testifies on sexual misconduct in the national reserves. watch live on c-span or on c-span now, our free mobile video app. c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we are funded by these television companies and more, including comcast. >> comcast is partnering with 1000 community centers to create a wi-fi-enabled centers, so families can get the tools they need to be ready for anything. >> comcast supports c-span as a public service, a along with these other television providers, giving a front row seat to democracy. >> coming up this morning, republican congressman toby harrison -- congressman jodey arrington of texas discusses the biden administration's handling of the pandemic and the economy.

plus, a discussion of the medical bills that women place this month, with patricia kelmar. later, michael waldman discusses voting rights and election integrity issues. "washington journal" his next. ♪ host: good morning. it's wednesday, january 19th, 2022. the house returns at 10 a.m. eastern this morning. on the senate floor, the debate over new voting rights legislation. an expected vote sometime this evening that is expected to end in a showdown over the senate filibuster rule. ahead of that action, question for our audience voting in the u.s. day. what is more important to you. the goal of expanding voter access?

the number, (202) 748-8000. if you think the goal of a protecting election integrity is most important, (202) 748-8001. you can send us a text of this morning, that number is (202) 748-8003. if you do, please include your name and where you're from. otherwise, catch up with us on social media. on twitter, @cspanwj. facebook, facebook.com/c-span. you can start calling in now on this question of conducting elections in this country. a topic we will be hearing more from the president of the united states about at his press conference scheduled for 4 p.m. eastern today. timing that will give the president something of a last word to senators before they had for their vote on this voting rights legislation expected to take place sometime in the 6:00 p.m. hour this evening. yesterday chuck schumer spoke to

reporters and fellow democrats about the strategy and message headed into today's voting rights showdown. [video clip] >> if the senate cannot protect the right to vote, the senate rules must be reformed. must be reformed. if the republicans block cloture on the legislation before us, i will put forward a proposal to change the rules to allow for a talking filibuster on this legislation as recommended by a number of our colleagues who have been working on this reform for a long time. historically, changes to the senate rules [indiscernible] just that, address voting rights in a timely fashion, there is an opportunity to do exactly that, change the rules to promote public debate that is restoring of the senate possible long-standing speech limit.

we feel very simply that on something as important as voting rights if senate republicans are going to oppose it, they should not be allowed to sit in their office. they got to come down on the floor to defend their opposition to voting rights, the wellspring of our democracy. there is broad, strong feeling in the caucus about that. once members of the minority party have exhausted their speaking rights and resented their position on the senate floor the debate will have brought its course and the senate will move on final passage at a majority threshold, always the threshold for final passage. host: that was senate majority leader chuck schumer yesterday afternoon. the vote is expected to take place today sometime in the 6 p.m. hour. for more on that action we bring in stephen dennis, friend of this program. i have heard you say over the

years that the number one rule in politics is that when you have the votes, you vote. so as chuck schumer goes into the showdown over voting rights and the filibuster, does he have the votes? guest: he definitely does not and isn't likely to get them in the next few hours. you know, for more than a year joe manchin and chris -- kyrsten sinema have been crystal clear that they would not unilaterally as a democratic party support changing the 60 vote threshold to allow passage of a whole host of democratic priorities. not just voting rights. so, they have both reiterated their opposition to changing that threshold and it looks like we are going to get a lot of political theater today

culminating with maybe some kind of prime time debate and vote that looks like it will be 52-48, maybe one or two more democrats might join them on whether to have the rules change that would effectively carve out a simple majority threshold for this one big voting elections bill. host: can you explain briefly what a talking filibuster is? guest: yeah, so right now the filibuster looks nothing like the jimmy stewart filibuster from "mr. smith goes to washington." a senator puts in a call to the cloakroom and says they object to a bill and that can force very long delays in even getting to what is called a cloture vote to end the filibuster. so, you don't even have to come to the floor and speak.

you can, but most times if you are staring at the senate floor on c-span, you see empty floors. the idea here is that at least on this bill, if you wanted to stop a final vote, you would have to be on the senate floor talking. each senator is given to opportunities to talk on a russian and you would have potentially one hundred speeches from 50 republican senators trying to hold up the bill and eventually at the end of that you could have an up-or-down vote at some point in the future. the thing is if the final vote, if you don't have 51 on the final vote, it is kind of like a lot of talking with no endpoint. that is what schumer is trying to get done here, have an endpoint. the reality is, it's almost certain that he is not going to get to that endpoint.

this is almost certainly going to fail today. the question now is, what next for the democrats? their entire agenda is stalled at this point. their economic agenda was torpedoed by joe manchin in december and they are trying to cobble together a smaller package and most of their social agenda is opposed by republicans. everything from a big minimum wage increase to this voting package. minimum wage changes. there's a lot of things democrats want to do and the opposition from kyrsten sinema and joe manchin in these cases currently has them sort of chasing their own tail instead of what they want to be doing, which is getting ready for the election, uniting, having accomplishments to sell to the voters and so on. you have got the president

having a press conference this afternoon and he is, he's got a tough job, to, because he has got slumping poll ratings, people worried about inflation and his own party trying to figure out what they are going to do next. so, there is a lot going on. host: our final minute, here, can you just explain the calendar here and how it plays into the democrat agenda, this being an election year. how much time do democrats have to turn to something else and what are the options for them to turn to before members start focusing just on reelection? guest: i think they have some opportunities here. they have to pass an omnibus spending package with a february deadline for other shutdown fights and negotiations on having a bipartisan package there. there is talk between the

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

things outside of build back better with republicans, but they are not particularly interested in cutting a bunch of bipartisan deals before the midterm elections. they are pointing to the polls and talking enthusiastically about taking back congress next year and, you know, usually in that situation you are not falling all over yourself to help the other team pass some accomplishments they can run on. host: stephen dennis, bloomberg.com. his twitter -- @stephentdennisl always a good place for interesting zillah postings. [laughter] appreciate your time. guest: thank you. host: what are you most concerned about? access to polling? election integrity? that is what we are asking.

melissa, cleveland, tennessee, good morning, you are up first. caller: i'm more interested in access to voting. the government, or a certain political party that apparently cannot win fairly, are interested in denying access to the vote to people like me. they are going to try to restrict people like me, the kind of people who cannot wait in line for hours on end to vote. they cannot win fairly, so they are trying to retaliate by telling people like me that i'm going to, if i try to vote by mail, i'm some sort of criminal. if i try to be a human being and offer someone waiting in line a bottled water, without indicating any kind of political affiliation, somehow i'm a criminal. in tennessee, it's not a

misdemeanor but in georgia you can go to jail for offering someone water, apparently. i can't even imagine what it would be like if my skin was not white. dropbox is not within 10 miles of where you live. waiting for hours? are we going back to the days of poll taxes and intelligence tests? host: melissa, tennessee. doug, california, what's more important to you? caller: i disagree with the previous caller. in my state, california, the governor has decreed that ballots be mailed out to everybody. in my case i'm a permanent

absentee voter. not a problem at all, but the fact of the matter is that what the democrats are trying to do is federalize elections so that it can be controlled by their party so that the republicans will never, ever be able to be the majority again. that's kind of it in a nutshell. host: finn, washington, d.c., you are next. caller: i'm going to try to keep it short. good morning. it's pretty simple. the election integrity thing, if you look at yourself in the mirror, the people that believe in this real problem with our elections and people are out there casting fraudulent ballots , you know, just, when you are brushing your teeth this morning or looking in the mirror as you go to the bathroom, ask yourself, like, who are these americans you are talking about

that sit around and talk about how they are going to manipulate an election? where does that happen? when has that ever been like a part of any sort of plan by any group in america? we cannot get enough people to vote in this country as it is. that's the shameful part of it. we can't get people to vote, yet they want to continually cut access to the ballots and put up these, these allegations of voter fraud, make people believe there are things going on when there isn't. immigrants are out there voting in mass. that's the biggest one to me. same time you are brushing your teeth and looking in the mirror, if a person comes here illegally and they don't want to go back to the place they came from, why would they try to cast an illegal ballot to attract attention to themselves? if you fear that they are going to be a democratic voter when they someday become a legal citizen, maybe if you would have

better policies to attract them you wouldn't have to worry about that. host: rick, pennsylvania, you are next. rick, you are with us this morning. got to stick by your phone. this is linda in mississippi. good morning. caller: good morning, good morning. i think vote expansion is the most important part. voter integrity is fine. integrity is fine. until trump lost. he lost in a free and fair election. i live in mississippi. having a voter id is not the problem. the problem is if they put partisan in the state, where if i vote for someone and it's not

a republican, republicans can have the law tell me that my vote don't count. that whoever they want to be in his elected and that it's wrong. voter suppression, if they had a better idea instead of blocking and suppressing the vote, they would get more votes. host: that was linda, mississippi. we showed you chuck schumer yesterday afternoon. this is the minority leader from yesterday talking about democratic moves on the senate floor this week when it comes to the voting issue. [video clip] >> democrats want to rewrite the rules for political speech and have wanted to do so long before the events that are supposed to justify it. the democratic leader effort to break the senate predates the latest pretext. we have strong disagreements about the substance of these bills but more broadly we see

decreasing trust in our democracy among both political sides. we have a sitting president of the united states shouting that united states senators are on the side of old connor and jefferson davis for refusing to shatter the senate. was the senate created to make these kinds of factional fevers worse? or to help break fevers? does the senate exist to help narrow majorities -- none divisions or to force broad coalitions to build bridges? this fake hysteria does not prove the senate is obsolete. it proves the senate is as necessary as ever. host: senate minority leader mitch mcconnell, yesterday on the senate floor. we will be hearing more from him and from chuck schumer and their senate colleagues throughout the

day on this voting issue. all available to watch from gavel-to-gavel on c-span two coming in at 10 a.m. eastern today. arnold in smirnov, tennessee. you are next. what is more important to you in this debate? caller: the election integrity. have you, have you ever heard the following quote? those who cast the votes decide nothing? those who count the votes decide everything? have you ever heard that quote? host: who said that, arnold? caller: joseph stalin, according to many sources. what would be the purpose of ill ding a voting machine -- purpose of building a voting machine that does not count your vote? have you ever heard of that? host: so, arnold, do you trust

any elections right now? federal, state, local? caller: um until we get ways to verify the vote count, the totals, that there is a way to verify the tabulation of votes, but it's not being pursued. there's a documentary people need to watch called "uncounted," "the new math of american elections are co- it's from 2000 -- elections are ." you can watch it on youtube. it's got cliff curtis, computer programmer, and tom feeney, who tried to hire cliff curtis.

and there is a man from nashville called mason gibbs who was building electronic voting machines that would print you a paper receipt. it's a really good documentary. you can also find it. there is a second documentary that is like a spinoff from uncounted, the other documentary is called m m m m m m murder, spies, and voting lies and you will see a congressional hearing held in congress where they investigated what is known as vote flipping. host: arnold in tennessee with his recommendations. diane, you are next. caller: good morning, c-span.

i am for making sure everyone has an opportunity to vote and the reason i say that, being an african-american and native american, that right has been denied to me and to my people for a long time. until the voting rights act was passed in the 60's. but now it seems like after the 2020 election, where they say we got the most people out to vote and it was money of the most secure elections that was held, because none of the suits that were brought by the republican party went anywhere. then all of a sudden we get these new changes in the southern strategy to keep people of color from voting. this is what this is all about. they are not keeping white people from voting. when we talk about the fact that there was any kind of fraud in the election, how come nobody

