child tax credit payments out there. military families that are waiting for paychecks, they get those from the u.s. treasury. i want to point out that all of those things in addition to u.s. treasury bond payments are being paid right now. again, it is the estimate of the u.s. treasury that by the time they reach october 18, which it could be a few days from that

estimate, they may not be able to pay those bills, which is why we heard the treasury secretary say it is those types of things, social security, child tax credits, military family paychecks that could be at risk past october 18. the date sailing -- the debt ceiling was reinstated in august. over the last few months, the treasury has him looking into their cash reserve. they can differ types of payments to be able to meet payments external to the government and that is what they have been doing. again, we only have about one week and a half before the treasury will not be able to meet some of those payments, which would be devastating for those that rely on paychecks. host: this is soon in new jersey asking you to explain since the u.s. has the ability to print their own money, how can there be any danger of not being able to pay our own bills? when should inflation become a concern? guest: this is an important

question. the united states operates on a fiat currency basis. the federal reserve does print money. it is important to recognize that when it comes to the debt stop itself, the bills that the u.s. treasury has racked up, the debt ceiling has been a restraint on the ability of the government to effectively continue to infinitely increase the debt so that they would be able to issue more. and it comes to the federal reserve, we have to understand that their role, they do not talk to the treasury to say, if you have payments that you cannot make, we can just print the money for you to be able to pay off those bills. that is not a conversation that can happen because if that were a way to skirt around the debt ceiling negotiations, then there would be no purpose to the debt ceiling. it is important to note that when we talk about money printing, it is not the quantity of dollars. the way the federal reserve

operates now has been different over the past few decades. the way it operates now is money comes in via lower interest rates. money comes into the system via quantitative easing when the fed absorbs assets that are in the financial markets and puts it on the balance sheet and they put liquidity out into the economy. the way that the federal reserve does that come in which they have the authority to do this, is by accepting economic conditions. whether or not they put too much money into the system through lower interest rates, whether or not that could increase the speed by which people are spending that money or firms are spending that money, which could raise inflation. on the first one of your question, it is not really within the remit of the federal reserve to print money to meet obligations. the treasury is the one that handles and issues debt so they are the ones that are primarily in charge of that and they cannot do the money printing, which is why it is in congress' court to handle the situation.

on inflation, inflationary numbers are high. when you take a look at consumer price index or personal consumption expenditures, these are measures of inflation. call it an alphabet soup, but a lot of these readings are breaking records. we have not seen these year-over-year price increase percentage points since the 1990's. when you are looking at headline cpi. the concern is with some of these, and it is not double-digit inflation. we are not seeing 10% inflation. what we are seeing is somewhere between 4% and 5% depending on what you are looking at. inflationary pressures are rising. economists are saying some of these may be idiosyncratic issues. microchips coming out of east asia have been slowed because of not just logistical issues, but because and factories shut down. that has led to an increase in used car prices because they cannot manufacture new cars. people are buying used cars. whatever it takes.

some of those pressures have alleviated. delta subsides, we can get those pressures to come back down. economists have said these pressures are little bit higher right now. host: let's hear from dan in maryland. republican line. caller: good morning. thinking of the debt that the u.s. has and how the government works, it is like we have two football teams and each one is trying to keep the other one from scoring and we did not seem to make any headway in the situation. maybe if they had anonymous voting in the chambers of congress and the senate, people would be more honest in their voting for the american people and we could get something under control and done quicker. thank you. host: let's go to louise in raleigh, north carolina. democrats line.

caller: good morning. i kind of have a bit of a solution on how to pay for things. after world war ii, it was senator mccarthy and the congress had changed the laws that churches are exempt from paying taxes. that should be changed, especially since not too long ago the catholic church had threatened president biden that they were going to hold communion if he did not change his stance on abortion. and that was a blatant threat over politics. i really think if biden changed things and said that the church is needed to -- are exempt from paying taxes, that would influence policy and the pope get involved at least for a

number of years that they should have to pay taxes and that would help the economy. host: that is louise in north carolina. on the larger aspect of taxation from the industries particularly on wall street and other sectors, they are waiting to see what this new tax structure might look like from the white house concerning how to pay for these proposed plans from the biden administration. what are the sectors expecting and how are they preparing? guest: we need to decouple that from the debt ceiling issue. when we talk about the ability of a cbo to score a lower impact of what could be a pretty lofty ambitious infrastructure package is certainly something that is important, but it is separate from the issue of the debt ceiling. on the port on whether or not taxation changes could be coming for the corporations what is interesting is that everything is being used against the yardstick, which is a 2017 tax code put in place by the trump

administration, which did lower the tax rate for corporations. what is interesting is that you have seen a good number of corporations and a good number of leaders say they are ok with seeing an increase in the corporate tax rate relative to where the trump administration had slashed it in 2017. they would not want to see anything too larger -- substantially larger than where it was before those tax cuts. it is more the case that these large companies might be more able to withstand a higher tax rate than these more medium-sized smaller companies. by and large, it seems like there is willingness within corporate leaders that have met with biden before who have said they are ok with paying a little bit more taxes. we will see what gets yielded out of the infrastructure package and possible spending. there are a lot of details that need to be worked out as negotiations continue.

it seems like business leaders are not necessarily wholesale against the idea of possible corporate tax rate increase. host: earlier this week, you reported that the federal reserve itself has a trading scandal going on. can you explain this? guest: this is a big deal. i was describing the independence of the federal reserve, but it seems like the vote has been rocked with regards to the trading that was done by at least three senior fed officials. the revelation came out by "the wall street journal" and bloomberg in september regarding regional fed presidents in addition to the dallas fed president, made a number of large transactions over the course of 2020. this is a big deal because the federal reserve has the macroeconomic policy and both of these men were in the room when they were deciding when to step

in to save the economy wants the -- once the spiraling out of show began in 2020. the boston fed president was making remarks about how realistic can be hard-hit by the covid crisis, worrying about defaults in commercial real estate. during that time, he was buying real estate investment trusts and the dallas fed president was a purely taking multimillion dollar bets in public companies, individual stocks. he was betting on apple. he actually bought ishares floating binary etf's even though the federal reserve has an enormous amount of influence over rates are. another shoe to drop just this weekend was a report from bloomberg detailing disclosures from earlier this year about vice-chairman richard clarida, the highest profile official that has been implemented -- implicated in this scandal. apparently he was making a number of transactions over 2020 rotating out of a bond fund and

into stocks right before the federal reserve announced that it was going to do what it could to save the economy in february 2020. rosengren and kaplan announced early retirement. no update on claritin, but you see the writing on the wall. it is definitely an optics issue. the fed is trying to do an internal review. no word from the sec on whether they are investigating this as an insider-trading event. not a really good thing from the optics. host: senator elizabeth warren not only called for an investigation, but she expressed a lack of confidence in the federal reserve chairman jay powell. what impact might that have on his job? guest: this is coming during a critical time for the fed chairman. he has been at the top of the central since february 2018. he was nominated by president trump to serve in that role, confirmed by the senate on a good basis.

