"presidential recordings." >> season one focuses on the presidency of lyndon johnson. you'll hear about the 1964 civil rights act, the 1964 presidential campaign, the gulf of tonkin incident, the march on salma and the war in vietnam. not everyone knew they were being recorded. >> certainly, johnson's secretaries knew because they were tasked with transcribing many of those conversations. in fact, they were the ones who made sure that the conversations were taped as johnson would signal to them through an open door between his office and theirs. >> you'll also hear some blunt talk. >> jim. >> yes, sir. mr. president johnson: i want to know how many people assigned to president kennedy the day he died and mine.

>> "presidential recordings" find it on the c-span now mobile app or wherever you get your podcast. >> washington journal c. host: we are joined from mandan, north dakota. former senator heidi heitkamp is with us to talk about rural voters in the 2022 election. good morning, senator. guest: good morning, how are you? host: good morning. your one country project is to look at issues important to rural voters. you are the founder. talk about it and what your mission is doing. guest: i want to start out by giving people a history lesson of the politics of the great plains. 20 years ago you had tom daschle, tim johnson, senators from south dakota. you at max baucus.

you had a good list in the great plains in terms of united states senators. that is all but evaporated. there's only one left in the great plains, and that is john castor -- that is john kester, and he is fortunate enough to have the mountain region in montana he needs to get over the finish line electoral relate. -- electorally. you have to ask is a democrat and as an american what has happened in the great plains and what has happened in rural america, whether it is the rural south or the mid-atlantic region where we see pennsylvania going hard red, what has happened in those reasons that has -- in those regions that has turned people? the easy answer is it is all about donald trump. that is not true. we started losing votes during the tea party revolution right

after barack obama was elected and we have not been able to regain our footing since then. when i was unable to get reelected in 2018, just one statistic for your viewers, when i was elected in 2012, probably about 20% of republicans would cross over and vote for a democrat. when i ran into any 18, that number -- when i ran in 2018, that number dribbled -- that number dwindled to 4%. when that number gets low, democrats cannot get elected in a state like mine. it is important rural america not be one party america. we started the one country project. it was to reintroduce the democratic party to rural

america and rural america to the democratic party. host: do think over the course of the years the policies of the democratic party have fallen out of favor with rural americans, or rural americans themselves have changed their views? guest: i think it is the emphasis. it is not the policy. the economic policies of the democratic already are much more favorable to rural america. where we get into challenges is when this becomes about defunding the police or about transgender bathrooms for all the cultural issues. then rural americans say that is not something that looks like me. when rural americans vote strictly culture on these issues is when we begin to see serious erosion of democratic support in rural america. i think we have to understand that we have to do a better job explaining our position on cultural issues.

it does not mean we cannot persuade a few people, but we also have to be much more aggressive on outlining our economic plans. a great example is build back better, which has amazing provisions for housing, for rural daycare. these are issues that are challenging your -- challenging role america and the growth of rural america. republicans are sitting on the sidelines. we should be talking about how we are going to revitalize rural america, not just broadband. i get tired of everybody saying broadband, broadband, broadband. it is about more than broadband. it is about economic opportunities and helping our seniors, helping our rural health care and looking at rural education and making sure it is high-quality. these are things the democratic party has long stood for. once we explain our economic agenda in the democratic party,

i think we can win back some of those votes. do i think we are going to become a majority party in rural america? now. -- no. i get criticized for that. i want to return to a world where rural america will at least consider voting for democrat. host: how is your one country project funded and give us an idea on how you're trying to reintroduce the democratic party to rural america? guest: i was fortunate. you cannot spend billions of dollars on a senate race in north dakota. at the end of my senate race i had donors from all over, including the state of north dakota, many of them small dollar donors that believe my voice was an important voice in the united states senate. unfortunately i was not able to

get reelected. i am a former attorney general my state that i did a lot of nonprofit supervision work. i thought about those times and i thought the best thing you can do if you have money people have given you in a nonprofit setting , which is what a political campaign is, is to figure out what was the intent of those people and how can i honor that intent? i thought the intent was to win more elections, and how can i honor that, i could honor that by helping the democratic party do better in rural america, which is a place i believe i have some level expertise. if you set go into the inner cities in minneapolis and figure out a political campaign, that is not my life and certainly not what i know about. michael was to form an organization that raise the awareness of the critical electoral importance of rural america to the democratic party.