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

"the racial progress democrats won't admit." he writes --

host: paul, kentucky. you are next. >> the democrats are the most corrupt organization on the planet. california did the same thing. they wanted voter id. they wanted all voter id. they wanted these drop boxes with no cameras or anything where everybody could put in as much, as many ballots as possible. everybody gets mail-in ballots. this is ridiculous. they want to cheat this country. the other thing, they do away with filibuster, i want the republicans to tell them, when they take over, they will have 100 carveout for the filibuster rule. what comes around, goes around. host: on mail-in ballots, what's

your concern? caller: then presidents want them to have no voter id. in texas they got the law. they don't want that. they want to make the law illegal. why would you want to do that? why would you want no voter id on any ballot? one thing the democrats want to do away with? why they want to do that for? in the states they want to make it illegal for illegal aliens to vote. one plus one equals two. host: that was paul in kentucky. dave, harrisburg, good morning. caller: good morning, c-span. i want to dispel some of the madness going on. on the question of voter

suppression versus voter integrity, the integrity is only being questioned by those who lost. the trump thing. like the woman said, all the down ballot guys on the republican side, they won their elections. as far as the pew research is concerned, i would say that black folks voted in spite of voter suppression. all it says is that the laws they are didn't succeed. not that they didn't try, but they didn't succeed. when it comes to, to voting, you register at all polling places. if it comes in from the mail or in person, it gets checked against the booklet. one vote per name. that's how it's done. i don't care if you use that

dropbox and put in 60,000 votes for one person. by the time the ballot is opened and checked against the books, the name gets one vote and if that name has an annotation besides it that says the voter already voted through the mail, they can't come in and vote again. that's how the system works. you know? this whole thing of voter integrity is, is, is a farce. you know? it's made up by people who, like the woman also said, you cannot realize how important the black vote is. seems every time this stuff comes up it's around race. you know? the numbers that don't come out is how many polling places are closed in black communities, you know? as opposed to white communities.

what you don't talk about is actually how many drop boxes were taken away in black communities as opposed to white communities. this thing is age-old. this dirty old trick from before. i mean we got cell phones that record movies, you know? yet we are trying to make like that woman from tennessee. she has issues. she can't walk to a voting place. why can't she send her vote in by mail? host: that was dave in pennsylvania. a couple of minutes left for this conversation. in the next half-hour we will be joined by jodey arrington from texas to chat with him through 8 a.m. eastern and then we will take this question back up at 8 a.m. if you didn't get in for this segment, go ahead and continue to call in throughout the program, this is a topic we will

be addressing throughout the show today. a couple of tweets and text messages from our viewers on this conversation this morning. this from mark in maryland, what interest is there that congress has an interest in integrity? sue says that voting rights are very important to her, but that she doesn't believe there is nationwide voter suppression or fraud. fix it but don't turn over more control to the federal government. a couple of other tweets and texts as well that you have been sending throughout the program this morning. the op-ed pages and news pages of "the washington post," with this issue of election integrity and voter suppression. this is a political cartoon from mike thompson in the pages of "usa today," a bus driven by an

elephant with the elephant asking the african-american woman in the back to keep backing up out the exit of the bus. this from the pages of "the washington post," story from ron desantis outlining a plan on a special police force to oversee state elections, the first of its kind in the nation. the governor opposing that through the office of election, crime, and security as part of the department of state in florida. we will talk about that more this morning as well. that will do it for this first segment but stick around, as we said, plenty more to talk about with jodey arrington up next. later this morning we will be talking with patricia kelm are about the new federal ban on surprise medical bills. stick around, we will be right back. ♪

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

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

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

massive amounts of spending and government money flooding the system. which is spreading that supply and demand gap even further. i think you have got policies that have encouraged people to stay home, so there is a major labor shortage. the best example of that i think is when the democrat policies were paying people more to stay at home with a plus up unemployment benefit than the salary they were making at the job they left. so, with the expansion of social services without work requirements, giving stimulus checks to people who were not impacted financially by covid, all of these things taken together have created a 40 high in inflation. people are living paycheck-to-paycheck, seven out of 10 americans and you have

about a $300 shortage every month in cash that people are use to having to take care of the needs of their families. it's about two paychecks over the last year taken together, about $3500. these are the issues the american people want this president to focus on and unfortunately, he hasn't and things have gotten worse in there is real despair out there. i want to add that the price of gas, the price to heat your home this went -- this winter is exponentially higher. not only because of the massive spending policies i mentioned, but because of the anti-fossil fuel agenda. i think everybody wants to transition and appreciates the stewardship of our environment, but having an affordable and abundant and safe supply of natural gas has been a blessing

for this country and we are starting to wake up to that notion after the policies of this administration that translated into higher costs at the pump and higher electricity bills in their homes. host: inflation rates are clearly a number republicans are focusing on and a number that democrats would point to, low unemployment rate at this point. is that a number that republicans are willing to give the president credit on, 12 months in? guest: well, you had 20 million people unemployed because of pandemic. i would say that he's way below expectations. i would like to give the president credit. i would like for our country to be in a spot where we are getting traction on something. whether it is crime, the border, inflation, economic recovery or national security. but with respect to

unemployment, if you look at the last month's job report, ok? december? 199,000 jobs? less than half of what economists predicted. so, we have seen a decline in labor participation among african-americans and hispanics when we had the lowest unemployment on that group on the heels of the tax cuts and regulatory reforms and economic policies of republicans. i think that this approach, the massive spending, proposing massive taxes on top of a sputtering economy with people feeling the pressure in the squeeze because of inflation, i think it is the wrong approach altogether and i think we could be doing much better than we are at this moment and i think most economists would say that and certainly i think if you asked, the real test is asking the american people, whose real

wages have decreased eight of the 12 months in 2021. this has got to be a better year and the president has to radically depart from his mo in 2021. it failed and there is still opportunity for a course correction. host: let me get the phone number for our viewers, jodey arrington with us, it's (202) 748-8000 free democrats, (202) 748-8001 for republicans, and independents it's (202) 748-8002 . david is up early in los angeles this morning. independent, go ahead. caller: i had a question for the congressman. he's trying to blame joe biden for inflation. inflation is affecting entire -- the entire world, other countries across the world, because have tripled.

which policy of joe biden's has affected other countries, like let's say bolivia or down in south america? how is joe biden's policies affecting other countries? thank you. host: congressman? guest: thank you for the comment in the question. i would like for our country to have higher aspirations than the resilience of the economy of bolivia. we have the very best, most robust, diverse economy. there is no excuse. you could say that the supply chains have impacted the supply demand gap that has also exacerbated inflation. i will grant that. but i will tell you that most economists would say that the labor shortage that was do to policies that trapped people on the sidelines because they were

incentivized to stay there, making more money than they did in their job, was a complete disaster. republicans offered amendments to those policies in their last so-called covid relief bill and they were rejected out of hand. always we said was we want to help people in this unprecedented time but let's target the people that need it the most and put controls in place so that we don't pay them more than they were making in their previous job. you had small businesses shuttered to because they couldn't hire enough people to service -- to serve as their employees. that's just one example. but whether it is quantitative easing, printing money at the reserve or the massive spending in the $2 trillion covid bill that was straight partisan, we had $1 trillion unspent from the previous bill. only one out of every $10 went to covid related issues.

that was a big mistake. we had an overheated economy where supply is short of demand and that is a direct result of those policies. main street, they will tell you they can't hire people and can't afford the input. my farmers in west texas, fertilizer costs have gone up over 300%. that's just one example of the inputs. prices are good, but if you net out all the inflated input costs, they are struggling like every other business. host: you touched on your concerns of the bill back better act. there is talk among democrats of splitting up the bill and possibly passing pieces of it that they can get support from republicans on. i wonder, is there any part of bill back better that you would support if broken into smaller chunks? guest: you know, i was for

temporary targeted relief and a snapback or a phase back to where we were before covid. which after the tax cuts, we had 6 million people lifted out of poverty. in addition to the lowest poverty rates, we had the highest wage increases in decades. highest household income increase on record. lowest unemployment. we were hitting on all cylinders and the reason why people did well is because economic growth lifts the boat of all people in this country. that would have been my tack taken if i had the pen on writing our economic recovery plan. this president has doubled down on policies that i think only exacerbate and prolong the recession and add costs to working families. we just talked about inflation but if you raised taxes, the lions share of that would be

passed through in lower wages and higher costs of goods, making matters worse. i don't think we should expand entitlement programs when we cannot pay for the entitlement promises we have made to seniors in medicare and social security and other entitlement programs. i think it's a big mistake to, to rescind the balance of compassion and responsibility with respect to work requirements and social service programs. that is written throughout the reconciliation bill. so, i don't see anything in the giveaways to millionaires and high tax states like new york because of the repeal of the salt cap. i can't find anything that i think is responsible stewardship of taxpayer money or effective when it comes to getting the economy back and americans and small businesses back on their feet and getting the american families and working people in a

position where they are not worried about whether they can pay bills. in addition to that they have stuff to the turkey, so to speak, with i think more extreme out of touch policies like unionization of every state and every job creator in the country. amnesty and promises of citizenship that will only incentivize and encourage more of the illegal immigration we are seeing at record rates. so, i don't see anything. i would like to work with my colleagues. i think there is a fair conversation about what tax rates should be but a bad place to start is the democratic proposal of raising taxes higher than communist china and making our economy less competitive vis-a-vis our competitors and even adversaries. host: i've got about 15 minutes left with you and a lot of callers waiting to chat.

raphael, good morning. caller: young man, i have been a democrat since i was 18. i'm 76. i have never seen the republican party try to help the working people in america. every program to help the poor, y'all put your foot on it. now you blame the president for inflation. the president has no control of inflation. it's done by the corporations. i don't know what's going to happen to this country, but we are headed, with the republicans , to a wrong ending, young man. guest: thank you for your tone. i wish that when we disagreed, as i disagree with that statement, that our tone would be the tone that you set in your question. so, let me respond in kind. i think we all have the objective that we want people to do better, we want them to have

a more hopeful future. we want them to have greater opportunities to better provide for their families. we saw that with progrowth free-market policies of republicans under trump and a republican congress. that's just, the numbers support that when you talk about 6 million people lifted out of poverty. when you talk about the employment rates and the job participation rates and the number of jobs that came back from overseas where we were more competitive. so, i just believe fundamentally that we have bought into a lie that somehow when you declare war on poverty by creating a welfare state that that is going to do better for people who are struggling in an -- and are economically disadvantaged. i think those policies have trapped people in poverty. i think it has caused people to

have generations of family members dependent on the government instead of being pulled up and out of poverty and incentivizing the very best of their god-given talents. that's just a philosophical difference. i think the best anti-poverty program is still a job in this president has not done anything to encourage job creation but has only incentivize people to stay at home, stay on the sidelines and stay on the dole. nobody, nobody begrudge is helping our fellow americans who are struggling, working hard and still struggling. we want to do that but there is a balance in individual responsibility and the general welfare of the public by providing a safety net. host: to the yellow hammer state, roger, good morning. caller: i appreciate you being on here, sir. i know this is a tough show when

you talk about work ethic and stuff. everybody watching this show ought to be going out the door to work and they ain't. [laughter] guest: a good point. caller: there is only 61% of people in the country that actually work. to the other percentage of people that don't work, think about this, someone has to work to pay your way? it's like money comes from magic or something. $30 trillion in debt. i don't think we will ever pay it off. but they can't stop it because they are giving away so much. it's going to all crash and burn . i do appreciate you being here, sir. i know you have to be brave to be on the show. host: what line of work are you in? caller: construction and i'm heading out the door, or i would be if i hadn't just had some heart work done. guest: well i wish you a speedy and full recovery, roger and thank you for your comments.