his term ends in february next year, which means that the white house right now is weighing whether or not they want to re-nominated him for another term. janet yellen did not get a second term because of the trump administration wanted to nominate someone fresh. whether or not powell could convince the white house to get a renomination remains to be seen, but the optics of these trading issues, certainly did not seem to be helping the case. one big question is whether or not they would go with an alternative person when it comes to white house thinking on this. the fed governor who has been a champion of someone who might be a more progressive candidate, someone that elizabeth warren is more likely to favor. she articulate it that she would not be supporting a fed chairman powell renomination. brainer who might be a favorite for progressives is someone who has the reserve bank affairs committee within the board of

governors that deals with ethics for the boston and the dallas feds, both of which their leaders were implicated in this scandal. she might just be as hopeful as powell when it comes to the look into the more handling of these issues. it remains to be seen exactly how unbalanced it is for the next fed chair president. host: this is richard, spring valley, california. independent line. caller: it sounds like you are pretty educated on the reserve. you just contradicted yourself constantly. both of you do. you all config yourself constantly. you are saying you want the government to spend $3.5 trillion, joe biden's administration, they are going to manage this? did you just say they had a

scandal in the reserve? it sounds like a bunch of crooks. we all know that. host: that is richard in california. let's go to carla in missouri, independent line. caller: hi. i have a basic question. i do not want to get into all of this high finance. number one, it looks to me like adding all of this debt is just a power grab in washington and they keep adding more and more government agencies and programs just to make people more dependent on the government. it sounds like buying votes to me. secondly, regarding the debt, you kind of gloss over this. if we are -- wait a minute. to raise the debt ceiling on the previous years debt, what are we

going to do next year when we have all of this trillions and trillions of dollars worth of bills that have to be paid? host: thank you. mr. cheung? guest: when it comes to the accumulation of debt, it is certainly the case that this compromise we are hearing about between mcconnell and the democrats is going to be to kick the can down to december or maybe a month or two after that with regard to the debt ceiling. this is a conversation we will be having again. as long as the debt ceiling is a mechanism that is put in place, we will continue to have back and forth in congress. i want to point out that i mentioned earlier that the debt ceiling is a mechanism in place since 1917. most of the negotiations that have been put in place in the past when the united states has run up against the debt ceiling which has happened many times

over history, it has been met with a bipartisan effort to raise the debt ceiling. not always the case. in a lot of cases, both sides have come together to say we acknowledge that the debt ceiling is a separate issue from spending. we can constrain spending and try not to increase the amount of national debt that we have by having these discussions during budget debates we made are trying to debate -- during budget debates we are trying to debate a physical spending package. in this case, there is a confluence of all of these things where there is a question between the debt ceiling and trying to use it as apolitical leveraging tool against the biden infrastructure plan, against republican efforts to stall wart those efforts archer plans in addition to the government shutdown. all of these things are happening at the same time and we have to acknowledge that as long as the debt ceiling continues to be a mechanism,

this continues to be seen in the years to come, which is why a lot of people are tired about hearing about this because it comes up so frequently and especially because it has become more partisan. host: let's go to mark fort lauderdale, florida. democrats line. caller: good morning. thanks for c-span and thanks for the interesting guest. when you say the federal reserve and one elizabeth warren says she has problems with the federal reserve. that is a broad term. there are parts of the federal reserve. there is the federal reserve system. there is the governor that you were just talking about getting in trouble for trading. there is the open market that screws around with the interest rates. and then there is the federal reserve bank, which if i understand correctly, does all the clearing of monetary transactions in the u.s.. if you think back a few years, the ron paul's of the world are

running around announcing that the federal reserve bank was not an arm of the u.s. government or owned by the taxpayer, but it was owned by a shadowy system with the crowned heads of europe and such. can you as an expert on the federal reserve answer the question, is the federal reserve bank, is it or is it not part of the u.s. government, part of the u.s. monetary system? guest: this is an important question. we just break down what the structure of the federal reserve looks like. what i was describing earlier when i said board of governors, that is the head of the federal reserve system. they had a shiny wilting on constitution avenue -- shiny building on constitution avenue. the chairman, all nominated by the white house and confirmed by the senate. they operate in washington, dc, they want to have a pulse on what is going on across regions of the economy. they have 12 reserve banks scattered across the country. these are regional outposts from

boston to san francisco to kansas city to atlanta and they all have jurisdiction over certain regions. the presidents of those reserve banks go out and try to converse with people in their regions and report back to the board of governors. those reserve banks are quasi-independent, quasi-federal. the board of governors is a federal agency from the perspective that it is in d.c. it does have a reporting structure that requires its heads to be confirmed by the senate. those reserve bank presidents are not confirmed by the senate. they are not picked by the white house. they are independent in operation, but they are also independent in their functions because they have boards of directors that determine who are their leaders. because the dallas and boston fed president, because they are stepping down, they will have independent boards who are not related to any operations in

d.c. picked replacements. they are private banks by title, as in they do not get funding from any sort of government appropriation out of the federal government in d.c., but they do report to the board of governors in washington, d.c. they are weird mechanisms, but one example would be even though it is an independent board of directors in atlanta that takes the atlanta fed president, the atlanta fed president does not have to be ratified by the board of governors so the board of governors every five years would review who are all of the presidents of the reserve banks. yes, we review, we ratify that the atlanta fed board felt like this is a person who should be leading this institution. there are these controls were even though these private reserve banks are technically

private, they do are technically private, they do go up to a reporting structure at a federal government level and that is an interesting wrinkle to all of this. it is dizzying, but that is how it operates. host: you can find the work of our ghost -- you can find the work of our guest at yahoo.com. brian cheung reports for yahoo finance. thanks for joining us. guest: thanks. host: coming up, we will talk with mark hugo lopez of the pew research center about latino voters and how both parties are trying to court those voters. later, greg miller is taking a look at what is known as the pandora papers. a look at how wealthy politicians and world leaders put their money. we will talk about those findings later in "washington journal." ♪ >> today, the former u.s. special envoy for haiti testifies about u.s. policy over recent expulsions of haitian migrant at the texas border. watch live coverage from the house foreign affairs committee

at 2:00 p.m. eastern on c-span, online at c-span.org, or watchful coverage on the video app. >> nobody really thought that this was ever going to happen, that paris would succumb to the nazis. the city of white -- lights was supposed to be this bastion of enlightenment and freethinking and open society. when not chisholm -- nazism got into poland, the executed liberals, the executed freethinkers and everybody was scared as they came toward paris that that was what was going to happen in paris as well. >> "taking paris," on germany's occupation of paris in august of

1934. watch on q&a sunday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern. listen to q&a and all of our podcasts on our new c-span now app. ♪ >> in the past 30 years, eric larson has written eight books. six of those landed on the new york times nonfiction bestseller list. some of his best-known books include "the splendid and the vile," "issac storm," "dad wake -- dead wake," and his best-known work hit the bookstores in 2003. with his most recent work, eric larson makes a transfer to go story fiction. the title, "no one goes alone," is available on audio only.