i started out doing a lot of pulling, a lot of election analysis and sounded the alarm saying you think you can just talk to suburban housewives -- not housewives -- but suburban women and suburban people. you think you can just talk turbine folks -- to urban folks? you can do what you did in virginia which is perform well in those areas but lose massively in rural areas. the first thing was to elevate the importance of rural america and rural votes in the democratic party, and then to talk about issues that are much more nuanced. people say will not win those votes because of this and that. a lot of it is charge rising rural people in ways that are not very fair. my argument is we used to win,

why aren't we winning now? let's take responsibility yourselves and not blame the voters. the customer is always right. how do we find common ground? the next step was to begin to talk about what role america wants. we named this project one country because people said shouldn't it be the rural project, and i said no. what people in rural america want is the same thing a cabdriver in new york once, a reinsurance -- in new york wants, and insurance salesperson in suburbia wants. they want good insurance for their kids, they want physical security which is a big part of what we are experiencing right now with the erosion of democratic support in many areas that they're hoping to maintain that support.

the problem is rural delivery has to be done differently and we have to talk to people. i will give you a statistic from a57% of rural voters expressed the opinion that democrats don't know anything about rural america. i get that. the good news is in all of this 50% said republicans don't get our challenges. i think it's time to understand the challenges. not do to people but with people and to do that we have to have a conversation. host: heidi heitkamp served as one term a senator from north dakota. talking about her new one country project. we welcome your calls and comments. the senators are for rural residents, (202)-748-8000. all others use (202)-748-8001. if you do not want to call you

can text at (202)-748-8003. senator, how much of a priority do you think rebuilding rural democrats, rebuilding support among rural americans is, for the national party and the campaign committees, how high a priority do you think that is? guest: it has been frustrating to me to kind of watch this from a distance from north dakota and think about the opportunities that have been missed by the democratic party to tell people what they are about and what they mean. i have had conversations about the medium whether it is facebook. where is rural america getting their ads? guess what?

they are getting impressions from fox news and they are getting impressions from friends on facebook and they are getting their impressions from local radio. there is three places we could do a better job communicating and people say, well, i don't want to go on fox news, they are biased. when you go on fox news and make a persuasion argument guess what? people listen. i think that we have got to be more willing to explore discussions in areas of the media that people are comfortable. you know, i am somebody who appreciates and understands what goes on on msnbc but you are preaching to the choir. when you send out a tweet guess what? you are preaching to the choir. people are going to read that tweet are the 10% who are politically active who really follow it day to day.

if you want a sustained message, you have to find the right medium and the right message. to me the right message is talking to friends and neighbors, doing the kinds of things you can do one-on-one in local settings. i used to talk about the local coffee shop and this happens in suburban and urban america. but in places like north dakota people used to get together always in a minority. democrats were the minority and they would engage in lively debate about what is happening with corn prices and why it is happening or ethanol. what is happening with the local school. there was always a diversion. opinions were not identical and there was not a debate but definitely a conversation. guess what is happening in rural america?

none of those conversations. they have been muted and muted may be by the trump influence of you are either with us or against us and if you are not with us, you are not american. a lot of democrats and may be in rural america who did not like this president are not really engaging in the debate. we have to get them back into the debate as neighbors one-on-one, having a conversation so that we don't leave this just to republicans. by that i may not just normal republicans but trump republicans. host: you mentioned jon tester from montana. there is also joe manchin from mostly rural state. what is your opinion of joe manchin's role being in the middle between getting the biden administration getting the agenda through? guest: you know, i have expressed strong opinions.

those people who know me know that joe manchin is a dear friend of mine. one of my closest friends in the senate. i think he is an incredibly earnest and capable public servant. he got himself reelected in a state that voted almost 40% for the president. everybody who wants to beat on him i would remind you there would not be any opportunity to do any of this, including the $1 trillion infrastructure bill, if not for joe. he represents a conservative democrat point of view and in some ways that old-school democrat that had a broader perspective. this is what is happening in both political parties. they have been driven further to the respective ends of the polar extremes by primaries, by

gerrymandering, but mainly by the engagement of very vocal people on either side. and so, if you want to know what i think has been the mistake the last year it has been democrat on democrat violence. by that i mean the focus on joe manchin. my goodness, why isn't there focus on ron johnson? why isn't there focus on pat toomey? places where the president won elections in pennsylvania and wisconsin. places where the democratic party is driving states with democratic governors. why is there emphasis on getting them to explain to us why they don't want to help with daycare cost? why they don't want to help with housing cost? we are so focused on turning our ammunition on each other that we have forgotten that is not the opposition. the opposition is the republican party and the stakes are high not just for an economic agenda.