i agree that the problem in this country is, with the welfare state that we have created and with this move by this administration and democrats to remove the work incentives, we are having more and more people not have ownership in this society. i think we ought to have everybody doing their very best and making their contributions to this great country. you have 75% of the freight in terms of the expenses of our government borne by the top 10% or 15%. you have almost 15% of the american people not paying anything to contribute to the costs of our government. we are all americans. we should all probably have ownership of this country and our future. to your point, the policies of this administration and my democratic friends are taking us a different direction that will,

that will only make matters worse in terms of recovery and people contributing and do your point the national debt at $30 trillion. in the next 30 years we will add $112 trillion to the national debt. and that's without the massive tax and spend reconciliation bill that will add trillions more. i think that is the biggest threat to the future of the country. china is no doubt the biggest existential threat. certainly big problems that have to be addressed. but if we don't start bending the curve on the deficit spending and national debt, there's not any amount of money we can print or borrow to bail out of that crisis and that, to me, will be the undoing of american exceptionalism if we don't take it on seriously and we are not, today. we are not. on either side of the aisle, by the way. host: alabama, mississippi,

david, ashley and, good morning. caller: what are y'all's plans for these seven states that sent fake electors to the national archives and do you support the expulsion of congressmen that have involvement in that? as far as being lied to, i would say the republican party has bought into the big lie hook, line, and sinker and they are so far down, they can't come back. thank you. good day. guest: with respect to election integrity, let me take it on more broadly. it is clear to me that the constitution delegates the time, place, manner, and authority to minute -- administer elections to the state. my objection on january 6 was an objection that democrats had

offered up in the past elections where republicans were the winners. mine wasn't with respect to the person who won or lost or the outcome, it was the process whereby the election laws were changed outside of the constitutionally prescribed process, which is the state legislature. where the will of the people is represented in the states. not by voting commissions or unelected or even elected judges, frankly. so, i stand firm on that position that i took to object to the states that made the changes unconstitutionally and i'm disappointed that the supreme court never took up the issue. so, that was squarely in the lap of congress as the last check on the electoral process. after it was over, the objectors lost and i saluted as an

american, congratulating president biden and have prayed and hoped that he would reach out with republicans to address the real problems facing the country. like the crime spike. like the chaos at the border. like the promises he made to shut down covid and expand testing capacity and the other things. those are the issues we ought to be focusing on but instead i think this president has been looking backwards, setting a tone that is anything but unifying. those were prop -- part of the promises that president trump made -- i mean that president biden made, that haven't been fulfilled. we have certainly seen as much politicization and partisanship in the first year of this administration then we have in any past presidency. i'm disappointed but as an american i hope that he will change course in the next year and i hope that we can work together on the issues most important to the american people.

host: you touched on article one, section four of the constitution with the legislature thereof, "congress may at any time make or alter such regulations except to the places of choosing senators. so, where does the second clause come into play in your mind? guest: i think we ought to have, i'm open to a national safeguard, a floor on election integrity. for example i think that one of the main safeguards we should have in place is a valid identification for voter registration. 80%, 80% of the american people support that. you cannot get on a plane, cannot check into a hotel without having a photo id i think that just having a floor

on election integrity is appropriate because it disenfranchises other states when you don't have those safeguards in place and i think it will also cause questions on the outcome of the election and whether it is real or not, when the american people by millions lose confidence in the centerpiece of our democracy, that's a real problem. i think the issue is more integrity, more safeguards, while maintaining appropriate access. i think that everybody wants that. i do think that the lions share of that should be delegated to the states and i'm proud that my state of texas and other states have worked on those issues to give greater confidence in our elections. host: athens, tennessee, richard, good morning. caller: thank you for taking my

call. when the democrats were talking about the build back better plan, they were talking about how it was paid for. we all know that somebody has to pay for it. they always talk about pay your fair share. is that a specific number or an arbitrary number? like going back to the well all the time, anytime they want to spend money they say you want to pay your -- you have to pay your fair share. so what is that number? guest: that's a great question. i don't know if they have any metrics behind it. that's the flag they wrap around more spending proposals. they use income gaps and equity and fairness and the like to justify the things they want to do to expand, for example, these entitlement programs.

as i mentioned before, we have two major entitlement program safety nets, i would argue, that are earned benefits by our seniors that will be insolvent in the next 10 years for one of them, five years for another of them. we cannot even afford those programs. in terms of progressive tax code or where the people on the higher income scale are paying more taxes than those on the lower, we have one of the most progressive tax code's in the developed world and after the tax cuts and jobs act by the republicans under the leadership of president trump, the tax code actually got more progressive. people on the high-end were paying more taxes, people on the low-end were paying less taxes with all boats rising on the tide of economic growth as we

incentivized investment and the like. but look, as we said before, there are more people paying into the system of our federal government and the benefits that accrue to every american and there are fewer people doing that and in fact the lions share of the expenses are paid by a small minority of people. again, everybody wants everybody to have the opportunity in this country to do better in the way to do that is not to trap them in some government program of dependency on the program, but to incentivize them to get up and out of it and realize their best potential. host: last call for you, congressman. dennis, independent. caller: good morning. i love c-span. no matter the politician who comes up, whatever party they

are in, they always talk about the other party, the other party. as a representative, your job is to bring home the bacon. i would ask any politician but you, because you are there, how much have you agreed to cut out of your share when you guys do your training behind doors to bring home the bacon? it's a farce that i think is being told by both political parties on the american people. guest: you know, i think there's truth to what this gentleman is saying. there are, i think, root causes to the ineffectiveness and even, you know, corruption in congress with respect to how we do the people's business and how we steward taxpayer resources. i stand by all the policies i mentioned earlier, but i will say that, for example, with

respect to the national debt, both parties have contributed to that. both parties have put that aside because very difficult choices have to be madeand, those root o be addressed. that is why i am proud i am working with scott peters from san diego, and 30 democrats and republicans which is how we started on addressing deficit spending and our national debt. the end, putting budget reforms in place that would force congress to operate like every other american, and steward our taxpayer resources and not act like we have an endless supply. that is one example. i would also say that term limits are not the silver will it, but that would change the culture and the dynamic for political leaders in this country, and i cochair with a

democrat from california the term limit caucus. we think that that would make a positive difference in the way that we govern our country. i agree with you, sir, though the parties are guilty, and beyond tax code reform and health care reform, and all of these other reforms that we perpetuate to the public and -- in campaigns and the like, we need to reform the united states congress, and we do not just need republicans talking about it, we need republicans and democrats working together. by the way, when republicans were in charge my first term in 16, those two years we had a budget that we passed out of the house that reduced our mandatory spending which is what is driving the debt. since the democrats have been in office they have not passed a budget out of the committee. i do think that there is a

distinction, and legitimate criticism to levy on the democrats for their lack of effective governing our country and focusing on these big issues. thank you for your comments. i agree with a lot of what you are saying. host: just briefly you mentioned term limits, what is a fair term limit for the member of congress and have you agreed to one? guest: term limits need to be applied to everyone, because if you are just term limiting certain districts than they do not have the ability to have think equal footing and equal influence with other districts throughout the country or state in the concerning senators. you cannot make it so sure that they are not effective because it takes time to understand the process and it takes time to build relationships, not only in your own party but across the aisle, which i think it is important, more so today than ever.

my term limit bill is a 12 year, that would be six two year terms in the house, and corresponding to 26 year terms in the senate. that is plenty of time to make a difference and to go home and live under the laws that you passed like the founders expected. host: jodey arrington, 19th west test -- texas district and a member of the house ways and means committee. thank you for chatting. back to your phone calls now. we are asking you to return to this question about what is most important to you as the idea of voting rights is going to be discussed on the senate floor. we want to know if you think the goal of expanding the voter access is most important, if you do, 202-748-8000. if you think the goal of protecting election integrity is more important, 202-748-8001. go ahead and start calling you on the phone lines and we will

be right back. ♪ >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government funded by these television companies and more including media,. >> the world changed in a minute mediacom was ready, internet traffic soared and we never slowed down. schools and businesses when virtual and we powered amy -- a new reality. >> mediacom support c-span as a public service along with these other television providers giving you a front row seat to democracy. ♪ >> c-span offers a variety of podcasts that i something for every listener. weekdays, "washington today"

gives you the latest from the nation's capital and booknotes+ have interviews with writers while "the weekly" uses audio from our archive to see how the issues developed daily. many of our television programs are also available as podcasts. you can find them all on the c-span now mobile app or wherever you get your podcasts. get c-span on the go, watch the biggest political events live or on-demand anytime, anywhere on our new mobile video app, access top highlights, listen to c-span radio and discover new podcasts for free. download c-span now today. >> "washington journal" continues. host: another chance to talk

about your priorities when it comes to conducting elections in this country. we are asking you if you are thinking the goal of expanding voter access is the most important? if so, 202-748-8000. if you think the goal of protecting election integrity is the most important, 202-748-8001 . the headline from usa today, debate over voting rights is still in the spotlight and will be in the spotlight all day on the floor of the senate. we are expecting debate and votes around dinner time this afternoon on the freedom to vote john lewis act that expanded voting rights bill. the president of the united states is likely to be talking about those issues today. he has a press conference scheduled for 4:00 p.m. eastern and we will be airing that as well. that is c-span2 where you can watch the action on the floor of the senate, and that debate is likely to end with a vote on changing the filibuster rule and one headline on that from "the

washington times," democrats headed towards a doomed vote to remake the filibuster. one of the reasons is the opposition from members within the democratic party, specifically kyrsten sinema and senator joe manchin on changing this in about start -- the filibuster rule. this was senator joe manchin yesterday when he was asked about the move by democrats to try and change that rule on the senate floor today. [video clip] >> the thing i have been very clear about that, i do not know how you break a rule to make a rule and thinking that you are going to do something that will win it over. i've been looking for every president i can. the bottom line is that everything we have done, they told me about the debt ceiling, that was done by the rules. it was done by the rules, and that was done with majority leader schumer and minority leader mcconnell coming to an agreement. we have done everything along

the lines with the rules. and i do not know why we cannot come together and find a way forward. breaking the rules, there are no checks and balances in this process, the only thing we have is a filibuster. and if you have a situation like what we have right now where you have the executive branch of government and congress, the house and the senate, it is all the same and there is no check and balance because you are sweeping right through and the same thing could happen with republicans and the only thing i have ever said is this, the majority of my colleagues in the caucus, democrats change their minds. i respect that. you have a right to change her mind. i have not, i hope they respect that too. [end video clip] host: joe manchin talking to reporters expecting to hear a lot more from senators throughout the day on this debate. on that voting rights

legislation. the freedom to vote john arnold lewis act is what is is officially called. asking if you think the goal of expanding voter access or protecting voter integrity is most important. this is james on the former -- on the latter line, excuse me. cleveland, ohio. go ahead. caller: i have a problem, you guys are not -- the thing about what this voting, i cannot understand why republicans want to prevent fetal -- people from voting. my mother and father always told us that you have the right to vote, this is a god-given right for people to participate and a

god-given right to vote. i cannot understand why the republicans do not want to allow all people to vote. i do not understand that. host: we just played a democrat expressing his opposition to changing the filibuster to change the rules in the senate on one debate can end to move this piece of legislation. it is two democrats standing in the way right now along with all of the republicans unchaining those roles. caller: ok, let these people have their filibuster, carve the voting part where people like me, my grandkids can have -- can go and vote without being intimidated, without all of this gerrymandering.