>> you can listen to book notes plus and all of our podcasts on our new c-span now app. >> "washington journal" continues. host: joining us now is mark hugo lopez. he is with pew research center. he is the director for race and ethnicity research. good morning. guest: good morning. host: as we approach the 2022 election, how much patter -- how much power do latino voters hold? guest: there is a lot more interest in the latino vote and the nuances. republicans are opening community centers or places to contact latino voters are complacent like south texas or san antonio. this next election should be interesting to see how much attention latino voters get about where latinos fall, given the circumstances of those upcoming elections. host: what did the 2020 election

tell us about those trends? guest: one of the things we saw was a shift toward trump relative to 2016. for example back in 2016, trump won 28% of latino voters support. in any 16, after 2020 according to our study, trump won 38% of latino voters support. that means biden support was lower than it was among hillary clinton in 2016. she won 66%. biden won 59% in 2020. biden still won the latino vote, but it is interesting that trump was able to make gains among latino voters and did some across the country. not just in south florida, but in south texas, in the southwest. in places like philadelphia and san francisco, there were gains that trump made across the country among with tina voters in many different places. host: how would you expand the factors that led to those trends? guest: part of it is different

groups of latinos and the diversity of latino voters. part of it is trends that have been long-standing among some groups of latino voters. like in south florida and the emergence of groups like venezuelan voters, not a large number, but a growing number in south florida as well. in places like south texas, we saw support for trump grown among hispanic men. we saw it grow among people who are u.s.-born, may be of immigrant parents, but u.s.-born. in the southwest, we saw support for trump grown among hispanic men and women in addition to third-generation mexican americans. it is a variety of stories and it is oftentimes linked to different places around the country and the circumstances and issues and policies of those places. host: we will continue our conversation about latino voters and the impact they have with these upcoming elections with mark hugo lopez.

republicans (202) 748-8001. democrats (202) 748-8000. independents (202) 748-8002. perhaps you are a latino voter and you want to give your impact. (202) 748-8003. mr. lopez, help us understand what it means to be latino voter. guest: latinos make up 14% of potential voters. a latino voter says they are hispanic or latino. these are people who trace their roots to latin america or spain or who are u.s.-born or hold u.s. citizenship. this is a diverse population and it is part of a bigger and growing population. about 62 million latinos were counted in the 2020 census, making almost 19% of the population. latinos are a growing population and particularly when it comes to their potential as voters, those numbers have been growing by about 4 million each

election. host: you mentioned texas, what was going on as far as the community center. other outlets are reporting it. talk about where the republican party is and where the democratic party is in reaching out and retaining these voters. guest: both parties have expressed interest in latino voters. over the elections, it is dependent on the election how much effort is put into reaching out to latino voters. in 2020, there was some concern and discussion about whether or not the biden administration had moved early enough to shore up support among latino voters, particularly in south florida, miami dade county where president trump won the latino vote in south florida. it depends on where we are, but it does seem that both parties are interested because latino voters are not locked into any one party. they generally support the democratic party. but their support has shifted depending on candidates, depending on issues, and

depending on the year. host: also depending on country of origin, perhaps? guest: ancestry of origin. you see cubans, venezuelans, nicaraguans, colombians, perhaps they lean more toward the republican party. and then you see mexican americans, puerto ricans and salvador ian's they lean toward the democratic party. degrees of support does depend on other factors, not just origin. the cuban story is unique because cuban voters are so strongly in the -- leaning toward the republican party and have been doing so for some time even though there are some shifts as well. not so strongly republican today as they were in the 1980's. host: how does age factor in to have a latino voter casts a vote? guest: it is very interesting. there is growth and the number of potential voters are coming from young people who have come of age. 4 million additional potential voters that i mentioned earlier,

between presidential cycles, about 3 million of that 4 million will be younger tina was -- will be young latinos. younger latinos tend to lean more toward democratic parties than older latinos. it depends on the circumstances, origins, locations, and so much more. just like we see with young people generally, younger latinos tend to lean toward the democratic party. host: mark hugo lopez are guest with the pew research center. describe the work you do with race and ethnicity. guest: we look at race and ethnicity in the united states, the democracy in addition to the views, opinions, and attitudes about hispanic americans, black americans, asian americans, and many other groups on a number of things. everything from policy but also to how they see their own identity. it is a wide range of topics. but it is exciting to see some of the changes over the decades in latino public opinion and

latinos attitudes about their identity. host: let's hear from sharon in illinois. democratic line, but is a latino voter. good morning. guest: hi. i can probably help. when i watch any researcher describe things and people ask them questions and they are trying to figure out who is going to vote where. any researcher, when you are researching a certain group of people to get a number to decide why people are voting the way they are, that is a small percentage of everyone who does vote and a lot of people do not tell the truth. it is hard to tell. it is pretty important to understand -- no offense to the way, well, it is kind of offensive when people say latino voters. everybody in america is so

mixed. it does not matter what co-you are necessarily what shade you are. everybody feels like generally people are always mixed with different ethnicities. to say you are a latino or black , it is really offensive to those groups. i think that is why trump is a draw to all different people because i think he basically understands that. if you stop putting labels on people and assuming they think one way or the other -- host: thank you. guest: a great point from the caller that the diversity of a group like latino voters has so many dimensions and the voters themselves may think of their identity and the impact it has on how they vote in different ways and there is no doubt that the nation today is much more diverse and mixed than it has been in the past.

with intermarriage rates among the highest when it comes to the latino population in the united states. just on that dimension alone, you have many people who are intermarried with folks who are not necessarily latino, and that may have an impact on how they see their politics. thank you for the point. i think it is important to note there are many ways we can describe the nation's voters, one of which is grace and ethnicity, but other factors, and sometimes the voters may not think of themselves as a broader latino vote group. that is something we see in some of our data, where sometimes you find latino voters and there is a lot in common they have with other people who are of latino background when it comes to opinions and views on issues. that is an important point to remember, but it points to

something i said earlier that the diversity and population is an important and key factor to keep in mind that this is not a monolith but group diverse 10 composed of many groups of people with many different backgrounds. host: from brandon in florida, democrats line. good morning. caller: good morning. i was thinking your guest was being kind of vague, so i do not want to put that out there like that and i want to be fair, but how do you explain puerto rico -- puerto ricans in south florida voting for donald trump after donald trump treated them in a demeaning way during hurricane? how do you explain that? how do you explain maybe a mexican-american in texas voting for donald trump? he is calling them all rapists and drug dealers. how do you explain that?