the stakes are incredibly high and people who know me know that in 2020 we basically escaped an erosion, almost permanent erosion, of our democracy. if we want to go back to the era of the four years where autocracy was on the table, let's keep fighting among democrats. let's start talking about what the other side does not stand for, with the other side is not doing, and let's quit focusing on each other. host: our line for rural residents (202)-748-8000. let's get to calls. toledo, ohio and diane is on the line. good morning. caller: good morning, senator heitkamp. i saw your lively debate with chris christie this week with whoever and i really want to talk about the salt. the local tax deduction thing.

$80,000 for deductions? who pays that kind of state and local taxes besides wealthy people or extremely high middle-class people? it just feels like that is the one series giveaway to wealthy people that is in their when you are being provisional with what people are allowed to get, mostly child related. i heard a young lady on the previous segment speak about her situation in middle-class, lost the job with covid, and i can kind of relate to stuff like that. i am lower middle class. i feel like we are just helping to pay the bills. we don't qualify for anything either, not that i am looking for a handout, but it feels like one idea i have not heard anybody raise is to stop the sales and local tax and instead raising the standard deduction.

it feels like everyone would benefit from a raise of the standard deduction. may be double it. make it $25,000 per individual and get rid of the whole provisional thing in the build back better. make it one simple line item thing. raise the standard deduction. everyone benefits, everybody gets something, and everybody can choose how to spend that additional money they get to simply hang onto. that is just a thought. host: thank you. guest: the first thing i want to say -- diane right? host: yes. guest: you already know more about taxes then 50% of the people. [laughs] i should not be so mean but i want to unpack what you said. the deduction, i agree with you. i think $80,000 is too high and

that leaves the democrats open to the debate you saw on sunday saying, this is a millionaire tax cut. what really is interesting about the deduction is that it was done to punish blue states. blue states that tax their residents a fairly high rate to deliver more services and those services basically help build communities. southern states do not tax the residents at that level and consequently receive greater subsidization from the federal government. what i was trying to say is if you want to segregate regionally this country in terms of taxa fiscal policy, you have got to be very careful. medicaid is one of the biggest cost centers for state and local governments. poor states, states with lower per capita income, basically get 80% federal payment where states

like new york and states with higher per capita income get a lower rate of 50%. there is a huge subsidization. i think it is really challenging when you look at regionalization of fiscal policy which is what salt is which is why i disagree with what congress did. with that said it was probably the only progressive part of the trump tax cut and it really did affect higher income earners much higher. i want to talk a little bit about the standard deduction and for full disclosure i spent the better part of my professional career as a tax lawyer and as the tax commissioner of north dakota. standard deductions are based on your filing status not the number of people in your community. when the administration, the trump administration, revised the tax structure they got rid of personal exemption and those are the ones you used to get per household member.

but what they did do is raise -- they were increased standard deduction which drove more people out of itemization along with the salt cap. she is not wrong. you could do a lot of good things by giving higher deduction to moderate income folks who don't necessarily qualify for the earned income tax credit, although i would argue that is something we should be looking at seriously increasing, the child credit. pretty high income levels on the child credit. most people will not get the child credit. i think the question is, how much do you want to create a more equal world using the tax structure we have right now? the american people not wrongly believe when you create a more complex structure what you end up with is a huge loophole and

huge advantage to rich people who can hire tax lawyers. i think that is absolutely true. and so, you know, i think she should run for congress and talk about these great proposals and talk to her congress people about these proposals. on the salt adduction i think that rate will get lowered from $80,000. i think $80,000 is excessive but when you're getting around the $10,000, $15,000, $20,000 you will see were itemized filers in the lower income brackets. people who are itemizing are very wealthy people. host: the organization is the one country project focusing on rural voters. jim in new york. good morning. caller: good morning. heidi, you mentioned something at the beginning. you said a conservative democrat. that is a paradox.