and all of this redistricting and stuff. however, we should have a god-given right to vote. host: that is james in ohio and here is more from the senate floor yesterday ahead of the showdown today. this is senator chuck grassley republican from iowa on the tone of this debate over voting rights and his concern about it. [video clip] let us work together to boost the confidence of all americans in our elections. let us start rejecting claims, that is the only way that the other party can win is by rigging the election. let us retire the short-term strategy of falsely claiming that one of the two parties is a threat to democracy, that in and of itself is a very undemocratic position to take. this kind of rhetoric damages civil society and erodes faith

in our democracy. for the sake of our country, please stop it. host: senator chuck grassley. this is paul from alexandria, virginia. your thoughts on which is most important, the goal of expanding voter access or protecting election action of it -- integrity? caller: i think both of the questions are based on a false premise. the first question is are you favor of expanded access. who says we do not have access now and how is not been substantiated? voter integrity or whatever the option was, those are not questions of debate, those are questions of standards. there should be a standard for which is the baseline for whether or not this voter is identifiable. interestingly enough, 1978 bipartisan commission, howie baker was on it, i believe jimmy

carter called it together. lots of good work and findings and etc.. one of the key elements that they found they agreed on, republicans and democrats was a simple voter identification. if you could prove it -- present a voter identification that we could attach to as a resident we would be delighted to help you vote. i think that standard remains, and i think a lot of this is fluff. where is the expanded access? and i mean identifiable people, many of them not being allowed to vote. they are not found, you cannot find them. this is not of that caliber. i think the democrats are just reaching so awkwardly that it is like everybody can see it for what it is. i appreciate the opportunity and i always encourage c-span, it is a wonderful medium. thank you a lot. host: thank you for the call from alexandria. this is johnny in north

carolina. in morning, you are next. caller: good morning. i kind of agree with the last gentleman who just spoke. really those two questions are so far apart and yet so much connected, in my opinion without the integrity, access is useless. at this point i think we have about as much access as you can get, voters can vote actually by mailing and votes and everything else. we have plenty of access. my biggest concern is integrity. we need to know that the people who are voting are actually voting as citizens of the united states, and have registered and their vote is counted, not a bunch of mail and votes to, and that have been scattered about the country. if you do not get out and dashed if you do not -- if you do not

get your own, you can just find someone else's. host: bobby joe in the badger state, you are next. caller: good morning. i view them as equal. we need both of them to be a function eating democracy -- a functioning democracy. i do not understand the republican party, whether it be the old republican party that i grew up with, or the maga republican party for standing in the way of voting. it seems to me that we are going down a very dangerous road to something that none of us are going to like if we let donald trump controlled this country's future. i do not see how every -- anyone wins that way. host: do you think people should show a driver's license or other form of id to be able to vote? caller: i do not have a problem

with someone showing their driver's license, or what that state might deem as proper identification. i do agree that that is acceptable. host: how do you feel about mail-in ballot in? caller: i have a unique perspective on this. as you know in wisconsin, we can get a lot of snow, sometimes it might not be so easy to get to the polling place. or, here in wisconsin they are trying to change a lot of laws that will make it difficult, because the laws are changing so quickly, even when i go out february 20 to vote has to do my due diligence to make sure that i go to the right polling place. so, and there are people out there that are disabled that have the right to vote, so male

in ballots -- mail in ballots are important for all of society to be heard. host: this is just bob in pennsylvania. good morning, you are next. caller: yes, thank you for taking my call. i am for expanding voter rights but i have a comment for c-span. host: sure. caller: a question, even your topic this morning i remember after january 6, c-span1 people would call in with this information would say it was not true. at least with c-span, please put up the number of fraud party of votes compared to the number of votes, thank you very much. host: we will be talking a lot about that, and how it does not happen much in this country

according to several different studies. we will be joined in about 45 minutes by the president of the brennan center for justice for that conversation. and the author of the book "the fight to vote." michael waldman is his name. stick around for that discussion and we will talk about that as well. bruce. prattville, alabama. good morning, go ahead. caller: yes, all of the stuff about the election, i think the national election should be that each state only gets one electoral college boat and that is it. the first one to 26 wins. this would solve it all and it would not matter if one state cheated versus another, you cheated over one electoral vote. why should states get 55 and pennsylvania gets 36 and you have other states that only get

7, 10, or 11. host: those states have a whole lot more people than the states that get fewer electoral votes. caller: if they do not like their way -- the way their state is run, move. host: this is the concern about the electoral college, that would give the states with a lot fewer voters the same say as the state of california which has a whole lot of voters. caller: popular vote matters in your state, but when it comes to the president there are 50 states, so the first one to 26 wins. it does not matter. if you do not like the one -- the way it is running your state, move. host: bruce ringing up concerns about the electoral college and whether it is fair for folks who live in large states and small states. there is a lot of debate and we

have talked about that several times along with proposals to change the electoral college. randy, wisconsin. you are next. caller: good morning. why is it that -- minnesota and michigan does, but it always seems like it is down south and on the east coast and it is always the democratic states. we know there is an election coming up, why aren't they putting out more and more places where people can vote? if you cannot make it to go to vote, get it set up so you know who those people are so you have somebody available to take a ballot to them so that they can vote. people can go to the grocery store, you can get a ballot. one more thing i have to call

you out on is when this lady from wisconsin called a little bit ago and happen to slam our greatest president ever, if you ever asked -- you never asked that caller do you know of anything that president trump has done good? do you think that president trump did something good for this country as far as 4 -- border security and making this country better? and making it oil independent? oil makes the world go round, it is going to go bye bye someday, but we are long ways from it, and we need it now, because that keeps everything going. so you shut that great big company down in pennsylvania that was going to supply all that natural gas. host: randy in wisconsin.

that is -- this is very out of minnesota. caller: i do not understand why there is a problem with expanding voting rights. i do not understand expanding -- there is no problem with the integrity. it is just donald trump is really messing up this country with all of these lies and muddying the waters with the con game that he is doing and it does not make sense. we should expand the voting and everything like that, because it just does not make sense, all of a sudden. because he loses the presidency we have to start talking about integrity. we have all of these issues going on in the lower level voting and things like that, and

all because he is lying and people of god to start realizing that it is not all about what donald trump says because he totally just ruined this country. host: barry in minnesota. this is jay in raleigh, north carolina. caller: i kind of think that the premise of having it as an either/or selection, like that one from wisconsin said, i think you have to have both, that is what the problem is. host: it is ok to answer both. we were just trying to find a way to have phone lines. caller: i think that is the problem that we have now and our elected officials and these states and policies. everyone is looking at it as what team are you on, are you on team access or team integrity. i think the problem really is that one, you have individuals

who are stifling access, and it is proven. i am in north carolina and we have republican legislation in the courts with surgical precision that they attempted to put barriers to access. and in terms of integrity, sure, i heard some people talking about the congressman -- the congressman earlier talking about the id. yes, we can have that conversation about id's. the problem with the id is that we have states that only accepts certain ids, and there are just some common sense that we are not sitting down to talk about because -- caller: the integrity issue

bringing up that during covid and the 2020 election there were a lot of states that expanded rules on vote by mail or drop boxes, other ways that election day change from how it had been in the past, and some of those states have gone back and have rethought some of those changes that were made in an emergency during a pandemic with an eye towards the end of a pandemic and emergency, is it ok to go back, re-think, and maybe bring back some of those rules to what they were before? caller: that is a great example that you bring up, of course we had a worldwide pandemic where people were concerned about going to the polls. but what is never talked about is that you had people for 30 years that had mail-in ballots, absentee ballots, and so what is

happening now is that based on the turnout on the election that happened this past election, you have people saying now we need to maybe not have mail-in ballots or absentee ballots and as i said, you've had state to have had that for 30 years. and now all of a sudden it is a problem. i can remember when individuals complained about people not going to vote that there were more people voting for american idol than people going to vote. and now we have identified ways in which individuals can vote, someone just gave a very common sent explanation why people in wisconsin and snow we states have difficulty getting to voting lines, instead of people trying to make it easier to vote, like in the neighborhood that i am from, we have lines for four hours, that is crazy.

and then you go into the suburbs and i can vote in 15 minutes. no one is talking about doing anything about that. sure, let us have debates about maybe you can change the law, but that is a common sense thing. not, oh well, there is a pandemic and we made these laws to make it easier, and the proof is in the pudding. it was more people that voted and that is what we want. host: how often do we get to the common sense things in these debates today? caller: not often enough, unfortunately, because everyone is on team this or that. i am a democrat and there are times in which there might be some policies from the republican side that might make sense. and i was suspecting that there were republicans that felt the same way. then there were politicians that said i would put the finger to

the wind to find out where is the public going and that is what i am going to do. to that extreme. host: thank you for the call. walter in butler, indiana. you are next. caller: good morning, thank you for my call. i guess i had to take integrity out of either of the two choices but if i had a second, the most important thing is the enlightenment of the public and people to make an informed decision. socrates is said as far as voting said that the average citizen is not well-versed to vote. if i need to get across a great ocean i do not want anyone to say i can do it. i want a captain that is seaworthy and skilled in how to get me across my journey and how much more important it is to keep our republic whole with an enlightened republic. in a perfect world, that is what

we should discuss, an you lighten -- an enlightened public that is not lured with free things. when you post the question of expand voter rights, it is kind of a blurred question because can 10-year-olds vote? are there things right now that prevent black people from voting? of course. are there things that cause women not to vote? of course not. it makes it seem like they are actual restrictions because of the color of their skin or their creed, or sexual orientation which none of that is. if you would say would you make it more efficient to vote and lock in a person like the last caller was spot on. there is no reason that you cannot be able to prove who you are to vote. and the idea that it is racist or sways towards one person is a ridiculous notion because if you

need to get on a bus, plane or go to the pharmacy you have to prove id. host: one last call. steve and alexandria, virginia. good morning. caller: good morning and thank you with c-span. i am agreeing with everyone that says this is a false choice, that i will say this and i will leave this with you. earlier this -- earlier last week i went into renew my library board and what was the thing they asked me to provide, proof of residency, that was to get a library card, folks. i think we can at least ask that of our voting populace. thank you. host: steve in virginia. the last caller in this segment. there is still time towards the end if you do not make it into this part of the program for this discussion. up next we will turn our attention to a new law that took effect at the beginning of the year that bans surprise medical billing and that conversation

with patricia kelmar, health care campaigns director at the consumer group u.s. pr -- pirg. we will talk about where democrats go on voting rights. michael waldman from the brennan center for justice. stick around, we will be back. ♪ >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government funded ids television companies and more including charter communications. >> broadband is a force for empowerment, which is why charter has invested billions, upgrading infrastructure, empowering opportunity in communities big and small. charter is connecting us. >> charter communications support c-span is a public service along with these other television providers giving you a front row seat to democracy.