is this some kind of stockholm syndrome we are dealing with? host: that is morgan in florida. caller: great question -- that is warren in florida. caller: great question. this points to the diversity of the latino population. puerto rico owns migrated to send -- let's talk about puerto ricans who migrated to central florida, and some of them are angelica christians, so their support of was related to his view on abortions. the mexican american population is about 37 million people, the single largest group among the nation's hispanic population overall, but it is also diverse. some are recent immigrants, some are undocumented. others are third or higher generation americans, and viewpoints do differ within the population. many years ago, we did a survey and asked hispanic americans broadly what should be done about those in the country with no authorization? 15% of latino adults, mexican

americans, back in 20 10, said those who are in the country illegally should be deported. support is not uniform across the population. mexican americans have strong views on authorization, and there are also immigrants from cuba and the dominican republic, who also have strong views about those who were in the country and undocumented, so there is diversity and viewpoints. this points to one of the most interesting and important finance from the 2020 election, which is awareness among panelists and that latino voters have different views and different sensibilities, and depending on where you are, you might encounter different reactions to candidates and policies. host: are there universal views of importance amongst the various groups? caller: one thing that is important is climate change, a

top concern for latinos across all groups, although, republican latinos perhaps less so than latino democrats, that the gap is not as wide among. the general public host: from los angeles, california, independent line, good morning. caller: good morning. i just wanted to ask, you said in between presidential elections, there is an increase of 4 million, are these 4 million illegal are undocumented? how does it work? this is the thing because in sanctuary cities, they automatically register you to vote. you have to check off that you do not want them to register you to vote. is that included in the 4 million? should those votes be counted in our elections? host: mr. lopez? caller: the 4 million that i mentioned are people who are

u.s.-born, latinos born in the united states, and to have entered adulthood, so these were u.s. citizens at birth. when it comes to the undocumented and license and registration, it is possible, but the number i was pointing to his those born in the united states to come of age here. the 4 million includes a million people who also naturalized to become a u.s. citizen, so to be able to vote, you have to be a u.s. citizen to vote in the united states. host: is there a way to gauge as far as latino voters how much dissipation they have in midterm elections versus presidential elections? caller: yes, and generally speaking, -- guest: yes, and generally speaking, there is a decline. the 18 was interesting because we saw voter participation reach levels you usually see in a presidential election. that was true also for other groups of americans, so even though we saw a surge in participation among latinos, other groups turned out to vote

in higher rates, for example, whites and black americans, and some of those gaps between groups persisted, even though we saw an increase in voter participation across all racial and ethnic groups. host: from carl in west virginia, democrats line. carl in west virginia, go ahead. caller: yes, mr. lopez, on the census issue, there was a spot for white hispanics. i need you to extend to me what is a white hispanic? thank you, sir. guest: great question. thank you for the fantastic question. when we talk about latinos and the way the census bureau things about latinos or hispanics, hispanics are viewed as an ethnic group. an ethnic group that can have people of different races in it. when you look at latin america, latin america has its own story about race and ethnicity, but

race is an important part in the way latin americans think about their own identity. that includes people who are white or light skinned, to those who are dark, to those who have indigenous roots, so trace their roots to mayan or other origins. even among hispanics, which is an ethnic group, according to the census bureau, there is a racial distributional among that group, as well. in our survey at the pew research center, we have asked latinos whether or not their identity is an ethnic identity or part of their racial identity? we have found that a majority see their latino identity as part of their racial identity, so you are right to ask this question. there is an interesting -- interesting way of how statistics are recorded versus how the public sees itself. at the pew research center, we track to document the different way race manifests itself in the latino population.

in this case, by asking a question like the census bureau, but here is an alternative way to ask, if someone sees you walking down the street, what do you think they see u.s.? white, black, hispanic, asian, something else? most latinos tell us that people will see them as latino, not white or black, so it is interesting that depending on how you ask, you can get a different response on racial identity. host: flint, michigan, next. tim, democrats line. caller: i would like to know when we are going to impeach joe biden because he is destroying america. host: we will go to james. james in new york. democrats line. hello. caller: yes, thank you for taking my call. first of all, i would like to make him aware that there is only one race, the human race. all of these other characterizations -- host: caller, you are still on.

go ahead. caller: there is only one race, the human race. the rest of these concoctions are only ethnicities. when it comes to the issues about color, it is not about race. there is only one race, the human race. when you say non-hispanic, why are they making this distinction between color when it is race? hispanic is not a race. it is a people who speaks a language. there are so much confusion and you do not shed light by continuing to the fine people as being of a different race when there is only one race, thank you. guest: the caller made a great point about the importance of color. and color risen is an important factor in latin america and in the united states. if we were to move away from talking about different racial groups and ask about skin color and ask them to race their own skin color, and surveys of hispanics and other groups, those of lighter skin tend to be doing better than those of darker skin on a number of

economic measures, but also the discrimination experiences are more likely to occur to those who are darker skinned than those lighter skinned. this is true among latinos and other groups. caller thecaller maiden interesting -- the caller made an interesting point about the categories of race, which is something the federal government has created as part of it census bureau data collection. in many ways, this reflects how the public is thinking of itself and reflects on policy and how they think about the country, and it has changed over time. we will have to see where things go, there are not we can continue to use these labels and groupings that we do now. to answer the question about the hispanic not being a race, again, we ask the hispanic public what they thought, and that is what i reported that number, which is that many people in the population see their identity as part of their racial identity. host: from medina, new york, independent line. you are on with arc hugo lopez of pew research center.

caller: hi, mr. lopez. do you know who the 12 pillars of israel are? host: what is the relevance to the topic? caller: you are not hispanic, you are one of the 12 -- host: we will leave it there. you have noticed trends as far as elections are concerned, and in september, after the california recall that took place, it was highlighted that exit polls and that recall showed 60% of latino voters voting against recalling democratic governor newsom, below the overall statewide vote of 63% recalling the governor and below 64% of latino voters who backed him when he was elected in 2018. he makes two caveats, saying exit polls are not proven completely reliable in the election cycle, and you noticed

latino voters voted for democrats comfortably, but as far as california's consideration, is there something to tell as far as the larger topic? guest: in california, the trends affecting the latino population in california, the largest single state population of over 50 million people nationally, it is one that is also becoming more settled. it is not have the same number of immigrant arrivals that used to have in the 1980's and 1990's. by becoming more settled, the generation is becoming a bigger part of the story, which means you see people who may be the children of hispanic parents and non-hispanic parents, and that may help shape the politics in the state. latino voters are not a monolithic group, and they make up their minds like other voters, and they can change their views on a number of things, including whether or not to support a particular gubernatorial candidate. host: after elections, there is always the questions and redistricting.

do latino voters have concern on how lines can be redrawn? guest: there is concern on possible undercount in that 2020 census because that census determines how congressional districts are drawn in different states. in some states, for example, like california, there was an increase of over one million latinos, which help the state not lose as much as was expected in terms of congressional, but it is the case like texas and arizona, where there was a big increase in the hispanic population in those states, they did not gain congressional seats as expected, so that could play a role in shaping not only how many seats the state has but how those district lines might be drawn. this is something that is of concern of many latino leaders and many potatoes themselves and how their political representation will manifest itself in the coming decades. host: we will hear from manny in la jolla, california. caller: good morning. i am a cuban-american.