i don't think there are conservative democrats. there is a saying that says, the economy is stupid. it is the policies that the liberal democratic party are promoting that has turned them away from the rural voter. the gun rights, i can think of every desperate group you guys support whether it is lgbtq, critical race theory, indoctrination in public school system. these are why rural voters have turned away and nothing you say is going to pull us back and let you start promoting an agenda that is more favorable to people that have conservative viewpoints and are being pushed out of the big tech. you can do all you want but if you don't do some things to change the policies you have, he will never get rural voters back. guest: you know, i think most

people who followed my career in the senate knew that i was a supporter of the second amendment. i believe one of the reasons gun owners react so, kind of, politically react to the proposals is they feel like they are getting blamed for owning a gun for all of the problems that are happening across america. i think we need to better understand. i once said to a group of people, you know how you feel about your reproductive rights? that's how people in my community feel about their right to own a firearm and be responsible with a firearm. i get exactly what you are saying. if the democratic policies regarding the gay, lesbian, transgender, bisexual, queer community that says we should not discriminate and they should be protected like every american

citizen, i don't believe rural americans disagree with that. the question is, what gets emphasized is not that position. what gets emphasized is who goes to what kind of bathroom when that should be a local decision in my opinion. i want to say, look, obviously this person has strongly held opinions about cultural issues. there is some difference between democrats and republicans on these issues and i think a lot of those have been exploited rather than bringing people together. abortion rights are an interesting place to examine. abortions went down in this country and we know we could virtually eliminate a lot of demand for abortion if we created areas where we were providing free contraception.

but that has been prevented by conservative republicans who say, we don't want to prevent it. we just want to tell people what to do. but the real issue here is we are not having that dialogue. people like our viewer from new york is watching fox news and saying, see? they believe in critical race theory, they believe in defunding the police. that is not true but if we don't go out there and say this is what we believe in, we don't believe any person regardless of sexual orientation should be discriminated against, should have the opportunity to live a healthy life -- transgender individuals are frequently targeted and the murder rate among transgender individuals is too high. that is being driven a lot by attitudes. you know, i think there is room for discussion. are we going to win the hearts

and minds of everyone in rural america? no. are we going to win back some of those people who share those human values we can talk about but are very concerned we have gone too far as democrats? i think we can win them back. host: let's go to connie in havana, illinois. caller: good morning. nice to talk to you. i am from rural america. i was born in a farmhouse 73 years ago. i think you are kind of missing the mark on how rural america thanks. we don't all watch fox news. i don't. i get almost everything from c-span. i actually watch you in action. i think with rural people value our independence. we are not stupid. we have high iqs also. we have careers. i think what bothers me is we

don't want to be dependent on the government. every giveaway program costs us money. when i hear pete buttigieg say he wants a national gas tax i think, we have to drive 50 miles to a big hospital or to go to work. that is going to affect us. and all the new, green energy -- we are stewards of the earth but when the car was invented the government did not say, ok, everybody shoot your horse in the head. you have to allow transition. i look at big farm equipment in the field. what are they going to do? we have to allow for transition and i think you just missed the mark. rural people are more independent, we value our independence, and we don't need the government to take care of us. host: thank you, connie. senator heitkamp? guest: i grew up in a town of 90 people.

my family was 1/10 of the population. i grew up with rural people and i know they are not stupid and i know they are independent. but i also know they are interdependent in this economy. by that i mean if we did not focus on rural health care, if we did not do things like provide for critical access hospitals in rural areas she is talking about, if we did not provide for medicaid expansion -- states that did not do medicaid expansion lost the rural hospital. now people have to drive 50, 60, 70 miles to have a child. to suggest i don't know about rural america i think does not understand my experience and what i have seen over a long time in my career. we are interdependent. we cannot say we are somehow more independent, more virtuous

than people who live in other parts of this country because when we do that we continue to further divide this country. rural america is a place that is struggling. it has higher rates of poverty, it has higher rates of health care challenges, in part because we have let the rural health care structure erode. it has higher rates of cost structures for heating fuel. she is right. i disagree with anyone who does not understand -- i think it is interesting when people say inflation, yeah the gas prices have gone up. well, do you understand how you farm? you farm with hydrocarbon. you farm with diesel fuel and hopefully with mild fuels. i get it but i think there is this attitude that somehow we can maintain rural america without focus and emphasis on