♪ >> sunday, february 6 on " in-depth" a georgetown law professor will be our guest to talk about race relations and inequality in america. her books include "the failures of integration," and her latest "white space, black hood." join in with your phone calls, facebook comments, texts and tweets. live on sunday, february sixth live at noon eastern on booktv on c-span2. ♪ download the new mobile app and stay up-to-date with live video coverage of the day's big political events from live streams of the house and senate floor and key congressional hearings white house events in supreme court oral arguments and even our live interactive program, "washington journal"

where we hear your voices every day. download the app for free today. >> "washington journal" continues. host: patricia kelmar joins us and serves as director of health care campaigns at the nonprofit u.s. public interest research group or u.s. pirg joins us as a new ban of surprise medical bills went into effect. first start by explaining what a surprise medical bill is. guest: there are a lot of bills that we get that are surprising, but this term is a particular bill that you get from an out-of-network hospital or doctor and it is one that you did not agree to necessarily or expect. that is a situation where you might going between -- go into an in network hospital but an

out-of-network anesthesiologist gives you your anesthesia for your surgery. we expected to get anesthesia but we expected the services that are in network hospital to be in network as well, and so those bills can be very expensive because our insurance company only pays part of the bill and we are left with the larger remaining amount, that is what makes it a surprise and that is what is frustrating. host: what do we know about how big of a problem this has been in recent years? guest: it is a growing problem and a persuasive -- a pervasive billing practice that has been growing. one in five insured americans who either get surgery, or go to an emergency room are likely to receive a surprise medical bill. and they can be in the hundreds to thousands of dollars. caller: what is the no surprise -- host: what is the no surprises

act and is this problem taken care of? guest: for most surprise medical bills, it is a landmark consumer protection. several states passed the law initially to show that this can be done, and we can stop surprise medical bills, and, luckily, congress responded as well with a lot of encouragement from consumers and insured americans. what it does is it prohibits surprise medical bills, out-of-network bills from occurring and for you receiving them in three section -- specific situations in emergency treatment, no matter where you are taken for emergency treatment you only pay the in network cost, the co-pays and the deductible. for emergency treatment no more surprise medical bills. the second important area is also air ambulances. so if you are transported by helicopter or airplane to get

treatment that is another area where you will no longer be paying the extra charge of an out-of-network service. the most important one that i think it is frustrating for americans is when you have done everything right. you have gone to your in network hospital and chosen your in network provider and somewhere along the line a radiologist, anesthesiologist or lab work was done out-of-network and you are left holding the bag. those will be banned as well. most in network services will be covered. host: let me pause and invite viewers to join in the conversation. we split our phone lines a little bit differently. if you are someone who has received a surprise medical bill the phone line is 202-748-8000. health care providers, medical professionals, 202-748-8001. we want to hear your stories on this, and then all others, 202-748-8002. we will -- patricia will be with us until the top of the hour at

9:00 a.m. eastern and we want to hear your stories and experiences in this area. as folks are calling in, you mentioned that we fought for years to get this past, -- passed. remind folks what u.s. pirg is and the evolution. guest: is the public research -- public interest research group and we have state organizations in a couple of dozen states so people might be familiar with their local chapter. we run a door-to-door canvas so we are often knocking on your doors and talking about important issues and we fight with the consumer and for transparency. in the health care space we are especially looking at high-value health care, making sure that what we are paying with our health care dollar is giving us good in quality service and we know the prices up front. in the case of surprise billing as has been an important issue

because we are paying our insurance premiums, we understand what the co-pays are, but when we suddenly get charged by an out-of-network provider, someone we did not necessarily choose ourselves, that is when it becomes unfair. we had no ability to negotiate or find another provider and we are left paying a lot of money. these bills are in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, and most people only have $400 in their savings account. they will set you way back. host: this went into effect at the beginning of this year, one was actually passed and signed into law? guest: there was about a two year battle to pass it, and it was finally signed at the very end of the congressional session in 2020. it is taken an entire year to write the rules that will make the law going into effect. there are a lot of details that providers need to know that they can no longer send the bills. the insurance companies have to

be able to identify which bills are illegal and help the consumer understand what their rights are. and now we are on the dog -- we are on the dog and pony show to tell people that their rights are in effect, they should still be watching for medical bills and making sure they are keeping track of what their rights are and not paying bills that are illegal. host: this is debbie in greenville, illinois on the line for those who have received a surprise medical bill. go ahead. caller: good morning and thank you for taking my call. i am a 40 seven-year-old mother and a registered nurse and a case manager for a health insurance company. my 15-year-old daughter, january 30 of 2021 unfortunately tried to hurt herself, and i had to call the ambulance. mind you, the ambulance that we called for 911 is less than a

mile from the hospital to our home. we were billed $1000 from the ambulance. i have been fighting with the company because they are saying that they are out-of-network. unfortunately that cannot be true in an emergency situation where someone calls 911 and an ambulance is called out and you continue to build individual, so it is just important to be a self advocate when it comes to your health care, and watch her bills and be in contact not only with the person sending you the bill but also the health insurance company as well. host: thank you for the call and sharing that story. guest: yes. that is great advice and i am so sorry that that happens to you. unfortunately, the no surprises act does not protect you in the future from these ground ambulance bills.

and, that is a big gap from our perspective. there is going to be a study commission that is supposed to come up with good solution so we can close the gap. unfortunately right now for ground ambulance is we do not have a surprise out-of-network billing. there are 10 states in the country that do have protections , so i always recommend that you call the state insurance department and see if you have protection from an out-of-network ground ambulance. as the caller said, definitely call your insurance, call the provider, in this case the ambulance company, and see if you can work out a deal. host: greenbelt maryland, this is sebastian. good morning. caller: good morning. yes. i got a bill from radiological

services that were provided from my wife. the problem is that the insurance did not cover the bill, but i was surprised to get a bill in the mail for a couple of hundreds of dollars, so i am wondering if this is also part of what we are talking about. thank you. guest: it might be. it might be a part and it might be covered. one thing that people have to always remember is that you do owe your to buck double -- your deductible first. if you have a high deductible you have to pay all of that. sometimes those bills, especially at the beginning of the year when the deductible resets you might get a very large bill because you have not met the deductible yet. radiology services are a common area of surprise medical bills.

the first thing i would do is call your insurance company and see whether that couple hundred dollars that you owe is because of an out-of-network charge or whether it is that you have not met your deductible yet. host: todd is next in the city is onto nagin? caller: no. host: i will member that. caller: my question is that i go to the v.a., i have never had a medical bill in 40 years, they pay for everything. and you know, i keep getting in the mail hammered with all of these things from medicare advantage, and part b and all this garbage and what it is is garbage. and you know, something needs to be done about that predatory insurance claims and all of that.

and, i talked to somebody and said should i enroll in part b and part c, and he says you are in the v.a., so you get it mailed to you for free. and any equipment is free, like aunt the rest of the country have that plan? host: a little bit of a different topic, but any thoughts? guest: well, you are lucky to have such good coverage. it is true that this surprise billing problem does not exist for the veterans administration health plans or medicaid or medicare. so, luckily that has not been a problem for those populations, but for the regular commercially insured, we have been suffering with this. i think maybe what the caller is talking about is one plan, the

kind of coverage that everyone just pays one amounts and we are all covered. we are not there in america yet. host: i noted your title, director of health care campaigns, what is another health care campaign that you are working on right now? guest: we are working on prescription drug prices which i know can get the ire up of a lot of people because the area we are specifically focusing on right now is the issue of how patents are keeping generic drugs which are less expensive from coming to market. we have been seeing pharmaceutical companies be able to create these patent thickets, they keep filing new patents on the exact same medication that has been out to extend the life of their patents. as long as they have a patent no generic drugs can come into a market and they cannot compete. if you are the only one with

this kind of medication you can set your price at whatever you want and in the providers and insurers and individuals with no insurance have to pay that price. that is another area we are working on, high prescription drug prices and the problem of patent abuse. host: mary in green cove springs, florida. you are next. caller: good morning, thank you for taking my call. this is a very informative segment, because i had the experience, i had health insurance, and i received a surprise medical bill, i was -- i went for my physical, and i was telling the doctor everything that was going on with me and so forth. and then i received a bill from the insurance company saying that this was a medical care office visits because i had some things that i had to go get

radiology for, and it was my physical, and i called up the insurance company and i told them i do not understand why am i going to have to pay, i went for my physical, i understand the radiology part that i had to pay, i get that. but my office visit was charged and usually for a physical you do not. and she said to be that she gets many calls because this has been happening all over the united states that when you go in for your physical and tell the doctor what is going on with you. they code it as a charge so now i/o $300. i mean -- and now i owe $300. i mean, i am very upset about it. i am fortunate that i can pay for this bill. why are they -- who did this?

the insurance companies? i do not know. host: let me let patricia jump in. guest: well, that is very frustrating. the situation sounds like it is a practice that we know exists and it is hard to prove, because we do not get our prices up front, that is something known as up coding. some provider offices will just add extra billing codes to a regular annual physical, and that sounds like what you might have experienced. this is a problem across the board with all of our health care. we rarely get prices up front, and then we get the service and then we do feel that obligation like i did get the service so maybe i should pay the bill. but, it puts us in a bind because we are paying a lot for our premiums and are expecting to be able to go in for annual

physicals and have an honest and upfront conversation with our physician about what the problem is, and then to find out that you are being up charged with no additional care feels very much like a physical blow to you. i would call the provider and ask for a clear explanation as to why this was not charged as a regular physical. that just sounds like up coding to me. you can always complain about billing charges like this in the doctor's office to your own insurance department, usually there is a phone number and a consumer complaint line so that is another option. if they are doing it to you they could likely be doing it to multiple or all of their patients and it is not fair. host: on twitter coming back to the topic of ground ambulances tweeting during the segment " ambulances another provider that plays the out-of-network game.

check your town or city and they do not participate in any health plans so they can bill you and then sell your account to the collection agency and on the real fun begins." guest: that is exactly right. i can quickly say the states where there are some ambulance protections, colorado, delaware, florida, illinois, maine, maryland, new york, ohio, and west virginia. you might have some coverage and protections from out-of-network billing in those states. but you are right, and it is frustrating. we are doing the right thing, calling and getting the services that we need and helping our insurance company stay healthier by not ignoring a serious problem and getting the care that we need. so, i always recommend people call the ambulance if it is an emergency, do that. but it is a frustrating situation to know that the

ambulance companies stay out-of-network and therefore are allowed to charge what they want. the insurance company will pay portion and you are left holding the rest. we do need to get some more sense to this system. some communities pay for ground ambulances through taxes or it is a volunteer service, or the county picks up the tab, but in communities that do not have that protection, ground ambulance bills are a source of entry into medical debt and it can spiral. host: less than 10 minutes left with patricia kelmar the director of health care campaigns at u.s. pirg. at twitter it is @us pirg. this is springfield, virginia. that morning. caller: i have another problem that i think really needs to be looked at. as far as billing.