i am a retired law professor, and i am one of the 50,000 americans that repatriated to cuba, so we get to vote in both countries. i get to see two different political systems, and i vote socialist in america because i think it is to capitalistic, and i vote capitalist in havana, my native home, because i think cuba is way too socialist. i am one of those few voters out there who gets to vote two different countries. my question is, how do the cuban-americans in miami have so much power? for instance, we have three u.s. senators who are cuban-americans supposedly, but they were never born in cuba, you know? and they just do that to vote and to vote against cuba all the

time, and they know nothing about cuba. i live in cuba, nobody listens to me. host: manny, thank you. guest: a great question. first, some demographics. about three quarters of the nations cuban-american population about over 2 million people live in florida, so florida contains the greatest concentration of cuban-americans. interestingly, no other hispanic origin group is as concentrated in anyone state, let alone one county like miami-dade, as cuban-americans. that is important to note. there is power in numbers. also, while cuban-americans have been an important force, particularly to hispanic voters in south florida and a politics, as you mentioned, people elected to the senate or house of representatives as examples, one thing that is interesting is cuban-americans are making up a declining share of hispanic

voters in the state of florida. puerto ricans and other groups are on the rise. it remains to be seen whether or not these patterns we observed in the last 50 years by continuing to the next 50 years with regards to what seems like relative strength of the cuban-american vote in the united states. the other thing i think is interesting as we have seen cuban-americans up until recently shifting more towards the democratic party. younger cuban-americans are likely to lean democrat than older cuban-americans, but it is also interesting that the shift towards trump among with tina voters from 2016 to 2020 alone cannot be explained by cuban-americans making a shift towards trump. cuban-americans are important, but they alone did not drive that national change. those are important factors to keep in mind, and this is a continually changing set of circumstances, and relative strength. host: the work of our guest can

be found at pewresearch.org. mark hugo lopez, thank you for your time. guest: thank you. host: coming up, we feature a guest involved in the pandora papers, which looks at where wealthy politicians and other people put their money across the world. greg miller is with the "washington post," part of the team reporting on this, and will talk about his findings on "washington journal." ♪ >> saturday night, former president donald trump speaks at a rally held at the iowa state fairgrounds in the state capital des moines. he won iowa in 2020 and is considered a top contender for the 2024 gop presidential nomination. live coverage beginning at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span, at c-span.org, and watchful coverage on our new video app, c-span now.

>> watch book tv's coverage of the 21st annual national book event hosted by the library of congress with online author discussions and live call-in segments. at 2:00 p.m. eastern, one author talks about his book "the cause." he will join us live to take your calls and tweets. at 3:00 p.m., a discussion about the opioid epidemic with two authors. after 8:30, we will be joined to live by one author. at 4:00, a look at russia, and 4:30 p.m., the history of women in medicine.

at 5:00 p.m., charisse davis talks about her book. watch book tv's coverage of the 21st annual national book festival, sunday at 2:00 p.m. eastern, on book tv on c-span2. get c-span on the go. watch the day's biggest political evidence live or on-demand anytime, anywhere, on our new mobile video app, c-span now. access top highlights, listen to c-span radio, and discover new podcasts for free. download c-span now today. >> "washington journal" continues. host: if you have followed the work of "the washington post" and other publications the last weeks, you have noticed a series of articles known as the pandora

papers, taking a look at issues of where wealthy politicians put their money across the world. one of the people involved as greg miller of "the washington post," and investigative foreign correspondent. he joins us on the program. thanks for your time today. guest: sure, happy to do it. host: can you start off with taking a look at the pandora papers themselves? how did this investigation come about? guest: this is an investigation that comes about through an organization called the international consortium of investigative journalists, which is a group of journalists that has gathered material like this before, which they are best known for the panama paper stories which came out five or six years ago, and they work with partners all around the world because the information they get is so expensive and voluminous, it is too much for any single media organization to go through. the washington post was part of

a team essentially that worked on this project for most of the past year. host: what did the information you got from the icij center on? what we looking for within it? guest: this is all offshore financial data, so these refer to files, records, a private business, shell company and other registrations, and a number of jurisdictions around the world. basically what we are looking at our this parallel economy, this secret economy in which wealthy and lead individuals use jurisdictions like the british virgin islands or cayman islands and other places where they set up shell companies and hide wealth. these were filed with companies they worked with. we are looking at that tales of

millions of accounts. host: how much paper did you have to go through, and how did your organization, "washington post." determine who to report on -- "the washington post," determine who to report on? guest: in the end, there were 30,000 owners of the accounts, so that is a large number to go through, nearly 12 million documented, and it was daunting. it was overwhelming at first when i first gained access and was able to poke around, it was almost impossible to know where to begin. it took many months to figure out what are the stories? as journalists, we are looking at logical subjects. we are looking at politicians, the world's wealthiest people, business leaders and executives, and, so, that is where you will

find most of the stories. when we found individuals who fit in those categories and documents, start digging deeper to learn what the documents can tell us about them. host: one of the people you focused on in several stories is the king of jordan. can you explain? guest: to me, the king of jordan was the foreign leader most exposed by the documents and the better part of the pandora papers drove. what i mean by that is we learned more about hayes does this dealings, his private wealth, his offshore finances, that we did about almost anybody else, and it was a significant finding for us because king abella and jordan are important allies for the united states. jordan gets many billions of dollars in aid, or than any other country in the world, other than israel and afghanistan, and, so, once you

located the king in the files, we knew that would be an important story. we spent months sticking into that and locating the properties that were connected with companies in the files. host: can you expand on that? guest: sure, it came down to the king using shell companies secretly purchasing luxury real estate in the u.s. and u.k. we find lists of shell companies associated with the king, and then we go beyond that by looking through public records, real estate, data and the united states, etc., and lo and behold, we find he has secretly purchased three estates in malibu, california, for nearly $70 million during a three year stretch, that he purchased three or four high-end properties in london within the past 10 years, and then, also, purchased very expensive multi-million-dollar condominiums in georgetown and

washington, d.c., around the same time. so he went on a huge real estate splurge over the past 10 years while his country and his economy were really, really struggling. host: because the u.s. or the country gets money from the u.s., is there any evidence that any of the money that was invested in the properties came from u.s. funds directly? guest: no. that is important to note. it came through his lawyers, who fervently denied any aid money was used to purchase these properties and insisted this was all his personal wealth, and u.s. officials i spoke with also said they were skeptical that american aid had been diverted in many ways because it accounted -- it was accounted for thoroughly. and there is something else you can say about this, which is when a country like the united states pumps billions of dollars into another country over a 10 year stretch, that lifts the