how we are going to build it back better. i think the results are already in. the trendlines are in. farms are getting bigger, small farmers are getting pushed out, small manufacturing concerns have been hurt by tariffs in the last of administration. if living rural america alone is the strategy, i think that is a strategy for failure long-term. host: stan calling from silver bay, minnesota. good morning. caller: good morning. host: you are on the air. caller: thank you very much. i would like to mention to the former senator i have always tried to be open to have a discussion with the democrats, progressives but every time i try i am hollered at, my decals are ripped off the vehicles. there is no discourse with your

progressive democrat party. they want control. they want to shove their ideas in our faces and down our throats and it started the day with 90% negative coverage with trump and has not let up. you are just furthering the bad discourse by blaming things on trump. he is not president anymore. let biden accept where he is at. as far as i'm concerned we should be examining biden for his china connections and ukrainian connections. host: senator heitkamp? guest: i think first thing, the progressive wrath is not just limited to talking to folks like you. [laughs] i think i have probably experienced that as much or in a

much more aggressive way than a lot of people in this country. i understand that the all or nothing perspective of so many people on both the right and the left is what is hurting this country. this idea that this is all just progressives. let me tell you, you could come down to any coffee shop in north dakota and if i express a progressive point of view, you can tell me how this aggression is just limited to progressives. it is about dialogue and there are people on both sides who are unwilling to hear any other perspective but their own. and that is true. i don't do both sides very often but i know there are people on both sides. they are not the people who can be persuaded or will help build back the country. they are the people who will sit on the sidelines and create

litmus test for who is good and bad. i will not back off my position that much of the behavior of the previous president has exacerbated this condition. he did not create it. i think i set on the front end of my discussion this was basically an erosion that was happening over a long time, not just donald trump. but donald trump made the coarseness of the dialogue possible. i will debate that with anyone. to suggest that this is not, in part, this division has not been exacerbated by the previous president is wrong. where i will agree with you is he is not president anymore. now it is incumbent upon all of us to step up and fill that void

and try to figure out how we are going to develop that dialogue. to the extent the country continues to be divided, continues to see these kinds of rancor and callousness in conversation, that is on democrats now to try to fix. when you don't listen to people -- and some people don't want to be heard. i get that. express your opinion but if you are persuadable and you want to solve problems, i think there is plenty of people who want to do that. host: next is sulfur, north carolina, howard. caller: hi, top of the morning. i want to talk a little bit -- i don't know if this is critical race theory -- but i remember history that john wilkes booth went to a theater and assassinated abraham lincoln.

he was a democrat or dixiecrat, klansmen, and he was trying to destroy the republican party. trump also was a dixiecrat but he turned republican and his parents were also klansmen. the apple don't fall far from the tree. do you think trump succeeded in doing something john wilkes booth tried to do to restore the republican party? guest: i don't know that that is true. i don't think that was trump's motivation. i think trump's motivation -- i don't think of trump as a democrat or republican or even partisan. i see him as an opportunist. i don't think he has closely held beliefs. people who support him say they support him because of his position on reproductive rights. he was uber pro-choice before he

ran on the republican ticket. he is a chameleon who will change his spots. where i think trump was dangerous is he gave the various dangerous elements, whether it was 3%ers, the proud boys, these right-wing militia groups, he gave them permission. when he said standby, standdown and standby, that was a dog whistle. host: those militia groups, do you see evidence of those being active in your state in north dakota? guest: you know, we have a history, klan history. during the early 1980's we had probably one of the highest profile kinds of events. we always had a more militant underbelly but i don't really see those groups in north dakota the way you would see them

gathering in places like charlottesville. we are fortunate there. we are pretty peaceful group up here. so i don't see them gathering in places like north dakota but i do believe they have been ignited and that is why i think the january 6 commission -- i have to say this. people like your previous caller would say, it is just a partisan job. there was opportunity to do a bipartisan commission which was fashioned after the 9/11 commission. the republicans refused to do that so now we are at this committee. i think it is critically important we get to the bottom of this because i think there is a movement in this country that is an underbelly ignited by president trump. but i do think president trump's