i ended up going into the emergency room to be examined because i did not know if i was having a stroke or heart attack. and what i did not know was that when you go to the emergency room, you end up being parked as an outpatient as far as billing. the other thing that i found was that there are different charges that are associated with that and the way that insurance covers. because of my age, most people thought i was on medicare, i was not, i was on private insurance. but i spent the evening and i was told that i had to stay overnight, not being told why i needed to stay overnight, but i was there as outpatient status. i found out about the bill that came after that, there were charges that were associated with coding that claimed that i was experiencing pins and

needles which is a nonemergent code, and therefore was not covered by my insurance company, and when i went back to the billing office and they explained to me why they put the codes that way it is because that is the way that the doctor had put the code information in. i fought with a major hospital in this area for probably about five months to try and get this resolved and i ended up having to write an appeal to my insurance company which they granted and said you had an emergency and this was definitely shut have been covered as an emergency, but when you have to go back and forth between different offices and individuals you get very little support and all they can tell you is we can help you structure this so you can pay it over time and it is like i should not have had a bill. host: thank you for sharing that story. guest: i am sorry that that happens to you. the last thing that we need and

we are trying to recover especially from something as traumatic as experiencing something that might look like a heart attack or stroke is the agony of trying to figure out what you are being billed for, why you are being billed to that and how you are going to pay the bill. i am sorry for that experience. you did all the right things so kudos to you. if you checked your bill, you did not just widely accept the charges, and you filed an appeal. the important thing for people to know is that when you go to an emergency room, the insurance company needs to cover that charge as an emergency under what they call a reasonable person's standards. if you reasonably think that you needed emergency care in this case, clearly you felt that. then you had every right to go to the emergency room and receive the care. people should remember that. if you are reasonably scared,

and worried about your health, that is the time to go to the emergency room and your insurance company should cover that and no matter how it was billed, you should file an appeal to make sure that they cover it for you. those appeals can be difficult and hard, and in many states there are organization set up called consumer assistance programs and you can google to see if you have one and they can help you file those appeals and fight for your bills. those consumer assistance programs were created when we first saw the affordable care act. unfortunately they have not been funded in years so we have been trying to continue to get funding because they play a really important role for consumers. host: that line for medical professionals, henry is a physician out of portsmouth, virginia. good morning, sir. caller: good morning, i am calling because virginia has a law that other states and our

congress might want to consider. it is called donations of professional services, it is available online it is a tax credit for doctors, dentists, and lawyers who help indigent people, it is somewhat a narrow law, the last time i checked and that you have to go to a particular location to give this care, a far better law would be one that allowed doctors, dentists, and lawyers to give their care in their own private office where things are far more efficient. and i think that this adoption of this virginia law would extend access to care much more efficiently than our current system. host: how many doctors do you

know make use of this law? is it something that a lot of your colleagues do? caller: i do not know the answer to that. that is an excellent question. the last time i tried to check it online i could not find the answer. i think it is something that should be taught in medical school, that this is one way to approach the question of access to care. host: thank you for the call. guest: thank you. i did not realize that that was a program and it sounds like a great option for people. host: the idea of coding seems to have struck a chord with folks on twitter. "there are so many unexplained codes and charges, how is a patient supposed to have the chance to know what is and is not a legit charge?" guest: very difficult. you can call your insurance

company and ask them to talk you through it so you understand what the code means, and then try to understand it from the perspective of your personal experience and what happened. usually you get an explanation of benefits, which should be a little bit more easy to understand so you can compare that with a final bill. those are two tabs, but it is very difficult, and their efforts in some states to get something known as a plain language and one bill instead of us getting bills over the course of six to 12 weeks from all the different providers if we have had a hospitalization that they compile it all in and we can manage it that way. definitely a lot of room for improvement in billing, and always that consumer has been on the back end. it is not for our sakes that they are creating these bills,

it is whatever language that they want to talk to themselves. we need to start demanding more and more of our health care dollars coming out of our own pocket to pay for this care, and we need to know that those -- know about those prices up front. if i could i want to mention for people who do not have insurance, no surprises act this new law actually gives them a new power, so they are allowed to and the provider must provide an estimate of charges for any care that they are going to pay for out-of-pocket, so if you are not putting this through insurance or if you are uninsured, you can ask the provider for an estimate of charges, and then when you get the final bill if that estimate is more than $400 -- if the final bill is more than $400 above your estimate you can go

and fight down the bill. host: darlene has been waiting in washington. thank you. can you make it quick? caller: things started going off, and they were 30 through miles from reno. and they called in, and there was an ambulance. it taken them back to reno, and their 42 miles. they charged me $13,000. it was not covered by my insurance because they had been through it. it didn't apply.

we had to call in and say what do you do? >> you fill out paperwork. so i did. 70%. $3300. i ended up paying that. my husband and i are on a fixed income. there is no way would ever get paid. thank you. >> thank you. a last minute. >> ambulances are next on my campaigns stop, so i appreciate the stories and and i am sorry to say i have no way to help with that situation now. >> if you want to help with the campaign, with the stack, she is the director of those campaigns, and we certainly appreciate the time this morning. >> thank you very much. >> about one hour left in the program. up next, we will talk about

where democrats go from here on voting rights. we will be joined by michael waltman. he is a president for the center for justice. with the fight to vote. we will be right back. ♪ >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we are funded by these television companies, and more, including comcast. >> cox provides affordable internet through a program. the digital divide is bridged by one student at a time. cox. bringing us closer. >> cox support c-span as a public service. along with these other television providers. they give a front receipt to democracy. >> book tv is every sunday on c-span to be.

it features nonfiction books. vanderbilt university professor michael eric dyson examines black culture and politics with a book called entertaining race. blackness in america. at 10 p.m. eastern on afterwards, theoretical fiscus leonard talks about emotional feeling shaping our thinking. he is joined by a festive. watch book tv every sunday on c-span two, and find a full schedule in your program guide or watch every -- online at c-span.org. >> washington's unfiltered. c-span, in your -- download c-span and, today. ♪

>> washington journal continues. >> we are joined now. he served as the president of the center for justice. he is the author of the 2016 book the fight appropriate what is your read on what is going to take place on the floor of the senate today when it comes to democratic voting right? >> it is a very big moment. it is a long story of our fight to have a real democracy in this country. i think we see mostly, the handwriting on the wall for today. there is a majority in the senate, as there is a majority

in the house, for the freedom to vote. the john lewis act read right now, there is not a majority to change the rules so that the bill can pass. as we know, senators cinema and mansion support the bill, but they will not change the rules. we will see a real debate on that. we will hear from the republicans, and basically, everyone is going to have to go on the record today. about what they will do with voting rights. i certainly think that are democracy is facing extraordinary challenges. >> after they go on record, what happens tomorrow. >> they are going to bring the bill up. it will not kick closure, presumably. it will not achieve 60 votes. there will also be a vote taken, as i understand, on the proposal to keep the filibuster. but it will return to what it has been throughout most of its

history. a talking filibuster. senators can phone in their filibuster. senator schumer, the majority leader and the democrats, put out the idea that they have to hold the floor if you're going to try and stop a bill. there is going to be a lot of push and pull. there will be a pivot on this today. it is a many inning ballgame. legislating is done a major issues, but today is a pretty big moment in shining a spotlight on what is going on. >> the filibuster -- go ahead and finish. >> a lot of folks may not realize this, but the senate is not working as it has. it is not working as it is supposed to. one of the goals is to restore the senate. to its functioning as a delivered a body. the filibuster is not in the constitution, and the framers wanted to make sure that it would not be a super majority requirement in a place like the senate. in recent years, it has become

basically, a 60 vote rush holt. in effect, it is for everything. they are always exceptions. we know for budget reconciliation, for supreme court nominations, for military closing of bases. trade agreements. there are 160 exceptions to the filibuster, and the democrats are trying to carve a rule that is in a vital bill so it will pass the majority vote. >> if this does not pass in the one hundred 17th congress, and if the will is not there, will you have confidence that election 2022 will be a free and fair election? >> 2022 and 2024, going forward, i have confidence. we see something in this country that we've not seen a long time.

it was about new events. there was a vote over who can vote over this country. they wanted seas of the table, and others tried to stop. it was a big fight over many centuries. what is new right now it's what happened in 2021. it was an extraordinary year, despite the pandemic. it was the highest voter turnout since 1900. as donald trump's own department of homeland security and many courts confirmed, it was the most secure election on record. i think it is actually something we ought to be celebrating. so many people in election officials and so many others work so hard to make that happen. as we know, the response was trump's big lie. the slander in our elections. it was not stolen. the insurrection driven by that lie, and now, and states across

the country, new laws are making it harder to vote. they are also driven by the big lie. last year, we had 19 states and 34 new laws to make it hard to vote. they led the brennan center, and this year, the legislators are coming back. there were possible bills to be voted on, and at the same time, there was redistricting happening. it was really egregious with gerrymandering taking place in much of the country. the failure by congress to act -- congress has the power to act. as the constitutional power and the legal power. the question has always been, doesn't have the political will. the voting rights are being infused in states. congress cannot act because of the 60 vote requirement in filibuster. the courts have stepped back, the u.s. supreme court, and the voting rights act, for sample. that is a green light for states to abuse the rights of their own

people. they haven't before, and it will happen again as a signal for even worse things to happen in the state's going board. >> michael wolfman is with us. it is until the bottom of the hour. go ahead and call in as usual. democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independence, (202) 748-8002. we had an earlier question about voter fraud in this country. how often do we know from studies of voter fraud that take place. >> there is good news. our elections are very secure. we ought to be proud of that. every study shows -- every law -- as -- investigation shows that it is rare. you are more likely to be hit by lightning than to commit an in person voter fraud, for example. we saw that in the last election. 60 court cases rejected the

unfounded claims and litigations brought by the defeated former president. that was after the election. it happens every once in a while, but it is really a very minor problem, giving the votes cast over the years. it used to be a big problem. it used to be the case that when you went to the river, under 20 years ago, if you went to the river on election day in new york city, you can see boxes floating down the river because the democrats or the republican precincts with her boxes in the river, and vice versa. it has really cleaned up, and right now, our elections are extraordinarily secure. there are all kinds of things we need to do to make sure that is the case. and most important is paper ballots. for voting machines. it will avoid potential hacking of machines and make it possible to have recounts. if you have paper ballots. you really can check and see if there has been a problem.

there is good news. as former attorney general barr put it, they use an epithet to describe these elections it >> you mentioned york city. democrat, good morning. ? . i met him in new york city, and that was 35 years ago. during the conversation. in the constitution, it does not say anything about people, the common people. there's no vote. i want to give you a chance to explain how voting became a part of the fabric of american life. by that, i want to make a quick comment. if people don't vote, they don't have the right to vote, you cannot have voter integrity. you will not have anyone voting. >> elliott to new york.

hello again. thank you for your time. you are exactly right. when a country starts, it is not what any of us, with regard to democracy, only white men who own property can vote. the ideals of the declaration of independence, and the revolution, the idea that we are all created equal, that a government is legitimate only when it rests on the consent of the government, like the declaration says, those are powerful. very quickly, it began to push us towards more and more democracy on the very start. i tell the story in the book. in pennsylvania, they wrote a new constitution in 1776 that. a newly independent state. it was written by benjamin franklin. they limited the property requirement. franklin explained. he said that there is a man who owns a jack s is worth $50. the man can vote. but then the jacket size. the man is older and wiser.

nevertheless, the jack s is dead, so the man cannot bow. management frank and asked, who has the right to vote? the man or the jack s. it is a good question. in massachusetts, you saw very different view. john adams was writing the constitution, and he was very careful to urge them. a limited the property requirements. adams was aghast. he said, if we do that, women will demand the right to vote. men who have not a farthing to their name will think they are attended to, and they will demand right to vote. he said that there will be no end of it. adams is right. there was no end of it. that is the story of this country. generation after generation, people are demanding their democratic rights. always, some people push back. they push back against it. that is the story up until this point. what i think we know now is that something we have not seen since

the civil war. a major route movement that protects so much of the electoral system and legitimacy of our democracy. when you hear the big lie, we think about the rally in arizona, the other day. it is not that we are fractionally imaginary, it is that it really undermines our democracy. we have not had that since maybe 1860. it is a real challenge for this country. >> this is richard out of little rock. good morning. i just have one question. i don't appreciate anyone using the word lie about anything, but we'll get past that. the one thing about the last election, so many people questioning everything and we all have to be questioning. if you go back to the republicans. the democratic party filed on average 80 separate lawsuits.