income and the country to a substantial degree, so we cannot completely disconnect those two things. host: our guest, greg miller of "the washington post," part of the team on the pandora project. if you want to ask a question on his findings, all on (202)-748-8001 for republicans, (202)-748-8000 free democrats an independents, (202)-748-8002, and you can text us at (202)-748-8003. mr. miller, further investigating you did on the king and other sources, is anything found that is actually illegal as far as the process he and others used? guest: if you are speaking just about the king? host: the king, and other entities, is it illegal, per se? guest: no, not per se. it is perfectly legal to set up a shell company. you or i could do it. we may not have 4000 -- $400,000

to put into it, but anybody can do it. the trouble with shell companies and the offshore economy is that they provide legal cover often for other kinds of illegal activities, so if you are a politician and taking kickbacks or engaged corruption and you want to hide that money and the proceeds from that, you set up a shell company and that makes it more difficult for that to be tracked down. similarly, there are shell companies that are used in everything from ransomware attack's to drug smuggling. it is associated with crime because it enables crime, not because it is not in and of itself illegal. host: mr. miller, i want to point you to something "the washington post" printed in the lead up, "closely examining thousands of documents and the post and partners have not found an accuracy or that it targets

any specific individual government. we have sought to provide every person with the opportunity to review and comment on the findings. no one has challenged the authenticity of the documents. we are confident our reporting meets the standards for accuracy and fairness." as far as the source documents themselves, why do you trust them? guest: i think that as that statement said, he spent many months digging into the details of these documents and establishing their accuracy. in the case, for example, the king, his lawyers argued that there were some inaccuracies and some of our information was out of date i did not ultimately dispute he owned these companies -- properties overseas. those documents were right, and the king does on those three compounds in malibu. and we did the same thing in case after case after case. that is a concern when you are a

news organization like "the post" and become involved in the project like this, there are significant stakes for the stories you plan to do. we want to make sure that material is rocksolid, and we spent a fair amount of time doing that. host: one of the criticisms of this reporting came from "the wall street journal," saying "separate from those efforts on the recent campaign by pro-public and death are nonprofit reporting outlets -- and other nonprofit reporting outlets, they added that that data is not safe in the hands of government agencies or private institutions, and both let news be framed by their sources. pro-public knowledge is its stolen data may have come from a foreign intelligence service amid a bizarre of bizarre verbs, icij ignored those, and it entails personal risk. it is a crime after all." what do you think of that

characterization? guest:guest: "the wall street journal" just published a trail breaking series of stories on facebook and those documents relate to "the journal." there is enormous value in news material that is not always come from the cleanest sources or sources who do not necessarily have the greatest motivations. in this case, i want to address one of your points, because there is suspicion in these cases sometimes that this is the work of an intelligence service that is hacking into accounts overseas to discredit adversaries. in this case, i wrote about that in our first story, that that seems unlikely here because this collection of documents is so comprehensive from 14 different financial service companies all around the world, and in terms of who it exposes and arguably

harms, the king is a close american ally. it exposed the maneuverings of russian oligarchs, leaders in africa, leaders in europe and asia. it was fairly and discriminatory and how much light it has shown on leaders from almost every continent. host: again, greg miller, you can find his work on the pandora papers that "the washington post." brian is up first from michigan, our line for independents. you are on with our guest, good morning. caller: good morning, you can hear me, right? host: yup, you are on. caller: i spent a lot of time in the caribbean, and serving in the navy, i do happen to car apartment allies, and i am always fascinated, and i'm glad you reminded me of how we can do

things worldwide, but your source material is a concern. mr. miller, i would like to switch topics for one second and then bring it back. i think a lot of you journalists know, and this is what has bothered me the last four years, we have a corrupt government, and they turn their weapons on trumpet, no doubt about that. i always wonder why you guys have not dug into that? it is all there. host: mr. miller, do you want to respond? guest: i would just point out that our stories included several really important pieces this week that scrutinize the united states and its role in offshore finance, and the degree to which the united states is now complicit in this practice to a large extent because it states, including south dakota, nevada, alaska, have adopted

privacy laws that have enabled foreign individuals and individuals connected to human rights violations and other allegations to set up trusts and park money that is almost beyond discovery, so at "the post" we were looking inward and outward at the united states, and trying to make judgments about what we thought was most newsworthy in this authority. host: were any americans in this information? guest: absolutely. quite a number. as we noted in our first story, the richest americans do not appear in this data, and there are a couple of possible explanations as to why. you will not find that much information on bill gates, warren buffett, elon musk, or jeff bezos, but there are american billionaires and multimillionaires who do appear in these files, and there is a story on "the washington post" today that focuses on some of those individuals. host: from kentucky, republican line. jerry, hello.

jerry in kentucky, good morning. ok, we'll go to dennis in rapid city, south dakota. democrat's line. caller: thanks for taking my call. there was an article in "the rapid city journal" that we have 81 people from different countries and it is not just south dakota and georgia or florida, and we know we have got politicians in this state that have fast and around half $1 million that nobody can touch. thanks for taking my call. there are people here always asking for money and everything else, so it just upsets me that i see -- i am an army veteran, by the way, too, and it takes money away from our veterans and hospitals and everything. thanks for taking my call.

i appreciate it. host: thank you. mr. miller, go ahead. guest: if i understood correctly, the caller was from south dakota? that was a centerpiece of one of our stories about south dakota specifically and the extent to which it has turned itself into basically a tax haven in the united states and has attracted billions of dollars over the past eight or nine years as a result, and people asked, well, what is wrong with that? it brings revenue to companies in south dakota, but the downside is, as we documented, some of that money is coming from less than ideal sources, including companies in latin america that is engaged in human rights abuses and possibly are trying to put their money that they profited from from the expectation of other people interests to make it impossible for authorities in latin america

to ever get their hands on it. in a way, south dakota is undermining the accountability and enforcement capabilities of other countries in our hemisphere. host: let's hear from kam in virginia. independent line. caller: good morning. i am a subscriber of "the washington post." i have been living in virginia over 10 years. the last number of years, my level of trust in your paper has diminished, and i feel like this investigation is a distraction, and nothing will come of it. the question i want to ask is how sweden stopped using the moderna injections for those under 30 because apart problems and japan has stopped using them. host: we will drop it there, to the point that you say nothing will come of it, what do you think of that point? guest: we have a story in the paper today, and i appreciate he is a "post" reader, and i hope he continues, but you will see

that there was a bill introduced yesterday by members of the house that would impose greater transparency on offshore financing and seek to create new laws that would make it harder for states in the united states to engage in practices that the federal government is not in favor of. i think that is a common reaction about big stories like this and say, what can we do? these are wealthy individuals, and they will find a way to take care of themselves, and i'm sure to a certain extent, that is true. through stories like this and our effort to bring attention, there have been meaningful reforms over the past eight to nine years, and even though it may be incremental, it is still significant nonetheless and it

is possible here. this measure introduced yesterday shows there is appetite on capitol hill to tackle the problem. host: as far as reforms internationally, are those being made, as well? guest: it is still early, but, yes, there are investigations announced in pakistan, india, czech republic, and other countries around the world. that is the first step. longer-term, i think this is an issue that is going to continue to get scrutiny in part because of projects like the pandora papers. host: from wisconsin. greg. republican line. caller: good morning, c-span. i would like to complement your guest on what they are doing. i am going to be following you from now on. i appreciate you coming on. i have two questions. with the follow the money approach you are doing, how much ties back to the ross trials?