goal in any way, shape or form was to destroy the republican party. i think it was to gather to himself economic and political power. host: let's get a couple more calls. barry in harrison, michigan. caller: good morning. i look at this indifferent eyes with this progressive stuff. i look at as fulfilling the promise run made years ago that this was supposed to trickle. it never did and i think this is a way of making it trickle down. i look at this a little different. i just don't think -- the republicans, they don't want to help anybody and the democrats if they help somebody, they want you stuck there forever. for lots of us out here it makes no difference which party is in there. thank you. i appreciate c-span. guest: i certainly appreciate

what he has been saying. we have rising levels of income and wealth inequality. we talk about income inequality but where we really have challenges is in wealthy inequality. are we going to address that or continue on this path? we saw in the 1920's what happened when we did not address it. i get asked what is the difference between the democrat party and the republican party and i say the founding principle of the democratic party is when you invest in people, whether it is making sure they stay healthy, they have access to good education, making sure they are secure in their homes and can afford to put a roof over their head and food in the pot. when we invest in human beings like we did with the g.i. bill, like we did with modernizing our health care, we

grow the economy and we grow opportunity and we grow equality in this country. where i don't agree with every part of the progressive agenda -- i was once criticized because people asked me if i would support free college tuition and i said no. they looked at me and i said, if i had those kinds of resources to allocate, i am going to allocate them to young children whether it is pre-k, education, whether it is daycare, whether it is making sure they get a healthy start because we know that early start is critical for the ability to actually prepare to go to college. i don't agree with every progressive agenda but it is interesting in public opinion polls how highly regarded some of the biden build back better agenda is and why that doesn't translate to political support. i would say he hit the nail on the head your caller. they are all the same. nothing ever changes even though you do this.

i think there is some truth to that but there is also some points that i could disagree whether it was on social security, providing that safety net for seniors that was devised by democrats and opposed by republicans, whether it is medicare and medicaid and child health insurance. i mean, these are programs that have actually benefited many people. we just forget where the programs came from. host: we will go to sergio in florida. caller: good morning, bill. how are you? host: fine thank you. caller: good morning, senator. how are you? guest: i'm good. caller: my question is this. i am a democrat and strong supporter of the democratic party. i would like the democrats and republicans to work together and stop this nonsense.

i do not like former president and i do not like our governor ron desantis. it is causing friction and hatred and not working together for the people. i mean, how can we work together? how can you fix that? host: senator heitkamp, if you focus on the senate and how it may be different in terms of working together than when you were there. guest: i think it is a continuation of the same erosion. what i would tell you is that the quest for political power has eclipsed the responsibility that civic leaders have for actually getting the work in the senate done. i think we can't forget that there were a number of senate republicans who voted for the infrastructure package. there were a number of house republicans who voted for the

infrastructure package and promptly got death threats from the or right and extreme members of the republican party. we have to have statesmen and states women get elected. people who want to get the job of governing done. how do we do that? we reward people who get things done. it is interesting. when i ran i assumed if i got things done for my state that reelection would be difficult but not impossible. i did things like a major dodd frank reform bill for community banks that i lead and that was bipartisan. we did a major initiative for the oil industry that was seeing their oil getting locked up and not be able to export which was putting a strain on my jobs in the oil patch and putting increasing oil prices. we were able to get that done in a bipartisan way. but the question is when you do those things, when you get two

bills passed, what is the political reality? the political reality is people are voting political party and that results. we have to get people to opening their minds to vote results. vote out people not getting things done. that is the movement we need in this country. we need to go back to civil discourse in our political discourse and does not stand and simply point the finger at each other but says, this is all of our problem, this is all of our responsibility. i frequently say this. the leaders of the senate have become political leaders and not leaders of the institution. we have to get back to leaving the institution. host: the organization is the one country project. founder former senator heidi heitkamp. >> the house is back at 3:30 eastern time. to debate bills on cybersecurity, the opioid

epidemic and h.p.v. vaccines. later in the week the house expected to take up legislation to provide short-term government spending. current funding expires friday night. when the house is back in session you can find live coverage here on c-span. >> wednesday, the supreme court hears a case on the constitutionality of the mississippi law banding most abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. live coverage of oral argument at 10a.m. eastern on c-span3. online at c-span.org. or watch coverage on c-span now, our new video app. : it is open n washington journal. your chance to weigh in on any public policy issue. (202)-748-8000 is the line for democrats, (202)-748-8001 for republicans, and for all others (202)-748-8002. we will start with the media