there were so many lawsuits, but when they did it all the years before, nobody said it was a big lie or the wrong thing to do. right now, we are bringing it up just like people are questioning what went on, especially when they [indiscernible] boxes to drop it off. they were giving out information. if you are a teacher, you need to make sure no one goes to one side. why can't we let everyone know, this is not unusual, what is going on here. host: first of all, i lived in little rock, i love hearing from anyone from arkansas. i do think it is a threat in that there are charges after elections, and people make claims. they certainly would never take it terribly seriously. they were not embraced by the defeated candidate. they certainly do not lead to an assault on the night states as

we all saw a year ago. i think that it is true that every once in a while, people say that an election was not fair or it was not fair. they never get much support, and if it is not true, we should call it out. we should say it is not true. we know that what we are seeing right now is very different. the caller doesn't like it to be called a big lie, but it is factually made up and it has very bad consequences. millions of people take this claim very seriously. politicians who make it are very cynical. they know it is not true. many people care a lot about our country, and because they hear it from their own leaders, they believe it. it is a real challenge for the country, going forward. not operating on the same set of facts. host: melissa in bloomfield, independent. good morning. caller: thank you. i've a statement and a question.

as far as you know, this great government that we have, we have not seen political prisoners since world war ii, and guess what. we have them now. nancy pelosi and chuck schumer in d.c.. second of all, you have voting rights that are so important in the integrity of the vote, but even if biden said it doesn't matter who votes, it only matters who counts the vote, so with this bill, they have turned everything over to the united states government, so they are the ones that count the votes. the people are the ones that vote. we are the people who counted this bill, and we should be heard. not whatever joe biden or the race baiters in chief in office right now want to spew. host: go ahead and jump in. guest: there are some important points to respond to. first, the caller i think was

talking about the hundreds of insurrectionists who staged a violent assault on the u.s. capitol. that was one year ago. many police officers were injured. we say we care about law enforcement, but those insurrectionists attacked the police. five people died that day. i don't think their political prisoners. i think the laws being applied fairly. i hope it continues to be applied fairly. in terms of a question, the role the federal government, elections are properly run. that is in counties and states. we have always had a national rule and national standard. in fact, the constitution very specifically -- that is what is behind the legislation that we are talking about right now. the final thing that is unusual,

it is new to the caller, identified correctly, but misidentified the speaker. one of the things that is particularly scary right now is the attack on election officials and the attempt to undo how our elections are counted, and how we decide -- it is election subversion in effect. on top of the voting laws. you see, laws are proposed and actually passed in all different kinds of places to take the power of deciding winter away from nonpartisan elected officials and get them to partisan politicians, usually in the state legislature. southern georgia, for example. the laws in texas, threatening criminal penalties, and bipartisan and nonpartisan election officials were doing their jobs. the quote the caller mentioned, it doesn't matter how people vote. it matters how they count the vote that was not president biden. that was actually a paraphrase

of two different people who more or less said the same thing. former president trump, in a video last week. it was basically said there. and josef stalin. the dictator of soviet russia said it doesn't matter who counts the votes are how they vote. what matters is who counts the votes. it is almost word for word. it is a pretty scary thought that the caller said. we should make sure we know who actually is being driven by that thought. host: article one section four of the u.s. constitution reads that times, planner -- manner and places of election shall be prescribed in each state by the legislation. congress may at any time, by law, make or alter such regulations. when should congress defer to the states? when should that start? guest: as a great question. it is called the elections clause. what the supreme court has said strongly and consistently is that statement lessons have set

these rules, but at any time, the national government can stat -- set national standards. we have racial discrimination in voting. we have requirements about what kind of voting machines we use by national law. we have congressional seats that have to be single-member, and there are many examples. the natural government -- national government has a basic floor. that provision, the elections clause, it is stuck a lot. interest lee, in this book, there is a fight to vote because your viewers probably know this more than most people, but if you go back and look at the founders, and you look at the constitutional convention and you look at james madison's notes, they are incredibly interesting, they teach us a lot about our government was established. madison insisted on putting the elections clause into the constitution. it was a big debate that they had.

it was precisely because he knew the state legislatures would be captured by, as they called it, faction. by political parties. and they would engage in what we now call voter suppression. or gerrymandering. they didn't call it that back then, they also had invented the word. but that was the debate in the constitutional convention. the whole purpose of that provision was to make sure that elections were run fairly. that politicians would not manipulate the rules for their own benefit. it was a pretty good judge of human nature, and its flaws. it is a good thing that is in the constitution. host: dino what preclearance is? guest: i know what it was? it was one of the great moments in history of the fight for americans dr. c. the voting rights act of 1965.

i'm sure most of your viewers are familiar with the basic story, which is that after congress failed to act in 1890, in a circumstance kind of like today, were at the filibuster killed in national voting rights bill, the southern states enacted jim crow laws that basically took away the right to vote. that was from black men in the south who had previously been slaves. they had the right to vote after the civil war. what followed was seven decades of disenfranchisement and discrimination. the civil rights movement was wed by dr. martin luther king, and whose birthday we just commemorated. so many other people had a basic american right to vote. in 1965, after national televised assaults on voting rights at selma, they passed a voting rights act. it was, in many ways, the most successful civil rights law all of them. it said that states with a

history of discrimination in voting on rates, had to get anything they did to change their voting rules, precleared is the legal work, but they had to get permission in advance from the justice department in order to do it. it was extraordinarily successful. it created the world that we are in now, where everybody had the right to vote. in 2019, what happened was the united states supreme court basically got the preclearance. they got the voting rights act. chief justice roberts with the opinion and he said, basically, look rid this is now. we don't believe -- we see black voters and white voters voting in large numbers. so, we no longer needed. it should not be applied in the places where it is being applied. this is like standing in a rainstorm, holding an umbrella.

and not getting wet. we don't need an umbrella. i am not wet. we are making predictions about what is happening. i think the prediction was much better. we have seen a wave of laws cutting back on voting and targeting, and very dangerous ways, targeting black and latino and asian voters in particular. courts have stopped the number of them. but this past year, the supreme court gutted the other part of the voting rights act. they made it much harder to sue with racially discriminatory laws that are passed. unfortunately, right now, voters especially in communities of color, are finding it much harder to defend. one of the things of this legislation, which is a very good bill, today, and congress, would do, is the story preclearance.

it changes the formula of how it works. recently, if there is a history of racial discrimination, states cannot just willy-nilly change the voting laws. that is not without a next or look. it also sets national standards on things like vote by mail and things like coding -- early voting. this is a very good bill. i hope it becomes law. host: short on time and lots of calls. good morning. caller: hello. i was a lot to swallow there. but he just said. i do have a statement about the president statement made by the girl last. said that elections are run by we the people. that's absolute correct. poll workers come from the counties, come from neighborhoods. and the coworkers are really wants one solicited to in they say it's a fair election. my question is, you brought up the supreme court a lot, and

speaking about cutting voting rights, and then i justice actually followed up and got more, even though history has proven his opinion is in error. how do you -- what can an average citizen like me, 65-year-old man with grandkids, nothing to society, what can we do to diminish the power or remove certain supreme court justices when it comes out that they are not capable intellectually of doing their jobs? guest: congratulations on your grandkids. the caller is exactly right. it is worth drawing a line under it. election officials of both parties can say in states and cities across the country about a tremendous job. they say the elections are fair, and they are under attack. so many of them face threats of

violence, and clinical attacks. we the people -- this is not the most high-paying job of all time. we have to stand up for them in our own community when they are under attack. the supreme court has a lot of power. ultimately, we are not going to get voting rights through the courts. at least not in as much force as we can with legislation like we are seeing today. their ballot initiatives in washington state for other places. it is like in michigan or many other states where they end gerrymandering. where they actually have the lines drawn legislatures. not like politicians, but by an outside body.

when they -- both parties gerrymander when they can, but in ohio, republicans tried to push a gerrymandering map anyway. the state courts brought a lawsuit, and they struck it down. sometimes, courts play an important role, but much more important is we the people. you are right. as far as the supreme court goes, there are a whole bigger conversation. i personally support term limits. that is for supreme court justices. so that, among other things, presidents get a chance to make some appointment. come about right now, we have a supreme court that risks being very much out of touch with the rest of the country that it is in. host: last call. watertown, tennessee. independent. caller: i have a comment and a question. first of all, i am a sworn election official, and i'm telling you that every provision in legislation in the senate right now makes fraud more likely.

there is not a single provision make -- that make it less likely. were i work, we post results at the polling place, minutes after the polls close. all of these other places that have the fraud, they take boxes to a center location, where they know exactly how many ballots they need to cheat. when we ask you this. do you know who mark elias is? guest: yes i do. caller: why don't you tell your people that mark elias was paid by the clintons for a law firm to cook up the dossier. he has done a single person -- he is done more as a single person to undermine congress in elections. if you want confidence, why don't we talk about that? host: the final minute here. guest: mark said himself, his

electrical -- election lawyers brought a lot of successful cases for voting rights. i think that the caller made a point that he is in logical -- an election official and he did not see fraud. we have very secure elections and the rest of the country, and we dismiss misconduct. it is a myth that is used to pass laws to make it harder for some people to vote. not for other people. the dangerous moment that again, we need to make sure we give the people a real voice, and we make sure that we have a free and fair election that reflects the country that we actually live in. not be dazzled by rumors and actually look at what is happening. i think there is a lot of challenge, and again, right now, fundamental fact on this issue is that there is a big lie repeated over and over again

that somehow, the last election was stolen. it is unfortunately driving an unprecedented attack on our elections. it is not new that we are fighting over these issues. it goes back to the very beginning of the country. we saw in the civil war. we saw in the fight for women's voting rights. we saw in the right for african-americans. what we do now is a claim that american democracy isn't real. unfortunately, millions of people share that. i think we all, if we love our country, we need to stand up and speak out. that is wrong. the answer is national legislation, but it is all up to us, i would say. >> the president of the brennan center for justice in brennan. all so the author of the book, the fight to vote. a new addition, new chapter. that is on the 2020 election. out this week. thank you. guest: thank you so much. host: 35 minutes left in this

program, and with this issue of voting rights, on the floor of the senate, most of the day, a vote is expected on the voting rights legislatures sometime around dinnertime at easton. we are returning to a question we have asked a couple times this morning. what is the most important view. is it the goal of expanding access, and if so, the number and screen. if it is protecting the legacy, it called the number on the screen. go ahead and start calling in. we will get to your calls right after the break. ♪ quick c-span is your unfiltered view of government. it is funded by these television companies, and more. including buckeye broadband.

>> buckeye broadband support c-span as a public service, along with these other television writers. from biting a front row seat to democracy. -- providing a front row democracy. >> in march of 2007, lance geiger from the basement of his house in o'fallon illinois, created a new business. however, his business can be seen all over the world, and since that day, in 2017, geiger has been known as, quote, the history guy, unquote. you produce hundreds of sort documents on history. in his home studio. he is surrounded by hundreds of artifacts, including military has and ship models from military operations, and he is

also dressed in a trademark dark suit, black room glasses, and a bow tie. >> lance geiger, the history guy. on this episode of book notes. it is available on the c-span now at. or wherever you get your podcast. >> a new mobile video from c-span. c-span out. download now today. >> washington journal continues. >> the schedule on capitol hill, and the house is seated at 10 a.m. eastern. they're also scheduled to come in at 10 a.m. eastern in the senate. voting rights will be an issue in the spotlight, and the democratic authorities are trying to move the freedom to vote john r lewis voting act. that vote is unlikely to succeed, in part, because the filibuster rule. they may attempt or expect to

attempt to change the filibuster rule, but with two of their senators voting supporting the filibuster, that will fail. we can watch it all together as it happens on c-span two. also, today, president biden is set to give a press conference, his 10th official press conference with members of the press. talking about the anniversary of his inauguration, and voting rights is likely a part of that discussion today. that is at 4 p.m. eastern. if you miss it, know that we will be re-airing it at 8 p.m. eastern. in its entirety, with c-span.org. it will also be honest free span -- it will also be on the free c-span video at. a question we've been asking throughout the program today. we want to know what is important to you. is it expanding voter access, or is it protecting election integrity?