the second question, whatever happened to the congressional slush fund with all essential misconduct stuff that came into the news six or seven years ago and we have never heard about it since? guest: i cannot speak to the latter, but, you know, and please restate the first part of your question, if you would? host: he hung up, and i apologize. i did not take note, so we will move on to robert and virginia, independent line. guest: ok. caller: i was calling because this was compared to the panama papers. the only thing i remember from that is that the journalist responsible for a lot of those leaks was assassinated in a car bomb. i don't think there are any arrest or measure made with it. you previously said there would be reforms put up by congress. i doubt that will go anywhere, but do you think there will

actually any be any real convictions that people will actually lose assets, property, or go to prison as an actual consequence for these types of things? guest: to go to prison? as we said, it is complicated because putting money in offshore accounts is not in itself a recall -- in itself illegal, but it undermines investigator abilities to hold criminals to account. if you read the first torah republished from the pandora papers, you will hear about a woman who was in fbi agent for many years as part of the mueller investigation, saying the offshore system is such an impediment to law enforcement and investigation that it exacts a cost on all of us and undermines democratic society at large. i do think there have been

meaningful reforms and we should not be sort of regard this as a hopeless case. even some of our stories talk about the reforms that came in places like the british virgin islands after the panama papers in 2016 and how much harder that made it for certain individuals who are trying to put their money in offshore shell companies to do it. and to do it in ways that would shield their owners from the names of them, from investigators in the united states were u.k. host: you hinted at it earlier, but for our viewers, explain how the offshore systems work. guest: offshore system is an almost outdated term now. it refers and comes to -- comes from a time when most of the jurisdictions were on a different island in the caribbean or something.

it is basically often micro-states, small states that in and of themselves create laws that allow people who do not live there, who do not have any real assets there, to set up a company there anonymously and then put assets in that company, whether it is a yacht, company, money, think accounts, you or i could set up an abc company in the british virgin islands, and then that company could own a big account in switzerland where they have millions of dollars in it. just in doing that, you have made it harder for anybody to ever trace that money back to you in the account. it is something that has been used for many years by very wealthy individuals to avoid paying taxes or at least reduce the amount of taxes they pay if they can hide much of their income in a distant jurisdiction like the cayman islands, it

might reduce the taxes they pain in the united states, u.k., germany, or elsewhere. it is basically a system that, you know, it is a parallel economy that is used by the rich and elite of the world to benefit themselves. host: what is done to keep access to this information, like you found through the reporting, keep it at a lack of transparency to other people? guest: could you rephrase that? host: what is done to keep the information available to other people? i know you got a lot of information, but what is done to help keep transparency from happening? guest: these jurisdictions basically did it -- make it impossible. we did a story in the series about a russian woman who reportedly had an affair with vladimir putin in the early 2000's, and that had a daughter reportedly that was fathered by vladimir putin. this is a woman who came from

very modest backgrounds and then becomes astonishingly wealthy over the next several years after this relationship with putin. one of the things we found in our documents is her name linked to a company called rockville development, and anonymous sounding company, set up in monaco, and we went to monaco, and found that company owned a $5 million apartment overlooking the mediterranean. you could go to monaco, look at the apartment, try to trace it back, and you would never be able to connect it through publicly available records back to this woman in st. petersburg. it is only because of the leak and what we were be able -- what we were able to find in our papers that we were able to connect turning. it is basically an insulation. you are setting up companies that prevent anybody who is doing any research from ever

being able to trace that with public records. your homes, your cash, everything cannot be traced back to you. host: robert and virginia, independently. caller: this is me. host: go ahead. caller: i would say that assassination by car bomb is illegal and when will there actually be dire consequences instead of just making it harder to hide your money? guest: you are right, tax avoidance is illegal, and technically in the united states, whether you have offshore accounts or not, if you are doing so for the purpose of evading paying taxes you owe, then that impact is illegal. the difficulty is enforcement. for irs investigators, and for them to get the information they

need, in the case like the one i described, where you are looking at an individual, but that individual has offshore company set up in the caribbean that are nearly impossible to crack, it impedes the ability to prosecute. it is not that there is complete impunity for individuals who do this, it is that the cases are difficult to pursue. one of our stories and the -- and "the post" emphasizes this, where we read about cases where there are individuals in the united states who are entitled to payments from either lawsuits or other cases, in which the holder of those assets disappeared, moved overseas, moved their assets into offshore account somewhere, and as a result, these people who are pursuing these cases can never get that money. host: mr. miller, when you got

this information initially, did you just work with "washington post" or crosscheck your findings with other organizations that were reporting from the same source material? guest: there was a ton of collaboration here. i have never been in a project like this, it was one of the most interesting aspects of this enterprise. we were in constant communication, with reporters fromicij, the bbc, the guardian, news organizations from germany, and people from all over the world from news organizations everywhere were combing through the data, and whenever they were finding something of significance, they shared it with the rest of us, posting short articles on, look what i found in this corner of the trove. it might be of interest to everybody else. you could sign in every day to the i am ij system and scroll through -- icij system and if

you have questions, you could ping the reporters. it was fascinating collaboration in journalism. host: our greg miller, one of the people working on the pandora papers, as they are known. wilhelm in the maryland, -- will in maryland, you are next. caller: yes, this is will helm, from missouri, and [indiscernible] we need a china market, and we need to build back better. how do you do that? host: ok, i do not know if this directly addresses what we are talking about, we will go to dennis in wisconsin. democrats line. caller: hey, great, how are you doing? guest: good, thank you. caller: ok, i just had a couple questions. first one is, the guy that just previously asked, you guys said you do not remember the

question, how much of this ties back to the rothschilds and george soros? guest: we do not find george soros in the filed, nor did we find information on the rothschilds. we do not quite find stuff on bill gates. as figure trove this is with 12 million records, it is still just a fraction of the offshore system, and, so, we had to work with the material we had, even though we would have loved to have found many other names in these documents. host: leaders from nepal highlighted in "the post" story, leaders from mexico, venezuela, just part of the reporting you will find that "the washington post" website when you look at the pandora papers project. donald in alexandria, virginia, independent line. caller: hi, thanks for c-span. if i remember correctly around

seven years ago, when the government got access to swiss bank accounts, they asked people who had accounts there if they voluntarily revealed they had an account there, they said they would not be criminal prosecution, they would only have to pay for the interest on the amount of money they had. do you recall that? why did that happen? guest: you know, i am not sure i am completely familiar with that specific case, but there have been many efforts in recent years involving switzerland to try to work with swiss authorities to recover assets for mold were two, even from nazi germany, that were sheltered in swiss accounts -- assets from world war ii, even from nazi germany, that were sheltered in swiss accounts.