(202) 748-8000 if you believe the former. (202) 748-8001 if it is the latter. randy and michigan. good morning to you. caller: good morning. i would like to start by thanking you and all the other men and women on the program. you've all done a great service for this nation. i am for voter access, and i am wondering, would it effectively issue voter id for all legal citizens. does it help with keeping the integrity, and allow voter access. to keep it at the state level, you could go back to requiring where you broaden a phone bill or electric bill that shows you along and that voting district. it may be a pie-in-the-sky, but i am just wondering if that would help.

that way, everyone has it, and you know that everyone has it. they have the right to vote, and then you can keep the integrity by having them with a phone bill or electrical bill. you live in that. a voting district. that would leave it up to the states, and control most of the voting access. maybe that is off-base from what -- that is how i feel. they could at least expand the voting access for everybody. that way, they would all have the right to vote. then, they can still keep the integrity of the elections. >> how you feel about expanding access to more early voting opportunities to mail-in ballot in, to drop boxes. for voters. what are your feelings on those

efforts to expand access. >> john, i live in a county, and i mean the whole county, and it only has 58,000 people. i could see where these folks who live in cities with millions of people, we shouldn't have a long line. there has to be a way with all of those smart people out there, we can come off with -- come up with -- a lot of people, with voters for federal id. you have to put what state you are in, and a number that is a legal number to vote. put that on the ballot, so when they check it, they know there is a legal citizen voting. it will not tell you their name, but it will tell you that this person's ballot is from a legal citizen. maybe that -- it has to be something. you should not have to stand in line. that is what folks do with millions of people and city.

i don't live there, but i can sure see where that is a problem. people don't have much time, but thank you. i spoken of. i made enough silliness, so have a good one. host: this is matt and magnolia, delaware. good morning. >> good morning. how are you. i feel like i am in a growing minority. on the political side, on the conservative independent. you know, i have to pick one or two. caller: you don't necessarily. caller: frankly, i believe them both. i think there are a couple of different ideas or ways that -- for one, we boxed himself in as a comp tree -- country.

we have a weekly voting window. i think that helps with access. also a time and things like that. you know, the big things voter id. it has become part of this. we have to show id read unite -- in manhattan. i don't think that is a big deal. you know, voter access if you extend time, and the voting window, it feels like it gives people more time and less lines. more availability. pre-covid, the coronavirus, there was ballot harvesting and all these other things. noel wanted to talk about them. it created an opportunity for those that like those processes, and they capitalized on that. if you go back to 2016, barack obama's tenure, those were things that were exactly spoken

of. not very highly. i think some of that is being capitalistic on the coronavirus. host: on ballot integrity, what do you think of this idea that folks knew that. ron desantis was establishing a special police force to oversee state options. the proposed office of crime and security would be part of the department of state which answers to the governor. desantis is asked skiing legislature to allocate $6 million to hire 15 people to investigate and apprehend and arrest anyone for an alleged violation of election was. they are stationed in unspecified field offices throughout the state, and ask -- act on tips from government officials and any other person. caller: i guess there are a couple of different things and i had not read the article. i would say, if he is

investigating voter fraud, and investigating instances of that, that is different than having a fully funded state police force, only in charge of elections, per se at polling locations, and a tranquil type of oversight. an authority position, i guess is how i would put that. i would not support people sitting at polling locations and imposing their will for that up or tear authority figure. i think we have enough that in this country. host: this is pete in virginia. good morning. caller: hello. i think expanding voter -- it's

most important. voter access. that's the most important. i would like to make a something that came up in a segment with the represented decks representative erickson. the caller the call then, he said the access shows that they don't have jobs. well. for people who call the show, they are retired people like me. i watch every morning. some people who call on cell phone when they wait for their jobs, >> we hear from retired folk, people on their way to jobs, and people working jobs. older folks, younger folks. we get a whole lot of calls from all sorts of people. caller: i appreciate that. thank you for taking my call. host: about 60 calls a day from all over the country. all different walks of life.

good morning. caller: good morning. can you hear me ok? host: yes sir. caller: i would like to address the issue of elective -- election integrity. after the 2020 presidential election, we heard from city moguls like bob barr and the homeland security i.t. person. they spoke about free and fair elections. the media, including folks like c-span and public and private media outlets should have given the electorate a much clearer picture of exactly why it was a free and fair election to introduce to us what are the policies and procedures that are in place to guarantee that each vote is by a qualified voter and

counted properly. it could have been assisted in ensuring those who have any doubts whatsoever that it is in fact a free and fair election. host: you don't think there was enough coverage of the 60 some lawsuits in courts all around this country? caller: those lawsuits made rod accusations and the courts wouldn't even get to the level of listening to any of the arguments. they came in with fewer jumps in the majority of those losses. host: there was a lot of coverage about the courts rejecting those lawsuits. federal judges saying why they thought the lawsuit was that. caller: i have friends who are very much followers. and they believe that those judges were in on the fix.

so, how do you convince those people that the whole process is conducted fairly? honestly, the result that we saw , when it was announced, it was the result that reflected what happen when people rent and voted i think that you could do a much better job of that. host: that is jim in louisiana. matt and marilyn. can morning. -- good morning. caller: i have a couple points. i will make it quick and easy. i am an independent. there is not a lot of integrity in the republican party. that's not what were talking about. we are talking about voting. people are saying they want the country to work as intended. voting for everyone. the supreme court is currently working as intended. democrats want to stack the core and destroy it. they basically want to rip out everything. the point being is that they don't care too much about

working as intended. they want to get what they want. many states, democratic states, they are allowing immigrants to vote. it is where they live. immigration on the border crisis is real. if we allow people to vote, without licenses, the next thing you know, everyone is going to be voting. we will have a ton of immigration. host: you are talking about local election rules. not federal elections. caller: you are right about that. i am talking about local elections. but, this is where you vote. come on. there is no more integrity in the democratic party either. not republicans, but it is democrats as well. it is for the party. anything. it is just -- it is not going well for anyone. it is not like the world voted in u.s. elections. they finally -- my last point. please do not hang up on me. and this is it i will go.

monoclonal antibodies, ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, vaccines --. host: were not going to start this discussion, we have only to mr. for the house comes in. we are going to talk about covid-19 on this program, i promise you. let's try to keep the discussion on topic did for the last 10 minutes, we have folks calling in. greg intended see, good morning. you are next. -- break in tennessee, good morning. you are next. caller: things have gotten out of hand. look what happened in the last election. i am 65 years old. i have watched elections my whole life. this is the first time when societies just decided not to vote. the vote change. they fell in the network.

>> there are entire states that have mail-in voting. caller: well yes. they are. look what happened in the last election. you just go by what people see. they say there is a big lie. i am 65 years old. i have never seen an election like that. they claim they have a year in the lake. i studied my whole life. that is not a major blurb. you have to vote in the middle of the night. that whole thing, that way, it is more problems. >> no. the tsa didn't have that. we can change our election laws. if we plan on voting in the same election, we have id. any vote. i voted early. we have early voting. there's nothing wrong with that as long as you show the id to do it.

that'll work. this is mike in georgia. good morning. the morning. caller: good morning. i would like to address the election integrity portion of the conversation. i think it is the most important part of the being able to vote. and who counts the votes. listening to your last guest that you had, they said that biden did not make a statement about if it is important. it is important who counts the vote. if you go back and look at july 13, 2021. he plainly said and he repeats it. it is about who gets to count the votes. not to votes. i think integrity is the most important. host: orlando, florida.

can morning. >> can morning. i am really struck with the tenor of the conversation in that there is this assumption that you cannot, in my opinion, there is an assumption that you cannot have voter integrity. not if you expand voter access. and, that, to me, is malarkey. and i believe that the covid pandemic expanded the way people voted. it has always been in place. it just happened that the circumstances allow people to utilize mail in, early voting,

things that have traditionally been in place. i am in florida. i have never had an issue voting. i've registered, i presented id, and i vote. i love -- our beloved governor, lol, he established a police force to stay in polling places, and to me, it is a manifestation of the person that he was aligned with, but now wants to distance himself from in our former president trump. i think that is voter intimidation, and i think that it is akin to authoritarian rule. host: they expanded things like early voting in mail-in voting and dropbox access.

he said in the emergency of the pandemic, 2020, is it ok for those states to go now and review some of those expansions and perhaps rein in some of those expansions? caller: i think a review is appropriate. it should be in place. there is nothing wrong with reviewing, but if the process that was followed was followed, and the audit said that have been done came up with nothing that was significantly over the outcome, then you must move forward. but there is no problem with reviewing. i think that only makes the product better. but to assume that there was a rampant unethical -- a lack of integrity in voting, that is really a put down on the people that actually tried to vote. thank you. host: that was in florida.

to the empire state. good morning, anthony. caller: thank you. i appreciate the forum and the opportunity. i think we are all being played at schools, though. when you consider the fact that our government is the very -- the people who are entitled to run our country, but we only have choices between them for the trumps and the bushes, and that clinton's print the bushes and the clintons, it is like you can see how the swamp, jeffrey epstein's guest list, and you have the powers that be that holdout. they don't like the on settlement of the presidency. it seems to have unsettled them. we are looking at a nation that is probably irrelevant. the entrance government officials that have been there for 50 years, they are going to say it. it's godzilla versus moth rick, but it is really being impeached. there is a monster. it is a big government. it is destroying the little

working-class guy, and we cannot afford this high-end living for the clintons and the bushes. host: is there anyone in the government right now. caller: big tech has aligned itself, and we're in trouble. with the selection process. host: that is anthony in new york. here is yvonne in south myrtle beach. caller: good morning. hello? yes. i think voters are important. voter integrity is important, and i would be happy -- we cannot have one without the other. access should be given to people to vote. we should not have to have line savo. we have to learn to promote things. the rights of people to vote. here we are, and we live in america, and you have to -- a 67-year-old african-american woman, and you know, we have always had to fight.

for the right to vote. when something is given to us, in the constitution, obviously, it is difficult, and for ancestors, we have to count the number of beans in a jar, and there was always this voter id, voter id. we don't have a problem showing id. if you are registered to vote, you are giving a voter id card. and this has been, for years, and the idea that it is important, to give voter id cards, you have to show them a picture on it. but if you don't give it, then you can always throw that out. every so often, a voter id. then, you make exceptions as to what idea has been accepted. it is always an obstacle. counting the number of jellybeans in a jar. obstacles that are thrown away. for people to make things more difficult. to vote.

>> south carolyn entry of the house going ray to come in and maybe a minute or so. we will try to get in john. good morning. caller: hello. i am an immigrant who is now a naturalized citizen. when i went to register to vote, i could not believe on the registration, all i had to do was check off a little box saying i was a citizen. i did not have to prove i was a citizen to vote. that really made me question the integrity of the whole system right there. in 2020, it was a pandemic. not just the legislatures in the state, but as they were supposed to come up with voting laws, but a lot of judges in voting laws. we will have to end it there because the house is getting ready to come in. first workday, and we have gal-