there has been some effort at reconciling some of these horrendous crimes in the past. host: any discussions on the source material itself been available to the public? guest: i think large parts of it will be available over time. icij has done that with previous materials, including the panama papers, so i think to a large degree, readers will be able to dig in on their own and have a look. host: i know you do not speak directly for the icij. how are they financially backed into supports them? guest: they were listing donations as a nonprofit and sourcing donations as the stories were published. i am sure they are very transparent and you can find that answer on the website. host: from chesterfield, virginia, democrats line, good morning. caller: good morning.

i would like to ask, whatever happened to that money that was found in saddam hussein's palace walls? there were about three tractor trailer loads, most of them were cash and the rest of it was gold bonds. thank you. guest: i am afraid i do not know the answer to that one. host: you mentioned the king buying property. what purchases were done to hide ? guest: in his case, he was purchasing really expensive real estate in california and elsewhere, but i think we also, there is a fascinating case involving someone who alluded relics from historic relics, ancient relics from cambodia and used offshore accounts there,

there were many, many reasons to use offshore accounts, and we try to write about a great number of them. host: mary is in alexandria, virginia. independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. i wanted to get mr. miller's opinion about some of these tax proposals that the democrats are putting out there now to tax the rich and to tax $600 bank transactions. what do you make of that when you have this enormous amount of wealth out there that is being untracked? guest: i cannot say i am familiar with that proposal, but, obviously, one of the fundamental facts revealed by the pandora papers and the panama papers is that the offshore system costs

governments, including the u.s. government, many billions of dollars, if not trillions of dollars over the long term and lost tax revenues. when individuals who are the wealthiest of the wealthy can hide assets in different jurisdictions, where there is a negligible tax rate, and other ordinary taxpayers are much less able to do that, it really worsens the economic imbalance, this widening gulf between the have and have-nots in society. it is a huge reason everyone should care about. host: for the reporting you have done on the king of jordan and other people specifically named, what responses have you heard from the jordanian government or other sources? guest: the jordanian government, i mentioned in one of the stories we published today, that they actually hired a high-priced law firm, hired a crisis pr firm to manage the

follow-up. they have tried to suppress the news and jordan. there are news organizations and jordan that have tried to cover the issue and have been contacted by the jordanian intellect service and told to take stories down. there is an enormous effort to suppress it. the king talked about it briefly and said this is a plot by my enemies to try to discredit me, which is not the case, that he has tried to diminish this as something that outsiders are engaged in to try to undermine him, rather than answering questions about why he needed shell companies to make these purchases, and whether and where that money came from is a huge, unanswered question. host: we will hear from rob in kansas, democrats line. caller: good morning. mr. miller, appreciate your reporting on this topic, but, what have they found on probably

the most corrupt man whoever ran the united states, donald j. trump? he promised for four years he would release his taxes. never did. and the guy caused an insurrection. i am not worried about george soros, they are not a threat to our democracy, but certainly donald trump was and still is to this day. when are we ever going to come up with anything on this guy that is damming enough so the people who follow him, in a cultlike fashion, will wake up and say this guys bad for our country and democracy? host: rob in kansas, thank you. guest: obviously, i think donald trump was probably one of their first names you looked for the pandora trove. his name does service with the hotel deal in panama, but we did not find any real documents that substantiate trump's finances or wealth. of course, other news

organizations and "the post" have spent a lot of effort digging into this issue and have reduced extensive material on this, the assets of his tax returns are out and "the new york times" did a ground breaking series on how trump handled his taxes over many years. one of my colleagues from "the washington post and quote has basically been on that -- "the washington post" has been on the donald trump beat for the past years, of which he has produced fascinating stories for documenting the way the trump family allegedly abused charities and treated subordinate employees. there is a lot of coverage. the extent to how that affects readers -- leaders and voters is not something that is our concern as opposed to other news organizations who are just trying to get the information out. host: katy, texas, willie,

republican line. caller: good morning morning, mr. miller and c-span. i have to say, as an international investigative reporter, you did a lot of due diligence in this pandora papers case that apparently, as you said, carries no criminal penalty. tell me, did you pass up all the criminal activity on the fake trump russia hoax your paper pushed really hard? your investigation, how is your investigation going into people like brenner, ok? how is that investigation going? that was a foreign issue, as well, and then your paper won a pulitzer prize, please, answer those questions. guest: i am happy to answer those questions. it is right that "the washington post" won a pulitzer prize for coverage of trump's entanglement

with russia and russia's interference in the 2016 election. i was one of the lead reporters on those stories. you can find every single one on the pulitzer website. i would invite readers to read through them. if you can find anything that is inaccurate, please call it to my attention or to the attention of "the washington post for her coat although stories were accurate and have stood up -- "the washington post." although stories have stood up and were substantiated. by the way, i would mention that one of the centerpiece stories in that package add to do with the obama administration and how it is handled russia's interference in 2016. host: from illinois, democrats line, jane, you are next for greg miller of "the washington post." caller: good morning, mr. miller. thank you for your reporting. my question is, how does this affect the ordinary taxpayers? couldn't the king of jordan just by the west coast property out

of hand and not had this problem? of course, this does finish the leaders that we follow all over the world, does itguest: thank e question. i have gotten it a lot. it comes down to, are the stories about the super rich, what they do with their wealth? that has happened from time immemorial. how does this affect me? we really try to address this question head on in our coverage, connecting this issue to readers, citizens, to the public. i would say a couple of quick things. when you can hide money overseas in offshore companies, it undermines investigators who are trying to solve crimes that affect us. it undermines the tax base of

the governments we rely on, whether it is here in the u.k., or the united states. it fundamentally undermines accountability. it makes it harder for ordinary people like yourself to hold your elected officials, or if you are a jordanian, your ruler, king abdullah, when you don't even have access to the information. how would this picture be different if transparency laws were such that we knew comprehensively what all of our elected officials, what their assets were, account number, knew and had confidence that, when there were cases of corruption, would surface through that scrutiny. it may seem like a distant

problem taking place in tiny jurisdictions far away from all of us, but it really does connect back to us. host: greg miller is part of the washington post, a part of many journalist who worked on these papers. how many more stories do you expect to come out of this from you specifically? guest: from me, i'm not sure. we spent a year on this. i worked on four stories that were a part of the package that was published this week. we are following up on those. there are a couple of other subjects i am pursuing connected to the pandora trove. it is such an enormous collection of documents that i think it will be, will take quite a long time for not only the post, but other news organization to were a part of this partnership, to finish going through all of. host: thank you for your time today.

that is all for us today. we are going to a hearing with elected officials and others testifying on the cyber ninjas audit of the presidential vote. live coverage is set start momentarily on c-span, c-span.org, and you can also watch with our new video app. see you tomorrow. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2021] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] chairwoman maloney: welcome, everyone to today's hybrid hearing. pursuant to house